You know when you comment on ridiculous posts like, "Your fourth Te is showing" (which is fucking hilarious btw)? Can you give examples of what all inferior functions would look like as ridiculous posts?
YES sorry this took so long Iâve been at a con and havenât had time to look through my inbox
This is good because i have been craving posting about the negativities of functions tbh hereâs the inferior (or poorly developed and not inferior, or just kinda temporarily wonky) functions as bad ways to debate posts on tumblr.gov
TE: when someone goes on a long drawn out rant trying to prove something using things everyone already knows, and which havenât convinced them, but somehow the TE user thinks it will convince them anyway⌠Or they are talking in circles without realizing it.
EX: âum sweetie the statistics prove your argument wrong :)â what do you mean statistics can be manipulated thatâs impossible youâre a liar look at this clearly visible Evidence â˘â
TI: nearly incomprehensible ranting (which becomes more incomprehensible the HIGHER the ti) using #rational #logic which is hilariously hard to grasp⌠And talk in circles but realize it, yet often wonât change it because it would be logically inconsistent.
EX: âlook I know you canât grasp Basic Logic ⢠and itâs not my fault that you donât understand this six mile long post which is so Logical ⢠youâre clearly just Illogical ⢠for not instantly getting my Highly Subjective Logic ⢠â
FE: trying to get people to stop fighting by presenting an argument compromising the good points of both arguments, and/or implying the arguers know nothing about society and how it works which means both are Totally Wrong and being very passive aggressive about it
EX: âlook, you guys should stop fighting! Person A has X good point and person B has Y Z good points! If we combine these points of view we get a comprehensive view of peopleâs opinions which reflects the reality of this greater issueâ but you guys have also forgotten all this relevant information about society which just so happens to invalidate all of your arguments. Haha. Just saying. Youâre not an idiot. Itâs not your fault you donât understand how people work :)â
FI: trying to convince everyone your point of view or outlook is right without explaining why, and when questioned, accuse the questioner of being mean or disrespecting your feelings
EX: âumâŚ. how can you be against abortionâŚâŚâŚ.. That means you hate womenâŚâŚâŚ. And it personally offends me that you hate usâŚ.. IâmâŚ. So appalled⌠Iâm crying as we speakâŚ. How could youâŚ.â
SE: has a habit of, like TE, presenting things that actually exist as undeniable proof of something, but doesnât seem to understand the concepts that can lie underneath those things.
EX: âlook, we see that mass shootings exist cause everyone clearly has easy access to guns. It has nothing to do with underlying issues of men and how we donât teach them how to properly deal with emotions. Itâs about the guns. That exist. They exist, out there, somewhere, which is the real problem.â
SI: constantly pointing out that something has always worked, so itâs pointless to change it, even though it could be improved upon.
EX: âweâve always had the senate in this country. It was created to balance out our parliament. I know it hasnât done anything useful in decades, but it has in the past, so maybe it could come in handy again. If we change it it might not work as well as it does now.â
NE: pointing out all the ways the arguments have been wrong, and like Ni on drugsâ often makes assumptions as to where the argument is going, but on infinite impossible tangents no one has even hinted to. Also tends to completely change the direction of the argument for no reason and in a random direction.
EX: âlook here buddy. These are all the reasons youâre wrong. Even these irrelevant things I have no reason to mention. I know weâre talking about the finer points of postmodern existentialism but I think whatâs more relevant here is sociological labelling theory, andââ
NI: like a more pretentious and linear version of Ne. Assumes the exact projected course of the argument, and canât understand that other people think differently and that the Ni users assumptions can be completely wrong.
EX: âI already know where this is going. Youâre about to tell me that equilateral triangles have three equal sides and angles. But have you considered that math as we know it is made up? You must think that math is completely infallible, but let me tell you, it was made up by people millennia ago. And people in those days didnât know what we know now, which meansâ huh? You were talking about how triangles fit into geometrically pleasing studio art? ⌠Oh.â
DISCLAIMER: these are obviously stereotypes (that are kinda true) and also how those functions can argue poorly. These are not a reflection of functions arguing well. Also, the rest of a personâs functions will obviously influence the way they argue as much as their inferior function does. Even functions in other positions can do this, this is just Functions Fucking Up.
Bad fi arguing is the worst.
