extremely simplified explanations of rational IM Elements

[Joy]

Ti/Fe values its own system of logic and looks to external sources for ethical information.
Te/Fi values its own system of ethics and looks to external sources for logical information.

[Joy]

Of course, it's important to note that "ethical" and "logical" are Socionics terms and the English meanings of these words should not be considered.

[Gilly]

Introverted functions don't "look inward" for information. They still take information from the external world; if they didn't, they'd never change. The difference is that they evaluate it according to "systems," ie, they pass a subjective judgment on it, interpret it in the context of a system.

[Joy]

Introverted functions don't "look inward" for information.

I wasn't implying that they do.

They still take information from the external world; if they didn't, they'd never change.

My understanding is that other functions do that.

The difference is that they evaluate it according to "systems," ie, they pass a subjective judgment on it, interpret it in the context of a system.

That's what I was getting at with "values its own system".

[Gilly]

Well, the introverted functions themselves don't "take" input, but they require it, obviously.

What do you mean by "its system?" I don't think there's any "ownership" inherent in a system created using an introverted function; anyone can analyze and manipulate it.

[Joy]

Well, the introverted functions themselves don't "take" input, but they require it, obviously.

What do you mean by "its system?" I don't think there's any "ownership" inherent in a system created using an introverted function; anyone can analyze and manipulate it.

If a tree falls in a forrest and there's no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?


While it's true that Ti and Fi systems exist in and of themselves, people still have their own overall Fi and Ti systems, and no two people have identical Ti or Fi systems.

[Gilly]

Yeah, but that kind of thing is completely irrelevant to Socionics functional theory...how people formulate their beliefs is, as I said, not necessarily affected by functional preference. The way they analyze information, which is what Socionics is about, is.

[Gilly]

If a tree falls in a forrest and there's no one around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

....huh?

[Logos]

Ti/Fe values its own system of logic and looks to external sources for ethical information.
Te/Fi values its own system of ethics and looks to external sources for logical information.

At its most general, this would appear to be a valid assumption, or a good way to introduce these concepts on a basic level to people new to Socionics.

[ThePeddler]

Ti/Fe values its own system of logic and looks to external sources for ethical information.
Te/Fi values its own system of ethics and looks to external sources for logical information.

At its most general, this would appear to be a valid assumption, or a good way to introduce these concepts on a basic level to people new to Socionics.

I think that that would be a terrible way to introduce new people to it. It doesn't actually explain anything, so if somebody would add an explanation to it, then it'll become useful.

[Logos]

Ti/Fe values its own system of logic and looks to external sources for ethical information.
Te/Fi values its own system of ethics and looks to external sources for logical information.

At its most general, this would appear to be a valid assumption, or a good way to introduce these concepts on a basic level to people new to Socionics.

I think that that would be a terrible way to introduce new people to it. It doesn't actually explain anything, so if somebody would add an explanation to it, then it'll become useful.

It's an introductory sentence that at its base does in fact give an overall idea of some basic difference between the two, and it leaves itself open to be expanded upon in greater detail or generalized analysis.

[Joy]

Ti/Fe values its own system of logic and looks to external sources for ethical information.
Te/Fi values its own system of ethics and looks to external sources for logical information.

At its most general, this would appear to be a valid assumption, or a good way to introduce these concepts on a basic level to people new to Socionics.

I think that that would be a terrible way to introduce new people to it. It doesn't actually explain anything, so if somebody would add an explanation to it, then it'll become useful.

Te is pretty much about what works... it doesn't intrinsically trust any information, because that information may prove to be untrue or misleading or not useful down the road. It just takes whatever information is currently available and makes sense out of things based on that, and it does this for the sole purpose of being as effective and efficient as possible.

Ti is about "logical" systems and organizational relationships. It has a more intrinsic trust in the information that fits into a system. That information needs to be well secured, trustworthy, and stable because other information is built into the system around it. Making changes, such as disregarding old information, takes more than it would for a Te type because parts of the system may have to be removed or reorganized to work without that information.

Fe is about emotional expression and interaction. Not all Fe types appear emotionally expressive, but they're still aware of the emotional climate and people's expressions of their internal dynamics.

Fi is about subjective morals and ethical relationships. It is similar to Ti in that people and moral beliefs are accepted more slowly or somewhat cautiously. Fi types trust their own morals, likes/dislikes, and understanding of their close relationships more than they would external sources of "ethical" information.

[Logos]

Te is pretty much about what works... it doesn't intrinsically trust any information, because that information may prove to be untrue or misleading or not useful down the road. It just takes whatever information is currently available and makes sense out of things based on that, and it does this for the sole purpose of being as effective and efficient as possible.

