The little Quirks of Te & Ti

[ScarlettLux]

I wanted you guys with more knowledge than me re: these two logical functions to please try & come up with some examples of little habits, or hobbies related to each of them ... it would help better my limited understanding & differentiation of/between the two functions. I especially have a very difficult time telling the two apart still! For the longest time, I thought someone was an ILI when clearly they are an LII .. I felt like a total idiot now that the truth has dawned upon me ... so without further ado...

I do have some questions... are these related to either function and which?

- Really enjoying puzzle type games (Chess ... the whole idea of figuring something out/figuring opponent's logical strategy out)
- Wanting something to be totally correct, not just settling for the faster, more efficient way.
- When not understanding a problem, going all out and trying to find every sol'n for it (by going crazy with equations, to figure out the right answer)
- In general just REALLY enjoying a challenge of finding the RIGHT answer
- Physics problems
- "That doesn't make sense... ! *Goes on to explain how it doesn't make sense in detail* "That's so stupid!"

I know it seems vague ... probably unrelated but... please help?

[marooned]

I'm going to try this, but not because I know what I'm talking about...

- Really enjoying puzzle type games (Chess ... the whole idea of figuring something out/figuring opponent's logical strategy out)

Ti + Te, maybe more Ti than Te.

- Wanting something to be totally correct, not just settling for the faster, more efficient way.

Ti + Te, maybe more Te than Ti.

- When not understanding a problem, going all out and trying to find every sol'n for it (by going crazy with equations, to figure out the right answer)

weak Te and/or weak N? Or maybe just been skipping class too much?

- In general just REALLY enjoying a challenge of finding the RIGHT answer

anything

- Physics problems

Te + Ti + N + ...?

- "That doesn't make sense... ! *Goes on to explain how it doesn't make sense in detail* "That's so stupid!"

don't know... the "that's so stupid!" could be Fe?

[aestrivex]

all of these characteristic tidbits are both and neither. you will not ever be able to understand what these IM elements represent if you try to attribute specific quirks and oddities to them; information metabolism simply doesn't work that way.


nor should you be concerned over having mistyped someone; it happens. nobody's ever right all the time. your knowledge (presumably) is now greater because of your mistake.

[strrrng]

most of your examples correspond to NT. I love physics problems....most NT's are driven to come up with solutions for problems - especially if they're difficult/challenging. As for the chess, I love it, but not so much figuring out my opponent's strategy as developing a vision of how things will play out in the end and seeing it happen, thus winning. that's a pretty good feeling. like niffweed, said, you can't assign little things to the functions to truly understand them; only observation and reading.

a quirk of Ti is splitting hairs...I have been called this numerous times, and I think it is less frequent in Te

[Ezra]

Really enjoying puzzle type games (Chess ... the whole idea of figuring something out/figuring opponent's logical strategy out)

This is Ti. It is especially evident in the SLE. Probably a mixture of both Ti and a little Se. That's why SLEs and LSIs are the best chess players. But I disagree that chess is a puzzle game. I like puzzle games, but only for the entertainment value. I much prefer strategic and tactical games, like RTS and TBS on the PC, and chess and draughts on a board.

Wanting something to be totally correct, not just settling for the faster, more efficient way.

Definitely Ti-related.

When not understanding a problem, going all out and trying to find every sol'n for it (by going crazy with equations, to figure out the right answer)

Ne, maybe with Ti. I suppose LIIs are good at this sort of thing, as are ILEs.

In general just REALLY enjoying a challenge of finding the RIGHT answer

Could be Se.

Physics problems

Depends what kind. Quantum? ILI based. Ne and Ti cooperating. Mathematical? Could be Ti or Te.

"That doesn't make sense... ! *Goes on to explain how it doesn't make sense in detail* "That's so stupid!"

Ti.

[ScarlettLux]

Agh, I knew this would be criticized. I personally think that we CAN learn from a function by learning little quirks related to it in the people who have it as a strength ... I mean, why not? It is like reading one of those cut & dry theoretical descriptions which sometimes make no sense to avg. person (aka me..)

