Functions are not personality traits, functions are sections of the personality

[Hitta]

Say that a function is a group of personality traits is wrong. Functions can only be described through traits, but not personality traits. They are descriptions of the sections of our personality. As I have said before, everyone values every function. This means that everyone is complete personality wise. For example:

Ti is what one uses when they look at the information to make judgments. As I have said before, all judgments are based on logical information. Ti is what we make the logical judgments based on. Ti people because of this are rational people. Ti has two sides. +Ti which is implicative logic. Implicative means common sense. This logic is about making inductions, or making decisions or judgments based off as little analysis as possible. -Ti is about analytical logic. Making decisions based off as much analysis as possible. Ti is the calculation of facts(+Te) and opinions(-Te). Ti is also the calculation to facts and opinions.
-Ti/+Te is about proof. Everything for this function has to be proven. -Ti analyzes the information and creates proof.

Fi is the actual judgment of things. Fi takes the logical information that the rational Ti has made and forms a decision. If I were to say that I like cookies, one would be using both Fi and Ti for this. That actual judgment is Fi. To believe that I actually like cookies is a subjective ideology(as the IM definitions state that Fi is). So why do we like the cookies? There is a sweet substance(Te and Fi) in the cookie. This is an example of Ti usage. Ti and Te created the logic bridge to Fi. This is an example of judging functionality. Thinking functions are the logical information and Feeling functions are the subjective evaluation.

[Hitta]

INTjs weakest function is +Se and -Si. These basically have to do with routine and basic hygiene. INTjs typically hate routine to an extreme degree. Because of this they often neglect routine things like showers or routine work.

[Hitta]

I wouldn't say that I hate routine to an extreme degree. I just find doing tasks such as cooking and doing my hair to be of secondary importance. However, I do like a nice, cooked meal and I do like the feeling of having my hair washed and combed. For that reason, I wouldn't say INTjs neglect hygiene.

I'm not so sure that I'm an INTj according to your system, hitta. I am an INTj according to Model A though.

Model A and Model B are the exact same thing, Model B just has the functional redundancies.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Say that a function is a group of personality traits is wrong. Functions can only be described through traits, but not personality traits. They are descriptions of the sections of our personality. As I have said before, everyone values every function. This means that everyone is complete personality wise.

I have to ask: What are functions? What are personality traits? How are personality traits different from traits? What is a section? How can personality have sections? What is personality, anyways?

[Ezra]

No. Absolutely not. Where in the heck are you getting these definitions, anyway?

He makes them up. This is why he is an LII. The way Pheadrus described Ti was good; you create your own systems and definitions. Everything you come up with is from observing your own ideas if you have Ti at the helm.

[krieger]

Functions are voodoo totems; they don't really "do" anything. Resist their evil mojo and type using clubs and quadras instead is my advice.

Did anyone notice that model B is redundant on multiple levels...? Why define a "Fe+/Ti+" group when there is already a "Resolute" group that directly coïncides with it?

[MysticSonic]

Hitta's not interested in developing a consistent system, only an original one. So, if a lot of the shit he says makes no sense: "a lot of INTjs are highschool drop outs", you should probably just ignore it. You will never be right in Hitta's eyes.

[strrrng]

An INTj may spend a lot of time thinking about the things they have done, especially the things that they think were done wrong by themselves. INTjs fear the unknown. Many INTjs have a huge fear of death. They are often afraid of "seizing to exist".

those are generic, individual traits, buddy. Lots of people think ruefully about past mistakes, lots of people fear the unknown...and how can you ascribe fearing ceasing to exist to a function? jesus christ.

functions aren't traits...so you finally realize one accurate thing...try applying it now. you say INTjs hate routine. The IJ temperament is static and rational, thus viewing reality as not changing and being comfortable with that. This may be a stretch, but I would guess that such an attitude would manifest in a preference for routine.

this is what happens when some pseudo-intellectual gets an inflated ego...stupid ideas get created and proclaimed as absolute truth

[Logos]

Hitta's not interested in developing a consistent system, only an original one. So, if a lot of the shit he says makes no sense: "a lot of INTjs are highschool drop outs", you should probably just ignore it. You will never be right in Hitta's eyes.

