Ti: the backbone of society

[Joy]

A lot of things that some people here have tended to consider "Fe values" are actually more a matter of Ti.

Ti is about scientific and mathematical systems and laws. In that way, it is the "backbone of science". However, that's not all there is to Ti. Ti is also "the backbone of society".

Ti as it relates to "the backbone of society": Our system of government (its three branches, the voting system, the judicial process, the bill of rights, how a bill becomes a law, etc.), organized religion and its rules (whether a Ti type believes them or not is irrelevant), military hierarchy (or governmental, religious, corporate, mafia, etc.), societal standards for "honor" (though certain aspects of "honor" could be attributed to other things, when someone talks about "honor" they're usually referring to some sort of code of behavior or position within a system), familial structure (not the relationships themselves... who likes or loves or hates who... but who is related to who and how, legally or technically speaking), corporate (or other holding entity and law) structure and law (including not for profit organizations), code of conduct, cultural laws/standards (arranged marriages, the first born son being the heir, etc.), international law and foreign policy (though obviously there are other factors as well), codes of ethics, systems of measurement (100 cm = 1 m... okay, now I'm getting closer to science again), political affiliation, associations (such as the PTA), family law, the department of health (or anything else, for that matter), etc.

Policy, laws, rules, systems, etc. These things are the backbone of society... the impartial/impersonal things that provide structure. Without such structure, things like property ownership and insurance would be nonexistent.

(Why do I get the feeling the Ne + Ti types are about to burst in and bitch? Yes, there's a certain degree of Se/aristocracy in some of my examples... I was trying to avoid science/math, you see.)

[Gilly]

Government, religion, society...all Ti concepts.

[Joy]

I was just thinking that, in a Ti sense, it doesn't matter if it's organized crime or organized religion.

(Not to say that the code of ethics/conduct/honor under which a person was brought up wouldn't play a role in whether or not they'd participate in these things, not to mention their scientific beliefs.)

[Joy]

Government, religion, society...all Ti concepts.

religion is not Ti if you mean morality. it's Fi. and i'm not arguing about it.

I disagree.

Moral beliefs could be Fi, but religion in itself isn't any of them.

[olduser]

most groups are founded to direct people towards a stated/unstated purpose. Although religion supposes a higher purpose, there is no direct action that can quantifiably serve a higher action. One cannot mark sins on a wall and prayers to reduce them and expect to see any direct 'real' benefit. From this, I draw the conclusion that religion is meant to direct people's practical actions(a religion will HAVE to do something because despite humans capacity for belief, very very few can accept solely belief as a purpose of religion--no matter what they purport), regardless of whether they are directed for the purpose of morality, or otherwise. I think religion is really a Ti concept, and particularly beta. A power structure meant to influence people towards some means, in some cases, even political(the worst).

[Gilly]

Government, religion, society...all Ti concepts.

religion is not Ti if you mean morality. it's Fi. and i'm not arguing about it.

I disagree.

Moral beliefs could be Fi, but religion in itself isn't any of them.

Religion as a "thing" is all Ti+Se. Ten commandments, path to enlightenment...

Belief in a religion, however, is probably unrelated to type.

Language is another good example of Ti.

[Joy]

A power structure meant to influence people towards some means, in some cases, even political(the worst).

Or monetary (even worse), though I suppose politics is pretty much about money much of the time.

I agree that it's more of a Beta thing. Aristocracy ("us" and "them"), in a way, plus hierarchies of power a lot of times (even if one's motivations for being involved in religion aren't in it for political or financial gain). There's a large focus on obedience in most religions.

[Joy]

Why do I get the feeling the Ne + Ti types are about to burst in and bitch?

Yeah, I don't think this is the best way to describe (at least alpha) Ti valuing ...

Systems of government, for example, may have been constructed in someone's head initially in a "Ti type of" way, but I'd guess that a lot more besides Ti has been put into the system by the time it reaches implementation in society.

The concept/structure of government is more what I was referring to (as opposed to the practice). But government isn't just Ti, it's Ti + Se, in a way, in that it is, by definition, an authority. Structure + Power.

[Jarno]

Systems of government, for example, may have been constructed in someone's head initially in a "Ti type of" way, but I'd guess that a lot more besides Ti has been put into the system by the time it reaches implementation in society.

Definitely.

Ti are drawn to systems, systems sure don't have to be created by them.

[krieger]

Why are INTj's characteristically notorious for ignoring rules when rules is all that Ti is about...?

