Ti vs Ne

[jason_m]

Many people tell me that I sound like I'm using a lot of Ti when I talk, but to me, I'm just generating ideas. And aren't ideas the basis of intuition? If they are, then how do you separate an idea from a thought - assuming that intuition (Ne) generates ideas and thinking (Ti) generates thoughts? And if I'm wrong about what Ne and Ti are about, then what is the real difference between them? Answering these questions would help me understand a lot.

Jason

[Phaedrus]

Many people tell me that I sound like I'm using a lot of Ti when I talk, but to me, I'm just generating ideas. And aren't ideas the basis of intuition?

Good question. Jung was an INTj, and his description of Ti is based on his own thought processes. According to Jung, Ti generates ideas too. However, it is a difference in focus between Ne and Ti, because Ne is about possibilities related to the external world, whereas Ti is about subjective ideas and the thought process itself. It is the nature of your ideas that determines to what function they belong to.

If they are, then how do you separate an idea from a thought - assuming that intuition (Ne) generates ideas and thinking (Ti) generates thoughts?

There's no difference between an idea and a thought. They are the same thing. But some thoughts (ideas) are based on input from external reality, whereas some thoughts (ideas) are based on internal, subjective reality.

Read more about the differences between Ti and Ne here: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

[krieger]

If they are, then how do you separate an idea from a thought - assuming that intuition (Ne) generates ideas and thinking (Ti) generates thoughts?

One approach would be to say that an idea is stand-alone, whereas a thought provides a separation between two given states of affairs. So when you're just saying a word, or pointing at a situation, you're using the perceiving function, whereas when you clearly demarcate the word or situation from another thing, you are using the judging function.

The way I see it, though, no one ever uses their "perceiving" functions without also using their "judging" functions. The separation between the two is itself artificial. After all, there is no real way to identify the properties of a "stand-alone" thing without comparing it to things you have seen before. Hence why recently I have been trying to think in terms of function blocks instead, the main divide being between "introvert" blocks that have underdermined separations and are thus "descriptive", and "extrovert" blocks that have fully determined separations and are thus "demarcative" or "definitive".

[Creepy-Cyclops]

One approach would be to say that an idea is stand-alone, whereas a thought provides a separation between two given states of affairs. So when you're just saying a word, or pointing at a situation, you're using the perceiving function, whereas when you clearly demarcate the word or situation from another thing, you are using the judging function.

The way I see it, though, no one ever uses their "perceiving" functions without also using their "judging" functions. The separation between the two is itself artificial. After all, there is no real way to identify the properties of a "stand-alone" thing without comparing it to things you have seen before. Hence why recently I have been trying to think in terms of function blocks instead, the main divide being between "introvert" blocks that have underdermined separations and are thus "descriptive", and "extrovert" blocks that have fully determined separations and are thus "demarcative" or "definitive".

For percieving types such as myself, I feel I am using the perceiving (dominant Si) function when I am at rest - not particularly thinking of things, just seeing the environment I am in for what it is, as per Si.

[krieger]

For percieving types such as myself, I feel I am using the perceiving (dominant Si) function when I am at rest - not particularly thinking of things, just seeing the environment I am in for what it is, as per Si.

For one thing, if, like you say, you are not thinking about anything, not engaging in any mental activity, you would not be "using socionics functions" at all, IMO.

You link this mental state to your being a perceiving type...

What I know about perceiving types is this: your "dynamic" blocks are "introvert". Applying interpretation I get: when you take in the world around you without engaging in any sort of organizatory activity (this would be use of the "Creating" and "Static" functions), you see the world in terms of "descriptions" in the sense that while you vaguely know that any one thing you see is different from other things you can not say in what exact way without engaging in deeper thought. The knowledge of how things are separated from one another is left in the middle; not thought to be final, not fleshed out enough to be able to lend a solid basis for making decisions.

Us judgers are different in this respect. When we look at the world in a passive, inactive way, we are already naming separations. The funny thing is, we become more and more vague and descriptive as we start thinking more deeply about the separations we see in the world. You could say that perceivers are trying to turn something vague into something clearly defined, whereas judgers are trying to create something vague from something clearly defined. Though I should warn that there are other parts of the socionics system that have been described in an uncanilly similar way...

[Phaedrus]

You could say that perceivers are trying to turn something vague into something clearly defined, whereas judgers are trying to create something vague from something clearly defined.

This is important.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

For one thing, if, like you say, you are not thinking about anything, not engaging in any mental activity, you would not be "using socionics functions" at all, IMO.

You link this mental state to your being a perceiving type...

What I know about perceiving types is this: your "dynamic" blocks are "introvert". Applying interpretation I get: when you take in the world around you without engaging in any sort of organizatory activity (this would be use of the "Creating" and "Static" functions), you see the world in terms of "descriptions" in the sense that while you vaguely know that any one thing you see is different from other things you can not say in what exact way without engaging in deeper thought. The knowledge of how things are separated from one another is left in the middle; not thought to be final, not fleshed out enough to be able to lend a solid basis for making decisions.

Us judgers are different in this respect. When we look at the world in a passive, inactive way, we are already naming separations. The funny thing is, we become more and more vague and descriptive as we start thinking more deeply about the separations we see in the world. You could say that perceivers are trying to turn something vague into something clearly defined, whereas judgers are trying to create something vague from something clearly defined. Though I should warn that there are other parts of the socionics system that have been described in an uncanilly similar way...

Interesting. I've heard dominant N types say in this situation that they feel "lost" .... like there is like a set of juggling balls in their head sitting in mid air, in suspension. Not something i've experienced. I haven't spoke to enough people about it, so I'm not sure how this relates in terms of a correlation of functions, of dominant N or S functions...if at all of course!