# Thread: How Ti works (response to Jonathon)

1. ## How Ti works (response to Jonathon)

Well this is basically a response to Jonathon's post. I know a lot of you disagree due to the fact that I called +Ti users stereotypers. In this sense stereotype isn't a bad world. It simply means implicative, or building imaginary systems. This is a picture to demonstrate how +Ti and -Ti works.

.

As you can see.. +Ti builds what I would call stereotypical systems, or systems built entirely on implication(all systems are built on implication, thats what a system is). -Ti is disjunction or break apart systems. -Ti sees the system of logic that +Ti built, and breaks it apart into individual pieces. INTjs have to be able to see the system to break it apart though. Seeing the system of them is an unconscious reaction. INTjs see this system, and consciously break it down. So thats function 1 and 7 working with each other.
ENTjs use +Ti. ENTjs use function 7 to see the disjunction in things, to see the separate individual parts. Then uses function 1 to put them together. Function 7 and 8 are the instinctive ways of looking at things.

2. wtf?????

3. Seeing the system of them is an unconscious reaction.
As stated, the sentence does not belong. It's confusing.

OK now, if an INTj were to use + with - in the ego, as opposed to -/+, how would it manifest?

-Ti sees the system of logic that +Ti built, and breaks it apart into individual pieces.
You are suggesting that INTjs build systems instinctively? That makes sense: certainly we code systems via neurons.

I'm coming to an interesting conclusion on the problem of evil from all of this +/- stuff, but I don't understand enough about the connection between functions and elements to be certain. If you use an element in the id to conduct processing in the ego, does the element continue to maintain the features of the id? It's looking like the functions may the result of the interplay between elements in consciousness; e.g., they may not be entities autonomous from the elements, but a consequence of the elements' relations between themselves.

4. Well lets say that you have a airplane pilot. That airplane pilot actually has to have a plane to be able to fly(or some other means of flying). When I talk about disjunction logic, its about breaking things apart. There has to be something to break apart. When I speak about implicative logic, its about putting parts together. You have to have the parts to put something together and create a whole. That is how the 7th function works for the 1st function and how the 8th function works for the 2nd function, it makes the instinctive positions on things. INTjs break systems apart, but they actually have to be able to see the systems to be able to break them apart. ENTjs put together parts into a system, but they actually have to have the parts to put them together. When I say that INTps stereotype thats what they do(I could debate that INTjs do this too because there is no law to state that individual components aren't stereotypes). INTjs like to back things up, many INTjs feel as if nothing can be proven. They don't attempt to build stereotypical systems(although when you think about relativity and comparison everything we do is a stereotype). ENTjs and INTps tend to assume. Systems are assumptions(although I could argue that desystematization is an assumption too, and a true INTjs may think of this often and debate the entire premise of what they are trying to do). INTjs hate stereotypes, they hate systems, they want to break them apart into pieces, take the pieces and break them into more pieces(the cycle will probably contain forever). INTps put together pieces, and continually add more and more pieces and information to the system. INTps may merge systems together to create a larger organized system.

5. OK now, if an INTj were to use +Introverted Thinking with -Extraverted Thinking in the ego, as opposed to -Introverted Thinking/+Extraverted Thinking, how would it manifest?
They'd behave like ISTj's the moment that happens. +Ti is by definition a Beta ST function. That is what this is about.

I *suspect* that INTj's of non-liberal context lines habitually push forth their INTj conclusions using a secundary ISTj type. Machintruc may be an example of this on this forum. One person running around at my university does something that looks a lot like this.

I believe that I myself use the ESTj type to put Ti/Ne to practice.

6. Lets take more similar types than ENTj and INTj. Lets say INTj vs ISTj.

INTj has -
ISTj has +

So what's different in the way they build systems (except the obvious Ne vs Se)? For example when they see some reoccuring pattern in the nature (e.g. birds flying south before winter).

PS! Making up symbolic imagery can be quite and explaining processes through analogies (airplane pilot) is definitely very much . There are people who never make such analogies. And people find it somewhat annoying - they want people to say what's there, not explain some projection of the process behind what's there.

7. See that's the problem, is that the only difference between LII Ti and LSI Ti IS Se or Ne; that's what makes Ti + or -. When Ti is conscious with Ne, it's negative; when unconscious, positive. When Ti is conscious with Se, it's positive; when unconscious, negative. That's just how it works.