If he left such gross generalizations out of his descriptions, I think people would not be so averse to the content of what he says, but crappy statements like that permeates all of his work.

[MysticSonic]

If he left such gross generalizations out of his descriptions, I think people would not be so averse to the content of what he says, but crappy statements like that permeates all of his work.

The thing is that what I said is straight from the horse's mouth. He TOLD me that his system is designed to be original, NOT logically consistent. I'm sure he still WANTS it to be that way but it's definitely of secondary importance here.

[Hitta]

The thing is that what I said is straight from the horse's mouth. He TOLD me that his system is designed to be original, NOT logically consistent. I'm sure he still WANTS it to be that way but it's definitely of secondary importance here.

Um I never said that.

[Phaedrus]

I thought Ti was more reasonable than that, using your own observations, but also checking outside sources to see if they line up at all with other's observations and such.

No, that is not Ti. Ti includes an aversion towards outside sources. What you are talking about is Te.

[MysticSonic]

Yea, you told me that in an AIM conversation. Maybe I misinterpreted but I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you said(Not that you DIDN'T want it to be logically consistent, but that everything you do is done in a way that is an attempt at being original)

[MysticSonic]

"No, that is not Ti. Ti includes an aversion towards outside sources. What you are talking about is Te."

No, there's no AVERSION. Ti itself has no aversion to anything, it just functions the way it does(internally.) However, that doesn't mean a Ti type is averse to external sources of information. It's not like we go throughout life as robotic slaves to our ideas that are fixed, set, and permanent and can never be changed by outside information.

[Phaedrus]

"No, that is not Ti. Ti includes an aversion towards outside sources. What you are talking about is Te."

No, there's no AVERSION. Ti itself has no aversion to anything, it just functions the way it does(internally.)

Maybe we shouldn't call it "aversion", but I think you get my point. Ti is about the realization of subjective ideas, as described by Jung. is not another function than Ti in Jung's sense. It's the exact same thinking process.

However, that doesn't mean a Ti type is averse to external sources of information. It's not like we go throughout life as robotic slaves to our ideas that are fixed, set, and permanent and can never be changed by outside information.

You are wrong, because that is exactly what it means. That's exactly what a Ti type is averse to, and that's exactly how leading Ti types are going throughout life. It is of course an exaggeration, but you have actually managed to describe the essence of a leading type's relation to the world almost perfectly.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Maybe we shouldn't call it "aversion", but I think you get my point. Ti is about the realization of subjective ideas, as described by Jung. is not another function than Ti in Jung's sense. It's the exact same thinking process.

I think all rational functions can realise information from subjective ideas. What it realises though should vary between the rational functions.

You are wrong, because that is exactly what it means. That's exactly what a Ti type is averse to, and that's exactly how leading Ti types are going throughout life. It is of course an exaggeration, but you have actually managed to describe the essence of a leading type's relation to the world almost perfectly.

Doesn't Ti take in external information and break it down into dissected rational parts. It must take in external information or it would have nothing to dissect.

[Phaedrus]

Doesn't Ti take in external information and break it down into dissected rational parts.

No. That is not the essence of Ti. Ti is not particularly interested in external information.

It must take in external information or it would have nothing to dissect.

It can dissect its own subjective ideas and concepts. The typical example of a Ti philosopher is someone who analyzes the categories by which he perceives reality (Kant is the prototype here). External reality itself is redundant, uninteresting, and may not even exist according to the INTj.

