Variables include medium of conversation. Big difference between online text and personal conversation. Other variables are mood states and confirmation of the type of both parties. I would like to point out that i am arguing for the possibility of this idea and not the existence of this idea itself.
"As a secondary note, I still don't agree with your assertion that two people with the same cognitive functions will inherently understand each other. It only takes one counter-example to disprove something, and I would submit this very conversation as that example. We are clearly not on the same wavelength."
Well, there are premises that must be clarified and many variables to consider. One premise is that it is not about "inherent total understanding" it is about "cognitive understanding." Big difference. Cognitive understanding is about connection because of the patterns or trains of thinking whereas understanding in general is holistic and could refer to motivations, quirks, experiences etc. Familiarity is not a part of cognitive understanding. Both are separate and are only parts of holistic understanding.
"In this sentence, you accuse me of making baseless assumptions/assertions. But that same sentence is doing exactly what you say I'm doing. There are no qualifiers, there is no "I think...", there is only you telling me what I've decided despite having no evidence whatsoever."
I said "from my perspective...", does that not equate to "i think.."? And i would like you to react to this: "True, but there is little difference between a guess and a conclusion and little difference in how they are written."
I suspect that we are having communication issues and I am trying to understand the interplay, but it is very difficult because I keep getting annoyed at what I perceive as your presumptuous, egocentric and conclusive illogicality. That said, I still request for your cooperation.
It just make sense? Familiarity is a prerequisite to [cognitive]understanding? Bullshit. My mother is most familiar with me and yet does not in the slightest bit understand me on a cognitive level. Your "makes sense" is merely a conclusion with no support. It's conclusion first, then search for evidence. I dont understand that line of thinking.
The lack of data is precisely my point. You can't immediately conclude, as was your decision, without prior investigation. Both Rejection and Confirmation requires data. I was obviously presenting a new idea, so i was well aware of it being a point of contention. But that is what it is, a possibility. The realistic perspective is the agnostic perspective, not the strong atheist perspective.
Yeah, TeN top down creation, TiN ground up creation. So you are Te type then?
I was hoping you'd have more of an..open mind. I have other friends who knows me well and can't quite keep with our tangential flows. It's nothing profound, nothing that requires much imagination to observe the differences in thought patterns even.
There's this short phrase about "Ti vs. Te" that's being thrown around recently in type forums. "Ti is inductive whereas Te is deductive." It has semantics issues but I think the crux of it is that Ti builds systems from the ground up whereas Te works with founded conventions(top) and then utilizes on the ground level.
I have no idea where you got the idea that Ni-Te is about system formation. "NT" as pairings work with systems in general.
I'm trying to see how much you can follow my train of thinking without much explanation. I have an INTP friend who can instantly comprehend my random thoughts at the mention of a single word, absent of context even. TiNe is about systems and relations. Everything is a system and everything is related. Time is one form of relation. "Visitor Message" as a category represents a relation. If you like holism and relations, then your geared towards connecting things.
Your statements are like equations, very clear and concise. You also understand functions well. I'll tell you if i can recall or come up with better evidence. A general feeling it is, though I am not a general (yet).