8. Yes, but it's when people start saying that it's possible for Ti to be paired with Ne and still be Ti+ in some "unconscious" way or whatever, that the definition of +/- gets messed up. I wouldn't be too quick to buy into that. If it turns out things do work this way, there should be some way of telling the "advancing" (conscious) and "regressing" (unconscious) forms of + and - apart. Maybe use hat ^ and cup [sup:0532e2bd63]v[/sup:0532e2bd63] for that.

What I mean is: it is ambiguous wether the person that made that +/- model A and the +/- descriptions (which is Gulenko) meant that the unconscious functions act as + and - within the block together with the unconscious functions they are paired with in the model, or wether they are said to be paired with other functions.

9. But Ti + is defined as Ti blocked with Se consciously or Ne subconsciously. How could you mix those up? That's where those names come from. Are you saying that people mix up, say, LII's Ti having some characteristics of Se? Because that's usually spotted pretty easily; not sure it's really a problem.

10. Oh bloody hell, gilly. I'll rephrase it for your sake then.

What's thew difference between:
1) Ti when it's combined with Ne.
2) Ti when it's combined with Se.

And note that I didn't ask for Ti descriptions in INTjs and ISTjs. In +/- theory there is inherent difference between the Ti in those types even if we leave out hints of their PoLRs and hidden agenda.

11. Yes but you don't leave out "hints" of their second function. That's the only thing that makes any difference. +Ti is conscious Ti+Se and unconscious Ti+Ne. That's really all there is to it. Ti+Se is spacial logic, Ti+Ne is conceptual logic. Want me to REALLY get into this?

12. Originally Posted by Gilly
Yes but you don't leave out "hints" of their second function. That's the only thing that makes any difference. +Ti is conscious Ti+Se and unconscious Ti+Ne. That's really all there is to it. Ti+Se is spacial logic, Ti+Ne is conceptual logic. Want me to REALLY get into this?
I think there's more to it. I could think about all that myself, because I've here since june 2005. But the +/- thing is very fresh and new to me. I do notice some difference in alpha/beta Fe. Alphas are all happy cheerful, betas are seriously pessimistic. Alphas make sure everyone sees how great things really are, betas make sure there's someone telling them things aren't as bad as they think. I even see the +Fe vs -Fe conflict with ESTjs, who tell me I should "stop whining" . And ENFps seem annoyed that I start with criticising rather than considering the positive aspects.

But Ti is just Ti.

13. Originally Posted by niffweed17
wtf?????

14. Originally Posted by Kristiina
Originally Posted by Gilly
Yes but you don't leave out "hints" of their second function. That's the only thing that makes any difference. +Ti is conscious Ti+Se and unconscious Ti+Ne. That's really all there is to it. Ti+Se is spacial logic, Ti+Ne is conceptual logic. Want me to REALLY get into this?
I think there's more to it. I could think about all that myself, because I've here since june 2005. But the +/- thing is very fresh and new to me. I do notice some difference in alpha/beta Fe. Alphas are all happy cheerful, betas are seriously pessimistic. Alphas make sure everyone sees how great things really are, betas make sure there's someone telling them things aren't as bad as they think. I even see the +Fe vs -Fe conflict with ESTjs, who tell me I should "stop whining" . And ENFps seem annoyed that I start with criticising rather than considering the positive aspects.

But Ti is just Ti.
What do you mean Ti is just Ti? Those are good examples of Fe with Si and Ni, so just but Se and Ne into Ti, and you get "spatial logic" and "conceptual logic," don't you? There's two different types for you, just like you did with Fe. Easy enough.

15. So hitta, basically what you're saying is that +Ti is building a chain of logic, whereas -Ti is finding inconsistencies or flaws in chains of logic?

16. But Ti + is defined as Ti blocked with Se consciously or Ne subconsciously.
That is what you're assuming. It's certainly not immediately evident from the model itself. Has Gulenko provided written instructions stating it should be interpreted that way and not another? What's to keep anyone from saying "T+ means paired with S, so unconscious Ti+ is paired with Se-"? Has Gulenko ever explicitly stated that unconscious + and - functions block in opposite way to how conscious ones do?