Whenever people are talking about taking in external information and then trying to make sense of it, as if putting the pieces of information together to form a coherent whole -- to "solve the puzzle" so to speak -- they are describing a way of thinking that is prototypical of the INTp, not the INTj.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

No. That is not the essence of Ti. Ti is not particularly interested in external information.


It can dissect its own subjective ideas and concepts. The typical example of a Ti philosopher is someone who analyzes the categories by which he perceives reality (Kant is the prototype here). External reality itself is redundant, uninteresting, and may not even exist according to the INTj.

I'm not so convinced about this. For instance where would it get its own subjective ideas and concepts? It formulates them but the primary source is what comes from outwith to create them.

I think the irrational functions of Si and especially Ni are more concerned with internal-ness. I'm not trying to split hairs but Si could be said to concern witi internal body and Ni could be said to be concerned with internal <mentallity> ..well it can go anywhere internally..certainly more mentally concerned than a basic definition of Si. I do believe that a product is not necessarily Ti's main concern (if you agree on that) but it still must take its information from external sources to internally rationalise. I don't think Si or Ni need the external influence like this. Ti relies on it more.

Whenever people are talking about taking in external information and then trying to make sense of it, as if putting the pieces of information together to form a coherent whole -- to "solve the puzzle" so to speak -- they are describing a way of thinking that is prototypical of the INTp, not the INTj.

Are you meaning by a coherent whole, as in terms of unifying theories and what have you? I can see how both an INTj and INTp can do this. INTp using Te to make sense of the whole as provided by their Ni, INTj using Ne to produce a global outlook based on a Ti 'dissection'

But you think the INTj approach does not involve taking in information because of their dominant Ti?

[Phaedrus]

I'm not so convinced about this. For instance where would it get its own subjective ideas and concepts? It formulates them but the primary source is what comes from outwith to create them.

You are not convinced!? Who cares? If you want to invent your own theory that you think is better than Augusta's and Jung's, you can of course do that. But argue for it then. It's an indisputable fact anyway that INTj philosophers are like they are described in the type descriptions.

I think the irrational functions of Si and especially Ni are more concerned with internal-ness. I'm not trying to split hairs but Si could be said to concern witi internal body and Ni could be said to be concerned with internal <mentallity> ..well it can go anywhere internally..certainly more mentally concerned than a basic definition of Si. I do believe that a product is not necessarily Ti's main concern (if you agree on that) but it still must take its information from external sources to internally rationalise. I don't think Si or Ni need the external influence like this. Ti relies on it more.

What you happen to think is rather irrelevant, and I can't see that your personal speculations here have any value unless you try to back them up with empirical evidence.

Are you meaning by a coherent whole, as in terms of unifying theories and what have you?

Yes, that's a special case of it and a pretty good example (but not the only one) of the puzzle-solving I am talking about.

I can see how both an INTj and INTp can do this.

Maybe. But INTps are much better at it.

INTp using Te to make sense of the whole as provided by their Ni, INTj using Ne to produce a global outlook based on a Ti 'dissection'

And how do you think the INTj could use that kind of thinking to unify theories and create the "wholeness" we are talking about here? It's not going to happen, because that is not the INTj's forte.

But you think the INTj approach does not involve taking in information because of their dominant Ti?

Where have you got that idea from? Have you read it in the MBTT type descriptions? is not a perceiving/irrational function. When will you people learn that?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You are not convinced!? Who cares? If you want to invent your own theory that you think is better than Augusta's and Jung's, you can of course do that. But argue for it then. It's an indisputable fact anyway that INTj philosophers are like they are described in the type descriptions.

I haven't said one thing that disagrees Jung/Augusta and socionics. However if I wanted to I would. It was not that long ago were you yourself said you disagreed witi Jung's descripto of Ni.

So I find it strange how you believe your interpretation is the only way.

PS Why do you go on about philosophers all the time. Why not use examples of people that we can all quantify in the current situation.

What you happen to think is rather irrelevant, and I can't see that your personal speculations here have any value unless you try to back them up with empirical evidence.