INTjs usually have an interest that stays with them for a long time and are absolutely indifferent to what others say about it. They never endorse their position in life. INTjs live in a world of their own conception. They simply ignore rules, concepts and directives that do not suit them.

[Joy]

Systems of government, for example, may have been constructed in someone's head initially in a "Ti type of" way, but I'd guess that a lot more besides Ti has been put into the system by the time it reaches implementation in society.

Definitely.

Ti are drawn to systems, systems sure don't have to be created by them.

I'm not talking about people.

Why are INTj's characteristically notorious for ignoring rules when rules is all that Ti is about...?

INTjs usually have an interest that stays with them for a long time and are absolutely indifferent to what others say about it. They never endorse their position in life. INTjs live in a world of their own conception. They simply ignore rules, concepts and directives that do not suit them.

Se.

Rules aren't just about authority. There are also scientific, mathematic, etc. rules. And I wasn't trying to reduce Ti to "rules" anyway.

[Joy]

I think what labcoat is trying to say is that, since Ti is a (subjective) 'logical' construction of systems in one's head that one relies on for reasoning and belief (as opposed to reasoning and believing other sources, the implentation and existence of external systems such as governement can't really be called 'Ti'.

It's a Ti system, whether people agree with (or follow) the system or not. People can create their own Ti systems, but that doesn't make existing Ti systems any less Ti.

[Gilly]

Are you kidding? Ti can't be put in "human" context as an information aspect, which is what we're discussing here. That's what the ethics are for.

Ti as an information element, on the other hand, obviously has to have a human element in that it is processed by a person. But logic is "objective" in the sense that it's either right or wrong, representative of reality or not; there's no room for human interference with that. We put the pieces together to help ourselves understand things, but they're there whether we put them in order or not. There's no "human" element of Ti beyond the action of observing logical connections.

[Joy]

We don't just observe logical systems and structures though. We all put together our own, too.

Carla, what you're describing is an information element. However, even as an information element, Ti is the mental process of understanding logical systems and structures. Whether or not the person is the one who invented the system or created the structure does not change the fact that Ti is the information element being used to understand those systems and structures. Having strong or valued Ti does not mean automatically agreeing with every system you use your Ti to understand.

[Gilly]

The only ones that are "created" are the false ones.

[Joy]

Someone creates governments, religions, and corporate structures.

[Jimbean]

These things are created out of necessity, anyone could create them if need be.

[Joy]

Indeed. We all use all of the information elements. That's not what this thread is about though.

[munenori2]

Why are you trying to call a government system (or any non-human entity) Ti?

Because it knows where you live and is watching you?

[Gilly]

Someone creates governments, religions, and corporate structures.

*headdesk*

My bad.

[Gilly]

Why are you trying to call a government system (or any non-human entity) Ti?

Because that's the function that was used to create it.

[MysticSonic]

The only thing Ti about religion, government, and corporations are their structure. Each of these things, however, is an objective entity comprised of each and every information element; each has an aspect of Ti, Fi, Te, and so on and so forth. Each of these thing's foundation and structure is Ti, but the act of their becoming, the process by which they became, and their current, present properties are all aspects of something else---other information elements. If you honestly can't see the other information elements as aspects of each of these structures, and within all structures, you're blind.

Still, doesn't anyone else get the itching, bothersome feeling that we're somehow talking about Ti far, far too generally, and that the way we're talking about it actually covers other areas of each information element? We seem to be speaking of Ti as if it _is_ structure, but surely structure must be some other things as well? Ti must be some kind of structure, maybe an objective structure standing in contrast with subjective structures(Fi) or something of the sort? In any case, the way that we're talking about Ti seems dangerous and, if anything at all, definitely misleading.

[munenori2]

Burritos are . Think about it.

All that good stuff logically belongs to the tortilla. It's the essence of the burrito...

Thank you, Ti. For all you do.

[Gilly]

Why are you trying to call a government system (or any non-human entity) Ti?

Because that's the function that was used to create it.

So that's the difference between an information element and an information aspect, is it?

An information element is when someone is perceiving and processing information. An information aspect is either the product of an information element or something observed specifically by an information element. For example, every physical object is an example of the "information aspect" Se. Every movement is part of the "information aspect" Si.

Get my drift?

[Gilly]

Burritos are . Think about it.

All that good stuff logically belongs to the tortilla. It's the essence of the burrito...

Thank you, Ti. For all you do.