Thanks Ezra, that was helpful & much along the lines of what I was thinking as well.

[aestrivex]

Agh, I knew this would be criticized. I personally think that we CAN learn from a function by learning little quirks related to it in the people who have it as a strength ... I mean, why not? It is like reading one of those cut & dry theoretical descriptions which sometimes make no sense to avg. person (aka me..)

if you insist, there may be some rather approximate correlations. however, the important thing to note is that they will not always apply; they may be more present in LII/LSI than ILI/SLI or such, but if you insist on typing by particular traits, you have to look at lots of different traits and see where general trends bring you, rather than relying on specificities.

[snegledmaca]

- Wanting something to be totally correct, not just settling for the faster, more efficient way.
- When not understanding a problem, going all out and trying to find every sol'n for it (by going crazy with equations, to figure out the right answer)
- In general just REALLY enjoying a challenge of finding the RIGHT answer
- Physics problems
- "That doesn't make sense... ! *Goes on to explain how it doesn't make sense in detail*

Lol, this is me. I'd say that this is, all of it, definitely linked in some way to Ti and much less to Te. Obviously not necessarily linked to Ego Ti. And I'd say these are not quirks of Ti nor Te ego types.

[ScarlettLux]

Agh, I knew this would be criticized. I personally think that we CAN learn from a function by learning little quirks related to it in the people who have it as a strength ... I mean, why not? It is like reading one of those cut & dry theoretical descriptions which sometimes make no sense to avg. person (aka me..)

Thanks Ezra, that was helpful & much along the lines of what I was thinking as well.

i agree and sounds like Te super id, Te valuing for sure.

This is strange, I know for sure I value Ti > Te ... just because I want specific examples Doesn't mean I am a Te valuing type ... see how Niffweed is sort of telling me how I am wrong to assume I can learn just from these "quirks" ... that's real Te debunking what little logic I have

[ScarlettLux]

though actually, chess would involve a lot of stuff like relative positions and all, i think thats major Ti.

O rly? Do more ILIs or LIIs like chess, do you think? I never understood what chess had to do with or anyway...

[ScarlettLux]

Agh, I knew this would be criticized. I personally think that we CAN learn from a function by learning little quirks related to it in the people who have it as a strength ... I mean, why not? It is like reading one of those cut & dry theoretical descriptions which sometimes make no sense to avg. person (aka me..)

if you insist, there may be some rather approximate correlations. however, the important thing to note is that they will not always apply; they may be more present in LII/LSI than ILI/SLI or such, but if you insist on typing by particular traits, you have to look at lots of different traits and see where general trends bring you, rather than relying on specificities.

Niffweed, niffweed! You are nicer than I thought

[PotatoSpirit]

I do have some questions... are these related to either function and which?

Well as a Ti type I'm gonna tell you what I think I relate to more than the average person... it doesn't mean it's Ti, but I guess if you find enough people you can get a vague idea.

- Really enjoying puzzle type games (Chess ... the whole idea of figuring something out/figuring opponent's logical strategy out)

Yes, but I think there is some Se involved.

- Wanting something to be totally correct, not just settling for the faster, more efficient way.

No.

- When not understanding a problem, going all out and trying to find every sol'n for it (by going crazy with equations, to figure out the right answer)

Very much so.

- In general just REALLY enjoying a challenge of finding the RIGHT answer

Yes.

- Physics problems

At times.

- "That doesn't make sense... ! *Goes on to explain how it doesn't make sense in detail* "That's so stupid!"

Yes but I try to be nice about it (c:

I know it seems vague ... probably unrelated but... please help?

You didn't ask for this, but a good way to recognize the two might be looking at whether Fe is function seeking or polr.