This whole conversation is theoretical. How can you show a function IRL in action? You can't really because IRL they happen to come wrapped up with another seven. Maybe what you think is irrelevant. I don't care.

Yes, that's a special case of it and a pretty good example (but not the only one) of the puzzle-solving I am talking about.

Why not explain what you are talking about for a change.

Maybe. But INTps are much better at it.

How can this be proven? You ask for empirical evidence and say opinions do not matter, but then you go and do this exact same thing right here.

And how do you think the INTj could use that kind of thinking to unify theories and create the "wholeness" we are talking about here? It's not going to happen, because that is not the INTj's forte.

OK..Reverse question..where is your unifying theory of wholeness. You know you could answer your question also!

Where have you got that idea from? Have you read it in the MBTT type descriptions? is not a perceiving/irrational function. When will you people learn that?

I never said Ti was an irrational function. It is a rational function.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Ti concerns the development of systematic understandings in your head; the constructions of "logical" links of information without "ethical" influences. For example, LIIs enjoy recognizing and checking for logical consistency. This is why Phaedrus took issue with what you said, Cyclops.

Of course LIIs take in information from the outside environment, eg: watch the news on TV and read text books. That said, the placement/ordering of the functions according to Model A has to be acknowledged to appreciate the way in which an INTj "metabolizes information" (which is again what Phaedrus, in an extremely exaggerated fashion, was referring to I think). (If not, then he's wrong.)

I think I see what you mean. So therefore INTj would produce their Ti accepting information by means of their Ne?

Sorry if my brain is acting a little slow this morning..how would that work for say ISTp..if it takes it's information in by Si, it then produces by Te? Does this mean that the only Te I can produce is by how information relates to how it affects say, internal sensations in the body? I'm struggling with that as essentially I think that particular Te is more flexible than that. (it's just an example, hopefully not getting off topic)

[Phaedrus]

So I find it strange how you believe your interpretation is the only way.

Every one that has an opinion believes that their interpretation is the only way (or rather the correct way, that their interpretation is true), so of course I believe that I am right.

PS Why do you go on about philosophers all the time. Why not use examples of people that we can all quantify in the current situation.

Famous thinkers make the best illustrations of different kinds of thinking.

This whole conversation is theoretical. How can you show a function IRL in action? You can't really because IRL they happen to come wrapped up with another seven. Maybe what you think is irrelevant. I don't care.

You tend not to care about the important things, and that's rather irritating. If you want a very clear example of IRL in action, you should look at Vladimir Putin's leadership. And I have already said that tcaudilllg's posts are great examples of in writing. And of course Kant's philosophy is a clear example of a world outlook.

Why not explain what you are talking about for a change.

Read some INTP/ILI type descriptions, or read Lenore Thomson's explanations of "Ti". They are all about the puzzle-solving and making a coherent whole out of lots of different pieces of information.

How can this be proven? You ask for empirical evidence and say opinions do not matter, but then you go and do this exact same thing right here.

It is already proven. Just look at real life examples of each type. Who are the synthesizers of different perspectives? Who try to unify different areas of human knowledge in a non-systematic, probing way? Who make giant intuitive leaps and say that they have found general meta patterns that are there to see for every one who is willing to make the effort to study vast different areas of science? The ILIs of course.

OK..Reverse question..where is your unifying theory of wholeness. You know you could answer your question also!

Of course. I have seen several rather clear general patterns in different areas of science, but the most relevant and interesting in this context is of course the ABCD=ABCd thesis, which people tend to dismiss without really investigating it. And most people here tend to misunderstand it too.

I never said Ti was an irrational function. It is a rational function.

So, why do you talk about it as if it was an irrational function then?

[Phaedrus]

Ti concerns the development of systematic understandings in your head; the constructions of "logical" links of information without "ethical" influences. For example, LIIs enjoy recognizing and checking for logical consistency.