Also, if Hitta or anyone else interprets the + functions in the conscious blocks to be the same as those in the unconscious block they may be in for some surprises due to the reversal of the direction. I'd seriously urge anyone not to hastily do that. To prevent anyone from making mistakes of this kind, usage of alternate terminology like ^ and [sup:cbc3fc887a]v[/sup:cbc3fc887a] seems perfectly warranted, IMO.

17. I just don't get it. Gilly is totally full of shit right now. Just magnifying some facts and ignoring others to make his opinion sound logical. There is really absolutely nothing that would make Fe people happy when they concentrate of the here and now (Si) and Fe people react miserably when they concentrate on the inner workings of the events (Ni). The A model does not explain this. And the differences between alpha and beta Ti also can't simply be explained with "oh just look at the A model". People have indeed observed that alphas and betas have different Fe and different Ti and deltas seem to react better to alpha Fe than beta Fe. Now they are trying to structure all this information and for some reason it's not classic socionics, but I want to understand it because it seems to explain some of my own observations.

18. Originally Posted by Kristiina
I just don't get it. Gilly is totally full of shit right now. Just magnifying some facts and ignoring others to make his opinion sound logical. There is really absolutely nothing that would make Fe people happy when they concentrate of the here and now (Si) and Fe people react miserably when they concentrate on the inner workings of the events (Ni). The A model does not explain this. And the differences between alpha and beta Ti also can't simply be explained with "oh just look at the A model". People have indeed observed that alphas and betas have different Fe and different Ti and deltas seem to react better to alpha Fe than beta Fe. Now they are trying to structure all this information and for some reason it's not classic socionics, but I want to understand it because it seems to explain some of my own observations.
its extremely simple.

alpha Ti is different from beta Ti in that alpha Ti is blocked with Ne, Fe, and Si. beta Ti, on the other hand, is blocked with Se, Fe, and Ni. therefore these functions are different.

to say that these functions reflect actually different things and different aspects of Ti is ridiculous. they might behave in slightly different ways due to the differing quadra values by which they are manifest. any further observed differences are also attributable to quadra values. if there's anything further between the way that Ti in alpha differs from Ti in beta, it's purely semantics, and the situation is ultimately equivalent to that of the bolded sentence.

19. Originally Posted by Kristiina
I just don't get it. Gilly is totally full of shit right now. Just magnifying some facts and ignoring others to make his opinion sound logical. There is really absolutely nothing that would make Fe people happy when they concentrate of the here and now (Si) and Fe people react miserably when they concentrate on the inner workings of the events (Ni).
Sure. Feelings now are certain and malleable/changeable in the here and now, for the better. Feelings in the future are uncertain and there is not clear-cut way to make them change for the better. This is why strategists are negativists in alpha-beta quadras.

20. Originally Posted by niffweed17
Originally Posted by Kristiina
I just don't get it. Gilly is totally full of shit right now. Just magnifying some facts and ignoring others to make his opinion sound logical. There is really absolutely nothing that would make Fe people happy when they concentrate of the here and now (Si) and Fe people react miserably when they concentrate on the inner workings of the events (Ni). The A model does not explain this. And the differences between alpha and beta Ti also can't simply be explained with "oh just look at the A model". People have indeed observed that alphas and betas have different Fe and different Ti and deltas seem to react better to alpha Fe than beta Fe. Now they are trying to structure all this information and for some reason it's not classic socionics, but I want to understand it because it seems to explain some of my own observations.
its extremely simple.

alpha Ti is different from beta Ti in that alpha Ti is blocked with Ne, Fe, and Si. beta Ti, on the other hand, is blocked with Se, Fe, and Ni. therefore these functions are different.

to say that these functions reflect actually different things and different aspects of Ti is ridiculous. they might behave in slightly different ways due to the differing quadra values by which they are manifest. any further observed differences are also attributable to quadra values. if there's anything further between the way that Ti in alpha differs from Ti in beta, it's purely semantics, and the situation is ultimately equivalent to that of the bolded sentence.
Thankfully we have god here to sort things out.

21. Originally Posted by hitta

Thankfully we have god here to sort things out.
actually, that's exactly it.