Ummm...shutthefuckupuntilyoucansaysomethingintelli gent?

[MysticSonic]

"Get my drift?"

Information elements are the subjective aspects of our mental processes, whilst information aspects are...everything else.

[olduser]

Burritos are . Think about it.

All that good stuff logically belongs to the tortilla. It's the essence of the burrito...

Thank you, Ti. For all you do.

i was eating burritos earlier and I agree. I've previously posted recipes for burritoes on this very forum. you can pretty much think of me as an expert in Ti.

[Gilly]

"Get my drift?"

Information elements are the subjective aspects of our mental processes, whilst information aspects are...everything else.

Yeah, although I'm wary of "everything else."

[MysticSonic]

Yeah, it's not really EVERYTHING else, just everything else pertaining to the information elements. Obviously a rock isn't an information aspect, but there are information aspects of the rock(the objective qualities of the rock in psychological terms).

[Gilly]

Yar.

[Exodus]

most groups are founded to direct people towards a stated/unstated purpose. Although religion supposes a higher purpose, there is no direct action that can quantifiably serve a higher action. One cannot mark sins on a wall and prayers to reduce them and expect to see any direct 'real' benefit. From this, I draw the conclusion that religion is meant to direct people's practical actions(a religion will HAVE to do something because despite humans capacity for belief, very very few can accept solely belief as a purpose of religion--no matter what they purport), regardless of whether they are directed for the purpose of morality, or otherwise. I think religion is really a Ti concept, and particularly beta. A power structure meant to influence people towards some means, in some cases, even political(the worst).

Government, religion, society...all Ti concepts.

religion is not Ti if you mean morality. it's Fi. and i'm not arguing about it.

I disagree.

Moral beliefs could be Fi, but religion in itself isn't any of them.

Religion as a "thing" is all Ti+Se. Ten commandments, path to enlightenment...

Belief in a religion, however, is probably unrelated to type.

Language is another good example of Ti.

Christianity is Beta, but not all religions are by any means.

Why are INTj's characteristically notorious for ignoring rules when rules is all that Ti is about...?

INTjs usually have an interest that stays with them for a long time and are absolutely indifferent to what others say about it. They never endorse their position in life. INTjs live in a world of their own conception. They simply ignore rules, concepts and directives that do not suit them.

Yeah, it's because we make our own rules. Ethical types need someone to tell them "this rule is stupid" or "this rule doesn't make sense".

Why are you trying to call a government system (or any non-human entity) Ti?

Because that's the function that was used to create it.

So that's the difference between an information element and an information aspect, is it?

An information element is when someone is perceiving and processing information. An information aspect is either the product of an information element or something observed specifically by an information element. For example, every physical object is an example of the "information aspect" Se. Every movement is part of the "information aspect" Si.

I think the distinction between information aspects and elements is pointless, but you're right that each element is extremely general - sensing is far more general than just physical things. Si is about homeostasis, something being in balance with its environment (physical or otherwise). Similar definitions can be made for the other elements.

[Hitta]

This is one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen, and Gilly's response to it is THE stupidest post I have ever seen. Religion, systems of government as Ti(well I think of most peoples idea of Ti as alpha -Ti). Ti in that case is about desystematizing things; looking at things at their very core. +Ti things, as you can tell by knowing how ENTjs and ISTjs act. I am tired of endlessly trying to irrigate peoples minds with the little system I have created. If the people here knew anything about the types, they would know that most people on this forum are incorrect with their assumptions about personality. There are only a hand full of people here that know anything about it. Instead you get certain stereotypes about how the functions are(usually incorrect stereotypes). Of course systems as a concept are Ti subjects. They are Te Ti Fi and Fe subjects. If yall do not see that all the functions are connected you need to reevaluate. One that has Te has to use Ti, it has to be this way. If the people here were capable of using one once of rational thought, you would understand how introversion and extraversion work, and that introversion and extraversion work in perfect harmony. One can not have an introverted side of a function, and not an extraverted function to go with it, otherwise the person would be incomplete. I mean hell, that would be kind of embarrassing for the ENTjs out there, seeing as they do not have a valued introverted thinking function in the original model A. This would mean that they are not capable of thinking logically. Has anyone here ever actually thought what introverted means, it means internal. You can't act and speak introverted, because it would be extraverted. You can't think extravertedly, because then it would be introverted. You can't present yourself in an introverted manner, and you can't think in an extraverted manner. All people must value a function of each functional type, otherwise they would be incapable of producing information in that area. Have you ever met an INTj that didn't act logical? ESTj? You ever notice how ESTjs and INTjs both have cold facial expressions? You ever notice how they both have this logical essence about them? Have you ever met an ENTp that didn't try to be original? How about an INFp? If ENTps and INFps value originality, THEY MUST VALUE THE SAME FUNCTION!!!!!!!!!!!!! If INTjs and ESTjs act similar, THEY MUST VALUE THE SAME FUNCTION!!!!!!!! ESFjs and INFjs both have this love for people, this emotional compassion for people. I'm sure everyone here has noticed that. THEY MUST VALUE THE SAME FUNCTION!!!!!! If you do not see this there is one of two things that are possible, either I'm incredibly dumb or you people haven't looked at it yet, actually taken it down and examined it.