No, they don't. That is one of the most widespread myths on this forum. ILIs enjoy doing that, LIIs tend not to bother. Check your prejudices against real life examples of each type, Carla.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Is this what you mean?

From Wikisocion (LII, Extroverted Intuition):


Also, Jonathon made a similar point here:

Yes that makes sense. Thanks for looking that out. My current line of thought is that someone of a type may follow the same general course, but that the functions are also dynamic so it's quite possible that an LII may do or produce something rather unexpected, but hey there still LII!

[Phaedrus]

I'm an ILI. Hi Gamma!

This is nothing to joke about. If you took the types seriously, you would not be so sure of your own type. You seem to be not totally sure whether you are an LII or an ILE, but that only proves that you haven't understood any of those two types correctly. If you had, you wouldn't be in any doubt about them. And if so, it is not impossible that you are neither of them.

Over and over again people reveal that they haven't read the type descriptions, because they describe the types incorrectly. ILIs are the fault finders, the critics, the ones that always point out logical inconsistencies wherever they find them. LIIs are nothing like that. Read the type descriptions and see for yourself.

[Phaedrus]

Please describe Ti for us, Phaedrus. IN YOUR OWN WORDS. We would like to learn.

That is just dumb. The functions have already been described many, many times by different people, and it is totally pointless to try to invent the wheel again. What you should do is to look at real life examples of manifestations of . I have already suggested where you could look to see if you are interested. Putin is an extremely obvious example of a leading type. Try to understand his agenda. And try to understand tcaudilllg's. I don't know what it is like to actually experience the world through the lens of leading , I can only observe the manifestations of that function.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

This is nothing to joke about. If you took the types seriously, you would not be so sure of your own type. You seem to be not totally sure whether you are an LII or an ILE, but that only proves that you haven't understood any of those two types correctly. If you had, you wouldn't be in any doubt about them. And if so, it is not impossible that you are neither of them.

Then isn't it ironic that so many people doubt your type on this forum and also on the socionics.com forum

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Oh no, it's not dumb. Your help in this capacity would aid me a great deal. Perhaps I was too hasty to believe you capable of describing Ti though. Could you please just describe Ni then, since your expertise in this matter must be insurmountable. Also, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on Te. Maybe then we could do a comparison to Ti from other sources. What do you say?

A few months ago on socionics.com a few of us asked him to describe Te. He couldn't do it. I then described my Te and he said it was the same as his.

We then asked him to describe Ni and he said he couldn't do it.

He is actually unable to describe the functions, including his own.

This so called ILI is a fake.

[Phaedrus]

Oh no, it's not dumb. Your help in this capacity would aid me a great deal. Perhaps I was too hasty to believe you capable of describing Ti though. Could you please just describe Ni then, since your expertise in this matter must be insurmountable. Also, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on Te. Maybe then we could do a comparison to Ti from other sources. What do you say?

We could make a try to do something, but one problem is where to start. I am totally convinced that we should always try to understand the functions in relation to a specific, observable behaviour in a person whose type we are certain of. We should never start with the functions in isolation, we should always start with the types.

[Expat]

I think it's worth mentioning that in socionics - not in Jung's typology, not in MBTT, but in socionics - functions were conceived by Augusta as means to explain intertype relationships. Intertype relationships are not something secondary, or something that "just happens" in a mysterious way between types. Any description of, say, must also explain why is it about it that dominants appreciate (even expect) in others above all; any description of must also make sense as something that EIEs and ESEs expect from others (and are disappointed if they don't get it).

If you take, say, Peter Singer as example of ILI and start using specific behavior traits or apparent thinking patterns as illustrative of "functions", that can only work if you take the above in consideration. Otherwise you're not talking of socionics.

[krieger]

The funny -- or should I say, distressing -- thing about Phaedrus' claims of what the alpha NT mindset constitutes, is that if they are true, not only would Caudill indeed be the prototypical example of an INTj, he'd also be the only INTj in existence.