22. Originally Posted by niffweed17
Originally Posted by Kristiina
I just don't get it. Gilly is totally full of shit right now. Just magnifying some facts and ignoring others to make his opinion sound logical. There is really absolutely nothing that would make Fe people happy when they concentrate of the here and now (Si) and Fe people react miserably when they concentrate on the inner workings of the events (Ni). The A model does not explain this. And the differences between alpha and beta Ti also can't simply be explained with "oh just look at the A model". People have indeed observed that alphas and betas have different Fe and different Ti and deltas seem to react better to alpha Fe than beta Fe. Now they are trying to structure all this information and for some reason it's not classic socionics, but I want to understand it because it seems to explain some of my own observations.
its extremely simple.

alpha Ti is different from beta Ti in that alpha Ti is blocked with Ne, Fe, and Si. beta Ti, on the other hand, is blocked with Se, Fe, and Ni. therefore these functions are different.

to say that these functions reflect actually different things and different aspects of Ti is ridiculous. they might behave in slightly different ways due to the differing quadra values by which they are manifest. any further observed differences are also attributable to quadra values. if there's anything further between the way that Ti in alpha differs from Ti in beta, it's purely semantics, and the situation is ultimately equivalent to that of the bolded sentence.
any proof? So right now it's your opinion against mine.

23. You can start to see the similarities when you start to examine the types that we aren't examining now. When you compare ESTjs to INTjs and ENTjs to ISTjs you do get this strange alikeness. I've even noticed similarities in the VI of the types. A whole bunch of people probably mistype as their illusionary partner. I've seen that happen a bunch on this forum. There has to be a reason for everything when you examine things in the context in which we believe we live in(or at least what I believe I live in, perception probably differs). There is always an answer to the question why in this context also. When I speak about -Ti, its an analytical function. I've always thought of the creative function as being the subject of the base function, so when I look at -Ti/+Te and +Ne/-Ni paired together I look as +Ne/-Ni being the subject of -Ti/+Te. So this would mean that an INTj analyzes abstract ideas of novelty that usually is when comparing data in multiple planes( or relativistic abstract analysis). +Te is an extraverted production of the ENTjs +Ti in a way. +Te is like producing logic. As all extraverted function are, they seem very subtle. They are more about reaction or production, not about thoughts. So INTjs tend to systematically produce disjunctive logic to society. Which means they tend to be very economical when producing their disjunctive logic to the outside world. I haven't completely defined Te like I have wanted to yet, and when I do it will probably change my descriptions slightly if the definition changes from what I think it is now. ESTjs have -Ti paired with +Se. When you think about +Se you think of deduction of authority, having fun, traveling, acceptance of society. This means that this is the subject of a bunch of the ESTjs analysis. ESTjs tend to analyze how people can better fit into their roles, how they can better serve society, how they can fit in amongst people. ESTjs tend to philosophize about how people can enjoy their lives much more than they do. How they can fit in with society better. This goes well with the INFj that would like to just fit. People that want to fit in with society by default value +Ni. This would mean that they would want to do things step by step, or by all the rules. T is connected to F and S is connected to N. If someone was or was trying to be original or unique (+Ne/-Ni) then they would automatically have a need to rebel against authority in a way(-Se/+Si). All of the functions are connected. If someone was trying to be normal(+Ni/-Ne) then they would automatically accept authority(+Se/-Si). They fit together. The complete model A is even somewhat redundant.

24. Originally Posted by Kristiina
Originally Posted by niffweed17
Originally Posted by Kristiina
I just don't get it. Gilly is totally full of shit right now. Just magnifying some facts and ignoring others to make his opinion sound logical. There is really absolutely nothing that would make Fe people happy when they concentrate of the here and now (Si) and Fe people react miserably when they concentrate on the inner workings of the events (Ni). The A model does not explain this. And the differences between alpha and beta Ti also can't simply be explained with "oh just look at the A model". People have indeed observed that alphas and betas have different Fe and different Ti and deltas seem to react better to alpha Fe than beta Fe. Now they are trying to structure all this information and for some reason it's not classic socionics, but I want to understand it because it seems to explain some of my own observations.
its extremely simple.

alpha Ti is different from beta Ti in that alpha Ti is blocked with Ne, Fe, and Si. beta Ti, on the other hand, is blocked with Se, Fe, and Ni. therefore these functions are different.

to say that these functions reflect actually different things and different aspects of Ti is ridiculous. they might behave in slightly different ways due to the differing quadra values by which they are manifest. any further observed differences are also attributable to quadra values. if there's anything further between the way that Ti in alpha differs from Ti in beta, it's purely semantics, and the situation is ultimately equivalent to that of the bolded sentence.
any proof? So right now it's your opinion against mine.
why do you need proof? this is fundamentally an argument about semantics and terminology.