[Hitta]

"Get my drift?"

Information elements are the subjective aspects of our mental processes, whilst information aspects are...everything else.

Well the funny thing I've been thinking about lately is how everything is a function, everything that we see, smell, taste, touch, think. The way we see colors and are able to distinguish things. And if you really wanted to analyze perception, you can break it down to the 5 senses that we have and say that thats all that we have. I mean there are infinite amounts of possible senses that could alter our reality. There could be senses that shake the entire grounds of the basics of the most common(I say this because everyone seems to be on the same page, although they may really not be)perception of human existence. There are infinite possibilities for the difference existences and perceptions that are possible. Mentally though we seem to be defined by our 8 functions of our existence. As I have said before, everything is comprised into the functions. Everything is a subjective reality. When we look at a shape for example, we identify it. In identifying it we probably use some sort of introverted thinking function(this is just an example.)

[olduser]

I am tired of endlessly trying to irrigate peoples minds with the little system I have created. .

it's easy as punching the computer

[Joy]

Wow.

This is one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen, and Gilly's response to it is THE stupidest post I have ever seen. Religion, systems of government as Ti(well I think of most peoples idea of Ti as alpha -Ti). Ti in that case is about desystematizing things; looking at things at their very core. +Ti things, as you can tell by knowing how ENTjs and ISTjs act. I am tired of endlessly trying to irrigate peoples minds with the little system I have created. If the people here knew anything about the types, they would know that most people on this forum are incorrect with their assumptions about personality. There are only a hand full of people here that know anything about it. Instead you get certain stereotypes about how the functions are(usually incorrect stereotypes). Of course systems as a concept are Ti subjects. They are Te Ti Fi and Fe subjects. If yall do not see that all the functions are connected you need to reevaluate. One that has Te has to use Ti, it has to be this way. If the people here were capable of using one once of rational thought, you would understand how introversion and extraversion work, and that introversion and extraversion work in perfect harmony. One can not have an introverted side of a function, and not an extraverted function to go with it, otherwise the person would be incomplete. I mean hell, that would be kind of embarrassing for the ENTjs out there, seeing as they do not have a valued introverted thinking function in the original model A. This would mean that they are not capable of thinking logically. Has anyone here ever actually thought what introverted means, it means internal. You can't act and speak introverted, because it would be extraverted. You can't think extravertedly, because then it would be introverted. You can't present yourself in an introverted manner, and you can't think in an extraverted manner. All people must value a function of each functional type, otherwise they would be incapable of producing information in that area. Have you ever met an INTj that didn't act logical? ESTj? You ever notice how ESTjs and INTjs both have cold facial expressions? You ever notice how they both have this logical essence about them? Have you ever met an ENTp that didn't try to be original? How about an INFp? If ENTps and INFps value originality, THEY MUST VALUE THE SAME FUNCTION!!!!!!!!!!!!! If INTjs and ESTjs act similar, THEY MUST VALUE THE SAME FUNCTION!!!!!!!! ESFjs and INFjs both have this love for people, this emotional compassion for people. I'm sure everyone here has noticed that. THEY MUST VALUE THE SAME FUNCTION!!!!!! If you do not see this there is one of two things that are possible, either I'm incredibly dumb or you people haven't looked at it yet, actually taken it down and examined it.

1.) I didn't write the theory. I'm just trying to explain it.

2.) When you say "function", you're talking about information elements. What I posted was about the information aspect Ti.

3.)

I am tired of endlessly trying to irrigate peoples minds with the little system I have created.

