Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: The Straight Deal with Ti: Extended Functional Description

  1. #1
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The Straight Deal with Ti: Extended Functional Description

    Ti – External Field Statics (EFS)

    - By Steve

    Ti As It Emerges from the Theory:

    Ti, like the other three introverted functions, is a field function. With field functions the person sees the relationship that exists between things, and is personally affected by this relationship/field. Thus the output of the field functions consists of personalized data selectively filtered to center around either a unifying evolving essence, as with the dynamic field functions Si and Ni, or a unifying central criterion, as with the static field functions Ti and Fi.

    Ti is a judging function, along with Fi, Te and Fe. Perceiving functions involve a passive mode of receiving information, allowing information to flow in “as is” more or less. Judging functions on the other hand involve an active mode toward information. Judging functions exert control and shape the information that comes in - in other words they modify the natural state/states of reality into processed outcomes. You could liken the Judging functions to taking natural ingredients and combining them to produce processed food - think of taking a bunch of wheat and oats, modifying it from its natural state (dry long stalks), and turning it into a rectangular granola bar.

    There are two sides of reality, the external and internal. The Judging functions that shape and modify external information are the “thinking functions” Ti and Te (External Field Statics and External Object Dynamics respectively), while the Judging functions that shape/modify internal information are the “feeling functions” Fi and Fe (Internal Field Statics and Internal Object Dynamics respectively). The way the thinking functions operate can resemble “logic” but it is important to note that thinking functions are not logic. Thinking functions are simply ways of shaping/modifying/processing/filtering information from external reality. They may work with information derived from functions that deal with internal reality, but they always turn the internal information into something external (for example Ti making an external structure of different internal Ne observations on things).

    Theoretically speaking, each Judging function resembles a Perceiving function in a modified or altered state. For example, Ti is like frozen Si (external field statics vs. external field dynamics), just as Te is like moving Se, and Fi like frozen Ni. (The connection between specific judging and perceiving functions is to be explored further separately). As you can see, each Judging function can be seen as a modified/altered condition of a natural Perceiving mode. This comparison is useful for showing how a Judging function acts with reality: it takes the raw information from the Perceiving functions (both Perceiving functions in the quadra, and even the already modified output of the complementing Judging function) and filters it, modifies it, processes it, refines it, and makes sense of it.

    Essentially Ti operates by freezing a chunk of external field information, holding it in place, thereby creating it a static “structure”; a “grid of interconnection”. Picture a flowing river with a current (dynamic field), and now picture the river suddenly icing over. Now that the river has ice, we can walk on it, examine it, maybe see a fish or two frozen underneath, as if we’re now seeing a frame or snapshot (static) of the whole interaction (dynamic) that takes place when the river (field) is flowing.

    Ti on a Practical Level:

    Ti analyzes and makes sense of the external reality by unifying it into a personalized structure, determined by personalized criteria. Ti uses these criteria to determine if things are coherent or not, and whether or not something’s relevant. So when it comes to say, solving a problem logically, Ti will revert to its personally determined rules for how reality operates, and use those rules to deduce an appropriate conclusion. A key aspect of the way Ti operates is that it is always seeking to pinpoint fundamental principles or laws that exist behind phenomenon. Once these laws are determined, they are incorporated into the person’s working framework of how the world works. If new phenomena happen that cannot be explained by the person’s existing framework, the person then has to change their unifying criteria to incorporate the new “law” behind the new phenomena.

    When Ti people learn new information, they will most often have to bridge an underlying concept/law in the material with a concept/law that they have solidified from past experience. If they can’t attain a structural connection, the new material will seem random or irrelevant and have no place in the existing working Ti framework.

    For Ti seekers, particularly IXFps, they seek out these “laws/rules” that seem to explain how everything works. Te totally catches them off guard because of its discrete nature, and doesn’t give them the unification they need to properly understand something. Additionally, a Ti hidden agenda type seems particularly content exploring all the different rules of reality/situations that exist for its own sake.

    How Ti Differs from Te:

    Ti analyzes and makes sense of external reality by freezing an entire group of information and unifying it behind personally determined criteria. Te on the other hand takes discrete nodes of data from external reality and extracts them in an evolving linear form into self-contained, sealed-off “objects”. There is no unification of all the nodes, because each node evolves to be slightly different than the previous one. This phenomenon seems to be why Te is misconstrued as simply stating “facts” or reciting “data”. Yes, Te will process and make sense of things in a seemingly linear fashion, going point by point, but it is not “facts” Te is stating (although it may seem like Te-people state the obvious to Ti-people). Instead it is an extraction/interpreting of external reality into discrete representations.