25. Originally Posted by niffweed17
Originally Posted by Kristiina
Originally Posted by niffweed17
Originally Posted by Kristiina
I just don't get it. Gilly is totally full of shit right now. Just magnifying some facts and ignoring others to make his opinion sound logical. There is really absolutely nothing that would make Fe people happy when they concentrate of the here and now (Si) and Fe people react miserably when they concentrate on the inner workings of the events (Ni). The A model does not explain this. And the differences between alpha and beta Ti also can't simply be explained with "oh just look at the A model". People have indeed observed that alphas and betas have different Fe and different Ti and deltas seem to react better to alpha Fe than beta Fe. Now they are trying to structure all this information and for some reason it's not classic socionics, but I want to understand it because it seems to explain some of my own observations.
its extremely simple.

alpha Ti is different from beta Ti in that alpha Ti is blocked with Ne, Fe, and Si. beta Ti, on the other hand, is blocked with Se, Fe, and Ni. therefore these functions are different.

to say that these functions reflect actually different things and different aspects of Ti is ridiculous. they might behave in slightly different ways due to the differing quadra values by which they are manifest. any further observed differences are also attributable to quadra values. if there's anything further between the way that Ti in alpha differs from Ti in beta, it's purely semantics, and the situation is ultimately equivalent to that of the bolded sentence.
any proof? So right now it's your opinion against mine.
why do you need proof? this is fundamentally an argument about semantics and terminology.
nope, not really. The problem is the opposite - it feels like the +/- theory has some truth to it, but socionicists argue against it with semantics and termiology. I just wanna know what data can be trusted. What are the systematised observations about positive and negative displays of fuctions in types.

26. Originally Posted by ifmd95
no, thanks for the link. I'll bookmark it.

27. Originally Posted by Kristiina
There is really absolutely nothing that would make Fe people happy when they concentrate of the here and now (Si) and Fe people react miserably when they concentrate on the inner workings of the events (Ni). The A model does not explain this.
But who said anything about the "happy" or "miserable" points you're making?

Originally Posted by Kristiina
And the differences between alpha and beta Ti also can't simply be explained with "oh just look at the A model". People have indeed observed that alphas and betas have different Fe and different Ti and deltas seem to react better to alpha Fe than beta Fe.
Actually, they can be explained by model A. Alphas have Fe blocked with Si, and Betas have Fe blocked with Ni.

Alpha's Fe is focused more on the here-and-now, and on making people feel good in a given situation (or bad, if the situation calls for it).

Beta's Fe is more focused on the longer-term, inner-vision implications - that is, precisely the "Fe as a social role" bit that you've described, or Fe as in mobilizing people emotionally to achieve a vision.

28. Originally Posted by Kristiina
I just wanna know what data can be trusted.
all data is the same and is entirely extraneous to the arbitrary nature of the terminology.

What are the systematised observations about positive and negative displays of fuctions in types.
there are none, other than that Ti+ has beta values and Ti- alpha.

29. Kri, I see what you're saying, and the truth is, I don't really understand why Fe with Ni/Se instead of Si/Ne creates the "polarizing" effect that it does in Betas, and is happy and tranquil in Alpha. I have ideas about the symbolism of the functions that all tie in somehow, but I can't explain to you precisely what it is. I can tell you that the reason Deltas like Alpha Fe better than Beta Fe is because Alpha Fe is blocked with Si, which Deltas also value, but I don't know why, specifically, Beta Fe has all of this existential angst and neuroticism while Alpha Fe is like a cat on oxycontin. It's because of Ni vs Si; we know that because, well, that's the inherent difference between Alpha and Beta, but what is it ABOUT Ni and Si that creates these differences we see? I couldn't tell you. I hope someone else can, because while I have very vague ideas and numerous hypotheses, and while it does makes sense in it's own way if you really understand Ni and Si, I can't give you anything concrete.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•