Ti is about "logical" systems and organizational relationships. It has a more intrinsic trust in the information that fits into a system. That information needs to be well secured, trustworthy, and stable because other information is built into the system around it. Making changes, such as disregarding old information, takes more than it would for a Te type because parts of the system may have to be removed or reorganized to work without that information.

Fe is about emotional expression and interaction. Not all Fe types appear emotionally expressive, but they're still aware of the emotional climate and people's expressions of their internal dynamics.

Fi is about subjective morals and ethical relationships. It is similar to Ti in that people and moral beliefs are accepted more slowly or somewhat cautiously. Fi types trust their own morals, likes/dislikes, and understanding of their close relationships more than they would external sources of "ethical" information.

Not exactly. Ti is about logical (I don't know why you needed to put logical in quotations, as it kind of implies that is false logic) systems and organizational relationships. But it is not that it trusts the information, but quite the contrary. It does not trust the information, which is why -types prefer to look at just the of a system as the could always potentially change and be null at a later date. But a does believe that if their is right and strong, then the should conform to the system of , but that does not mean that they trust that the will fit into the system. But it does take longer for dominant types to exchange their , but that does not necessarily mean that they are somehow always wrong or several updates behind on their -drives.

[Hitta]

Introverted functions don't "look inward" for information. They still take information from the external world; if they didn't, they'd never change. The difference is that they evaluate it according to "systems," ie, they pass a subjective judgment on it, interpret it in the context of a system.

Information metabolism states that an extroverted function is that of external collection and introverted functions are functions of subjective analysis.

[Ms. Kensington]

Te is pretty much about what works... it doesn't intrinsically trust any information, because that information may prove to be untrue or misleading or not useful down the road. It just takes whatever information is currently available and makes sense out of things based on that, and it does this for the sole purpose of being as effective and efficient as possible.

Ti is about "logical" systems and organizational relationships. It has a more intrinsic trust in the information that fits into a system. That information needs to be well secured, trustworthy, and stable because other information is built into the system around it. Making changes, such as disregarding old information, takes more than it would for a Te type because parts of the system may have to be removed or reorganized to work without that information.

Fe is about emotional expression and interaction. Not all Fe types appear emotionally expressive, but they're still aware of the emotional climate and people's expressions of their internal dynamics.

Fi is about subjective morals and ethical relationships. It is similar to Ti in that people and moral beliefs are accepted more slowly or somewhat cautiously. Fi types trust their own morals, likes/dislikes, and understanding of their close relationships more than they would external sources of "ethical" information.

Not exactly. Ti is about logical (I don't know why you needed to put logical in quotations, as it kind of implies that is false logic) systems and organizational relationships. But it is not that it trusts the information, but quite the contrary. It does not trust the information, which is why -types prefer to look at just the of a system as the could always potentially change and be null at a later date. But a does believe that if their is right and strong, then the should conform to the system of , but that does not mean that they trust that the will fit into the system. But it does take longer for dominant types to exchange their , but that does not necessarily mean that they are somehow always wrong or several updates behind on their -drives.

i think i could agree with this, but going past the function to say it doesn't trust something is too far I think. They are different processes and not doing one or the other doesn't imply a distrust of the other. A Ti person doesn't distrust certain Te information and trust other Te information because it fits in with his system; a Ti person trusts his Ti and a logical structure.

[Logos]

i think i could agree with this, but going past the function to say it doesn't trust something is too far I think. They are different processes and not doing one or the other doesn't imply a distrust of the other. A Ti person doesn't distrust certain Te information and trust other Te information because it fits in with his system; a Ti person trusts his Ti and a logical structure.

But there is a certain level of distrust in which one element is constantly questioning how the conclusion of the other was derived.

[Joy]

It's not a matter of blind trust. It's about seeing something as being more reliable than other things. That doesn't mean people don't need to test it's information or that they won't change it if they have reason to.

And the reason logic was in quotations is because I was talking about Socionics logic, as in logic vs. ethics, which is something different from the English definition of the word.

[Logos]

And the reason logic was in quotations is because I was talking about Socionics logic, as in logic vs. ethics, which is something different from the English definition of the word.

And I would have understood it to mean as such without the quotation marks.

[Joy]

And the reason logic was in quotations is because I was talking about Socionics logic, as in logic vs. ethics, which is something different from the English definition of the word.

And I would have understood it to mean as such without the quotation marks.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind if I send you a PM.

[Logos]

And the reason logic was in quotations is because I was talking about Socionics logic, as in logic vs. ethics, which is something different from the English definition of the word.

And I would have understood it to mean as such without the quotation marks.

Okay, I'll keep that in mind if I send you a PM.

No worries. I presumed and you clarified my presumption.