[Phaedrus]

Really enjoying puzzle type games (Chess ... the whole idea of figuring something out/figuring opponent's logical strategy out)

This is Ti. It is especially evident in the SLE. Probably a mixture of both Ti and a little Se. That's why SLEs and LSIs are the best chess players. But I disagree that chess is a puzzle game. I like puzzle games, but only for the entertainment value. I much prefer strategic and tactical games, like RTS and TBS on the PC, and chess and draughts on a board.

Incorrect. There is no well-known example of an SLE that has been among the best chess players in the world. Some LSIs have been really good at chess, and the best example is probably Anatoly Karpov. One intersting thing about Karpov's playing style is that, somewhat contrary to public opinion, he was not a natural born strategist. There was really no strategical depth in his style when he was climbing to the top at the early 70:s. He was foremost a practical player that was good at utilizing the opponents mistakes in time trouble. He was very good at avoiding major mistakes himself, but his style was simple and rather superficial. Though very effective.

Another possible leading Ti type among chess players is Bobby Fischer, who might be an LII. (That is not altogether certain, however.) There are clear similarities in style between Karpov and Fischer. Both had a clearly accentuated rational approach to problems on the board. They disliked unclear situations and preferred a better endgame to a promising attack. Both made decisions easily and avoided time trouble. They were relatively weak in unclear situations that required a use of intuition. They were good in static situations, bad in dynamic ones.

The best chess player of all times is of course Garri Kasparov, who is probably a LIE. It is certain that he is an intuitive type, and it is certain that he is extraverted. Some socionists seem to believe that he is an ILE or even IEE, but LIE is the best fit if we consider his overall life style, his attitudes, his values, and his general approach to chess. The most characteristic feature of LIE chess players is their enormous capacity for preparation. They prepare everything in advance. Kasparov's main advantage over his opponents was that he was better prepared in the openings. He used a team that helped him prepare novelties and study opponents with the help of computers. He approached the problems on the board as a calculator, almost like a computer. He was extremely good at calculating variations, but he sometimes made mistakes when a more intuitive solution was called for. He had an exceptional feel for dynamic positions, but was clearly worse in tranquil positions. And even though he often used his imagination, he clearly preferred to be sure that he had made the right decision by calculating the consequences in advance. He was not a natural born intuitive player, like for example Capablanca.

The best players have always been predominantly intuitive types. Vladimir Kramnik might be an INTp as suggested by Lytov, Veselin Topalov seems to be an ENTp, Anand is probably also an intuitive type (not sure which) etc.

Wanting something to be totally correct, not just settling for the faster, more efficient way.

Definitely Ti-related.

Definitely not. It is much more related to creative Te.

When not understanding a problem, going all out and trying to find every sol'n for it (by going crazy with equations, to figure out the right answer)

Ne, maybe with Ti. I suppose LIIs are good at this sort of thing, as are ILEs.

That might be true.

[Phaedrus]

- Wanting something to be totally correct, not just settling for the faster, more efficient way.
- When not understanding a problem, going all out and trying to find every sol'n for it (by going crazy with equations, to figure out the right answer)
- In general just REALLY enjoying a challenge of finding the RIGHT answer
- Physics problems
- "That doesn't make sense... ! *Goes on to explain how it doesn't make sense in detail*

Lol, this is me.

Of course it is. And it is very much me too, because we are both ILIs.

I'd say that this is, all of it, definitely linked in some way to Ti and much less to Te.

Absolutely not. When will you guys learn to see the difference between accepting Ti and creative Te? I'm still waiting for that to happen. Wanting something to be totally correct is definitely not Ti. You don't look at how the types are in reality. Open your eyes and observe the types in real life. Wanting to find the RIGHT answer is an Objectivist's attitude. LIIs are not like that in general.

[Phaedrus]

O rly? Do more ILIs or LIIs like chess, do you think?

Both types tend to like chess. ILIs slightly more so.

[strrrng]

That's why SLEs and LSIs are the best chess players.

no....they're not. the only good chess players I've come across have been NT.