This is one of the most arrogant things I've ever read on this forum. You're essentially saying "THE THEORY IS WRONG, AND I CAN SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT MYSELF BECAUSE I TOOK ONE TINY PIECE OF IT AND CREATED A SYSTEM AROUND IT AND MY SYSTEM IS FAR, FAR SUPERIOR TO THE THEORY THAT THIS FORUM IS ABOUT (THAT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND) AND YOU'RE ALL SO STUPID FOR NOT ABANDONING THE EXISTING THEORY AND BELIEVING ME AND INSTEAD TALKING ABOUT THE THEORY THAT THIS FORUM IS ABOUT ON THIS FORUM."

[Joy]

The only thing Ti about religion, government, and corporations are their structure. Each of these things, however, is an objective entity comprised of each and every information element; each has an aspect of Ti, Fi, Te, and so on and so forth. Each of these thing's foundation and structure is Ti, but the act of their becoming, the process by which they became, and their current, present properties are all aspects of something else---other information elements. If you honestly can't see the other information elements as aspects of each of these structures, and within all structures, you're blind.

Yes.

(though it's information aspects that those objective entities are comprised of... information elements would be people perceiving or understanding the different aspects)

Still, doesn't anyone else get the itching, bothersome feeling that we're somehow talking about Ti far, far too generally, and that the way we're talking about it actually covers other areas of each information element? We seem to be speaking of Ti as if it _is_ structure, but surely structure must be some other things as well? Ti must be some kind of structure, maybe an objective structure standing in contrast with subjective structures(Fi) or something of the sort? In any case, the way that we're talking about Ti seems dangerous and, if anything at all, definitely misleading.

Only if you take what's being said out of context. We're not talking about people or types here.

[Hitta]

The existing model needs tweaking. And as for me understanding socionics less than you, for the past year and an half socionics is the only thing I have thought about(besides wow). If been constantly trying to perfect the theory of socionics. If you think you are more advised and lessoned in socionics, I guarantee you you are wrong. I eat, sleep, and drink socionics. I did not just take some little aspect of the theory and decide "hmm hey this is right and everyone else is wrong". I have analyzed, compared, and studied the phenomenon empirically. What I am saying is you haven't looked at the theory of socionics closely enough and critiqued it at its roots, you only scan the surface of things. And as for other things, I seriously doubt you are capable of rejecting an accepted theory(as are a lot of people here). I analyze everything that I see. Everything happens for a reason. And if you were to actually look close at socionics and study how the types are, and the unexplained phenomenon that happen in the types, you would understand that the model isn't complete yet. It's still lacking something. But the people here accept without reason, instead of trying to perfect.

[MysticSonic]

"Only if you take what's being said out of context. We're not talking about people or types here."

Somehow I feel like you completely missed my point. :/

[Exodus]

If the people here were capable of using one once of rational thought, you would understand how introversion and extraversion work, and that introversion and extraversion work in perfect harmony. One can not have an introverted side of a function, and not an extraverted function to go with it, otherwise the person would be incomplete.

You're right - Ti cannot be used in complete separation from Te, and the same goes for all the other pairs. However, I don't think that necessarily says anything about having to value both of them. Having a model with more functions is simply a matter of differentiation, and is not such a radical change to the theory as you think it is.

[Hitta]

If the people here were capable of using one once of rational thought, you would understand how introversion and extraversion work, and that introversion and extraversion work in perfect harmony. One can not have an introverted side of a function, and not an extraverted function to go with it, otherwise the person would be incomplete.

You're right - Ti cannot be used in complete separation from Te, and the same goes for all the other pairs. However, I don't think that necessarily says anything about having to value both of them. Having a model with more functions is simply a matter of differentiation, and is not such a radical change to the theory as you think it is.

Well, I think you're referring to functions 7,8. I do not believe that functions 7 and 8 work like this though. They are the unconscious instinctive functions. For example, take an INTj with -Ti/+Te and +Ne/-Ni. Instinctively the INTj must see -Te/+Ti and -Ne/+Ni(7 and 8 functions). -Ti could be described as analytical disjunctive logic. Anarchical logic so to speak. +Ti is systematic logic. INTj has to see systems to break them apart. This is how function 7 works for them. They see what they need to instinctively so that the dominant function can do its thing. -Ti cannot work without +Ti. It has to see systematics to disjunct it. +Te is probably the function that is most common with compulsion, or perfection. It has to have everything symmetrical. +Te types often are the obsessive compulsive types, especially with those in the agenda blocks. In the ego block its more automatic. Have you ever heard how INTjs over tighten screws? This would be attributed to +Te.