[Phaedrus]

By the way, as an LII or an ILI or whatever the hell type you want to think that I am, simply looking at the manifestations and type descriptions won't do.

We agree on that. It's not enough to look at reality, but I think that it is a necessary starting point. We understand the functions and the theory by comparing type descriptions, functions descriptions, intertype relations descriptions, etc. with the real thing, that is real life examples of each type. And in doing that we need to look at V.I., behaviours of real life persons (famous people, our personal friends, co-workers, etc.), perhaps read biographies, study interactions between people, etc, etc.

I need to understand ... construct those logical systems for myself ... you know, the ones you say that LIIs don't like to construct ... and come to my own conclusions from there.

I have never said that LIIs don't like to construct systems -- that's one of their favourite occupations. And here you almost seem to prove my point; you show a reluctance towards looking at empirical evidence in the form of descriptions of behaviours and their manifestations in the actions of real life people, preferring instead to construct a theory or a system from which you can then draw your own conclusions by laying that theoretical filter on reality itself and see the world through those theoretical lens. That is exactly the kind of attitude I would expect from a leading type.

Kind of like yourself, since you're an ILI too ... oh wait, there's another logical inconsistency there ... since you don't like coming to your own conclusions and prefer to refer to type descriptions and all ...

Hopefully, you are now in a better position to see the difference between my approach as an ILI and the approach I described above. To an external observer (there are many such creatures on this forum) our approaches might seem very similar, but they are not identical. There is a very clear difference in approach there to see if we look more closely, and if we understand that difference we get a better understanding of , creative and perhaps also of and creative .

[strrrng]

Ti concerns the development of systematic understandings in your head; the constructions of "logical" links of information without "ethical" influences. For example, LIIs enjoy recognizing and checking for logical consistency.

"systematic understandings in your head" is much too vague. also, it's not about logical links and excluding ethical ones; everyone makes logical links every day.

I can understand what you're saying, but it's not a valid description for someone new to socionics. Ti concerns itself with internal logical structure. It is obviously more abstract than its counterpart, Te, because, to quote jung, the path always starts and ends at the subject. It only takes in external information to use to reconstruct the internal model.

on a more general note, thinking that people who don't value/are weak in Ti can't think logically, make sharp distinctions...that people who use Ti are hair-splitting scientists...that's pointless. A Ti valuing person just likes to have some conceptual structure.

[Phaedrus]

The funny -- or should I say, distressing -- thing about Phaedrus' claims of what the alpha NT mindset constitutes, is that if they are true, not only would Caudill indeed be the prototypical example of an INTj, he'd also be the only INTj in existence.

It's an important comment you make here. I think it is worth discussing some more.

In my opinion, tcaudilllg seems to fit the classical conception of an LII, as that type and its behaviour and attitudes are described in the Socionic type descriptions. He also fits my own understanding and "intuitive picture" of the LII, as it has been formed by my readings of many different type descriptions and encounters with real life specimens of that type.

I don't know how many of the members of this forum are real LIIs. You seem to suggest that there are some self-typed "LIIs" here that are clearly different from tcaudilllg. Maybe that's true, I'm not sure. But I have no reason to doubt that tcaudilllg really is an LII, because he fits every LII type description I know of, he writes in a typical style, he has studied the theory a lot and come up with his own, and he seems to have no doubt about the correctness of his own self-typing. Everything fits, every piece of evidence seems to point in the same direction -- so I simply must believe that he is an LII. You cannot be much more certain than that of another person's type if you haven't met face to face or seen videos of them.

Now, if other "LIIs" on this forum are very different from tcaudilllg, they are the ones (not tcaudilllg) who should start to have second thoughts about the correctness of their self-typings. Those who believe that they are LIIs should definitely compare themselves with tcaudilllg.