Both types tend to like chess. ILIs slightly more so.

why do you think ILI's like chess more? wouldn't the structured nature of the LII combined with their foresight (Ne) make them more prone to enjoying it? Either way, these seem to be the two most prevalent types in the sport.

[Phaedrus]

Both types tend to like chess. ILIs slightly more so.

why do you think ILI's like chess more? wouldn't the structured nature of the LII combined with their foresight (Ne) make them more prone to enjoying it? Either way, these seem to be the two most prevalent types in the sport.

Well, I admit that I'm not 100 % sure that ILIs like chess more than LIIs, but I think I come across ILIs slightly more often than LIIs. (I have played chess for more than 25 years.) ILIs have a more playful attitude and are often drawn to all sorts of intellectual and strategic games, like chess, othello, etc., as mentioned in the type profiles. That LIIs too are drawn to chess is also mentioned in the type profiles, but I think ILIs are more content with playing chess as a hobby, while LIIs might turn to something else if they realize that they are not good enough to become really prominent at chess. This is more of a speculation of mine, though.

If we compare the playing styles and relative strenghts of ILIs and LIIs in chess, I think we can say that ILIs have a more natural positional sense than LIIs. They tend to experiment more with different openings, and they sometimes suffer from over-aggressiveness. LIIs are more systematic in their approach but also more predictable. They stick to fewer favourite openings comapared to ILIs.

One of the most obvious differences between these two types is that ILIs are relatively better in dynamic positions. SLIs are also not very good in dynamic positions, which Anatoly Karpov's case illustrates. Maybe LIIs tend to be better calculators than ILIs, but that is more uncertain.

[Ezra]

Wanting something to be totally correct is definitely not Ti.

as an ignoring (7th) function

The individual understands easily, but is largely indifferent to, discussions that focus on the internal logic of ideas and systems. The individual perceives such logical systems as largely worthless to his goals and finds them completely uninteresting and unproductive.

as a creative (2nd) function

The individual has a preference for factual accuracy over ideological consistency, and for objective, "harsh" communication over careful words that avoid a negative atmosphere. A view of the external environment being efficient, reasonable, and making sense is essential to his well-being and sense of inner peace, but he does not feel a pressing need for being proactive himself in that area.

It depends what you mean by 'correct'. But you are talking about something being 'totally correct', which entails internal logic, and this is completely related to Ti. Factual accuracy (Te issue) is not the same as correctness.

[Phaedrus]

Observe the behaviours and attitudes of the types in real life, Ezra. You haven't done that yet, so don't act like you know what you are talking about.

[Ezra]

Observe the behaviours and attitudes of the types in real life, Ezra. You haven't done that yet, so don't act like you know what you are talking about.

I'm using theoretical foundations, and you are an LSI.

[Phaedrus]

Observe the behaviours and attitudes of the types in real life, Ezra. You haven't done that yet, so don't act like you know what you are talking about.

I'm using theoretical foundations, and you are an LSI.

Is that a joke? Surely you must know that you can't type people reliably over the Internet using such a "method". Try to stay objective. You have proven in the past that you can adopt a scientific attitude, but you depart from it now and then. Don't do that.

[Ezra]

It's not as if your statement was objective or scientific.

[Phaedrus]

It's not as if your statement was objective or scientific.

Which statement? And besides, you should try to be objective and scientific regardless of whether I am that or not, shouldn't you?

[Ezra]

It's not as if your statement was objective or scientific.

Which statement?

don't act like you know what you are talking about.

In other words, you're suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about. This is a highly subjective statement.

And besides, you should try to be objective and scientific regardless of whether I am that or not, shouldn't you?

Yes, but what it does mean is that if you are not objective yourself, you have no right to tell me to be objective.

[snegledmaca]

...

[Phaedrus]

I'd say that this is, all of it, definitely linked in some way to Ti and much less to Te.

Absolutely not.