[Hitta]

Everything is reliant on external functioning, Ne is the function that determines whether a person is objective(absolutism) or subjective(relativism). True subjectivity doesn't exist though, because everything always has to be based on external information. Thats not to say that the objectivity isn't different for each person making things relative or subjective in nature. Ti requires information to work, therefore making it an external function(though it is introverted and internal in nature). What is meant by introverted and extraverted is basically throught processes v.s. reactions and perceptions. Ti is a thought process. It is the common thought process, or the thought process most recognized. Everyone has to have Ti because everyone has to make rational decisions. Fi takes this external objective information(though it may be subjective in ideology as based by Ne) and makes a internal judgment. This is where model A fails, because everyone has to have both internal and external information in all areas of the psyche. Its time people start understanding model B, because it is a hell of a lot better model than A. Though model B is a redundancy of model A. For example, and INTj that has -Ti in his ego block, will automatically have a distaste for +Ti which is why +Ti is where it is at in model B. +Se is INTjs PoLR, so the INTj must have a -Se agenda. Its common sense really, and it becomes painful to try to explain it to the people here, especially when they aren't really concerned and are unwillingly to change their set ideologies. There has been no logic to prove model B incorrect, yet the people here just pass it up like its some hobo on the side of the street. Its really pathetic.

[strrrng]

Yeah, this is what I was trying to get at. (Acknowledged that "in your head" was a bad way to put it.)

yeah, and it wasn't a lack of understanding on your part. I have found that when Ti people try to explain things, they can appear kind of vague, due to the nature of the function

Everything is reliant on external functioning...True subjectivity doesn't exist though, because everything always has to be based on external information. Thats not to say that the objectivity isn't different for each person making things relative or subjective in nature.

would you just shut up?! cut the jargonized, pseudo-philosophical bullshit that you spew in an effort to appear smart. questioning the meaning of life on a rainy day and concluding that everything is arbitrary is the mindset that produces dumb shit like this. If you think you're an INTj, which according to you, breaks things down continuously, you should try a little harder.

[Hitta]

yeah, and it wasn't a lack of understanding on your part. I have found that when Ti people try to explain things, they can appear kind of vague, due to the nature of the function



would you just shut up?! cut the jargonized, pseudo-philosophical bullshit that you spew in an effort to appear smart. questioning the meaning of life on a rainy day and concluding that everything is arbitrary is the mindset that produces dumb shit like this. If you think you're an INTj, which according to you, breaks things down continuously, you should try a little harder.

pseudo-philosophical lol, Im just using the IM definitions to describe that. Its not that hard. Die in a fuck. If you don't see that everything that a person knows or does is correlated or as a response to the outside world then you are dumb.

[MysticSonic]

Maybe we shouldn't call it "aversion", but I think you get my point. Ti is about the realization of subjective ideas, as described by Jung. is not another function than Ti in Jung's sense. It's the exact same thinking process.


You are wrong, because that is exactly what it means. That's exactly what a Ti type is averse to, and that's exactly how leading Ti types are going throughout life. It is of course an exaggeration, but you have actually managed to describe the essence of a leading type's relation to the world almost perfectly.

Here you confuse the type with the function. An INTj does not use Ti in isolation, and thus is not necessarily averse to external informatino.

[strrrng]

If you don't see that everything that a person knows or does is correlated or as a response to the outside world then you are dumb.

I have noticed you do this quite a bit. post some arbitray, abstract philosophical claim and then when someone points it out, take some more basic, obvious philosophical claim and say 'how can you disagree?' and of course, anyone can see that...

[Creepy-bg]

i mean look into physics. it teaches us that time is simply a fourth dimension. socionics-wise, time is dynamical and so is Je (, which is Fe and Te) (and Pi). so the "feel" like it's all happenning and dynamic and moving and time elapses is just a trick of our mind. i mean it's just a coordinate system. maybe i'm wrong.

the map is not the territory