Well, I can prove it. Because I'm an IEI I'm naturally attracted to Ti and repelled by Te and if choosing between Ti and Te I'd pick Ti so because I'm atracted to that description and it is either Ti or Te it must be more Ti then Te.

No, you can't prove it. Because you cannot be an IEI unless you are lying about how you are as a person in real life. Almost everything you say about yourself as a person contradict the hypothesis that you are an IEI. So either you are not an IEI or you are presenting us with false personal information.

[Phaedrus]

In other words, you're suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about. This is a highly subjective statement.

Maybe. You can call it whatever you want. The statement is true anyway.

And besides, you should try to be objective and scientific regardless of whether I am that or not, shouldn't you?

Yes, but what it does mean is that if you are not objective yourself, you have no right to tell me to be objective.

Of course I have. We should both try to be as objective as possible. If one of us fails in doing that is irrelevant. If I fail to be objective I should try to be more objective. If you fail to be objective -- which is exactly what you are doing right now -- you should also try to be more objective. You can only do your best, but try at least to make the effort. Your reasoning here is childish.

[Ezra]

I'd say that this is, all of it, definitely linked in some way to Ti and much less to Te.

Absolutely not.

Well, I can prove it. Because I'm an IEI I'm naturally attracted to Ti and repelled by Te and if choosing between Ti and Te I'd pick Ti so because I'm atracted to that description and it is either Ti or Te it must be more Ti then Te.

No, you can't prove it. Because you cannot be an IEI unless you are lying about how you are as a person in real life. Almost everything you say about yourself as a person contradict the hypothesis that you are an IEI. So either you are not an IEI or you are presenting us with false personal information.

Why do you assume this? Come on, pull some shit out that snegledmaca has come up with that contradicts her being an IEI.

[snegledmaca]

...

[Ezra]

5s can easily be IEIs. Easily. Especially 5w4s. Perhaps you forget this, Phaedrus.

[Phaedrus]

5s can easily be IEIs. Easily. Especially 5w4s. Perhaps you forget this, Phaedrus.

Not true. Type 5 is a logical type. The IEI is an ethical type. Which leads to a contradiction. IEIs can be 4w5s, not 5w4s.

[Phaedrus]

He means the fact that I fit an INTP description nearly perfectly and am an E5. But he neglects that I have creative Fe.

I doubt that you have creative Fe, because I have no proof for that claim. So I neglect one aspect of your type that you claim that you have, while you neglect a bunch of other aspects, all of which suggest that you are not an IEI.

[Ezra]

5s can easily be IEIs. Easily. Especially 5w4s. Perhaps you forget this, Phaedrus.

Not true. Type 5 is a logical type. The IEI is an ethical type. Which leads to a contradiction. IEIs can be 4w5s, not 5w4s.

A 5 does not always have to be a Thinker in MBTT - in fact, Feelers are very common. Likewise, in socionics, logic is not a criterion for being a 5.

[strrrng]

Not true. Type 5 is a logical type. The IEI is an ethical type. Which leads to a contradiction. IEIs can be 4w5s, not 5w4s.

I think 5 is more of an 'understander', while 5w4 is more mystical, intuitive, and 5w6 is the logical, analytical one.

If she's 5w4, there's a good chance she's INFp.

but then again, Einstein was 5w4.

[Ezra]

but then again, Einstein was 5w4.

That doesn't mean that 5w4s can't be IEIs, nor does it limit the likelihood of their being so.

[snegledmaca]

...

[ScarlettLux]

Get out of my thread, Phaephae

[Expat]

I think that what snegledmaca tells about himself and his behavior in real life - since he first started posting - pretty much speaks for IEI and against ILI.

That he identifies best with INTP in MBTI, and 5 in the Enneagram, I see as of secondary importance for the socionics type.

[Ezra]

Get out of my thread, Phaephae

Oh em gee I fucking love you.

[MysticSonic]

I personally think liking Chess is strongly, strongly related to Ni: the matter of noting developmental changes and noting when to take advantage of them.