    In summation, Ti is about creating a unified personalized system or framework to understand something, while Te extracts discrete outcomes as information rolls in.
    Last edited by Steve; 08-15-2008 at 09:07 AM.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ...

  3. #3
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting stuff!
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  4. #4
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Great description, Steve! Thanks. (c:
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Yes, Te will process and make sense of things in a seemingly linear fashion, going point by point, but it is not “facts” Te is stating (although it may seem like Te-people state the obvious to Ti-people). Instead it is an extraction/interpreting of external reality into discrete representations.
    Just wondering if you could expand on what you mean by "interpreting of external reality into discrete representations". In what way do the representations end up differing from actual reality?
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  5. #5
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jem View Post
    Great description, Steve! Thanks. (c:
    Just wondering if you could expand on what you mean by "interpreting of external reality into discrete representations". In what way do the representations end up differing from actual reality?
    Thanks

    I had a hard time expressing what exactly Te does there, as I can only look at it from a removed perspective. The "representations" differ from the actual "raw" reality in that Te takes reality and does something with it. It "judges, evaluates, orders, organizes, etc". Ti does the same, but it "judges" reality by systemizing it, while Te seems to extract, prioritize, and create more of a hierarchy with it (again, Te people, feel free to help me out on this). Te to me feels like it's got these bits of concluded information that are wrapped in themselves and seem like meaningless data until I can connect all the bits together, if that makes sense.

    Also I want to clarify something regarding the thinking functions focusing on external reality. The thinking functions do work in the external domain, but they may take input from functions that work in the internal domain and do something external with that input. The end product of a thinking function is always something external.

    Btw I also noticed something interesting and I was going to write about it in the article where I was talking about Ti being like frozen Si:

    It seems like the external field functions have a natural partnership with each other, as do the internal object functions, external object functions, and internal field functions. It turns out that the two external field functions and two internal object functions are paired together in Alpha, while the two external object functions and two internal field functions are paired together in Gamma. Also, Alpha and Gamma are both Democratic quadras, while Beta and Delta, the quadras where each Judging function is not paired with its natural perceiving counterpart, are Aristocratic. It's something to look more into.

  6. #6
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ok thanks
    "Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK, so you see Ti as automatically condensing say, a receptical to a synaps, like a neuron does. That's interesting in that you believe Ti actually links stuff together, as opposed to simply being the link itself. But that doesn't make sense, because it's the laws of attraction which fuse things together. (-Fi) Isn't Ti simply the state of their togetherness? That is, Ti emerges in the context of Fi and is a consequence of it. If it were dynamic, in that it can actually do something, then it couldn't be static.

    If I've got two oxygen atoms which are chemically bonded, then they form a molecule of oxygen: that is their Ti state. They are bonded because there is a polar attraction between them and on basis of that, a continuous flow of work: if you change one of them, the other will change in response. Observing that the work triggers the relation between the two, is the basis of the Ti observation. There is no "connecting" as we vaguely think of it, but rather a pathway of work between the two. When you test an +Ne possibility against the actual potential of objects, any relation between the objects is revealed, and we call that the cause-effect relationship (-Ti) of one object to another, on basis of which, like you mentioned, we improve our own understanding (+Ti) of cause-effect.

  8. #8
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti is about the nature of the connection, along with the outcomes that arise as a result of going through the system governed by certain rules.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Ti is about the nature of the connection, along with the outcomes that arise as a result of going through the system governed by certain rules.
    Correct, but what are those "rules", really? Where did they come from? Or if they come from nothing, what is their nature?

    It seems to me that you've got principles, which could not be anything other than they are (conserved -Ti)... but what other -Ti is there? Let's see: you've got the authoritative aspect of -Ti, in which objects which similar principles are compounded onto each other, and onto each other, and you can see the same principle at work at every level. (like attraction, for example) If one principle invocation is made at a higher level, then it is also happening between all the lower complexity objects. (the constituents of the participants in the effect). So that's another aspect of -Ti, the commutative aspect.

  10. #10
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The rules come from the person's experience, and the rules explain all of that past experience so the person could understand it.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    The rules come from the person's experience, and the rules explain all of that past experience so the person could understand it.
    Well you have indeed offered a good summary of what we know of Ti today. But, there is more to learn....

  12. #12
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,725
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    great description of Ti steve....almost exactly the way i think.

    there are interesting implications for rational and irrational types. if we extrapolate from what you wrote it would seem that rational types mold reality to their own interpretation much more than irrational types, since the rational function is in the leading position. that, rational types bend reality more than irrational types. is this exactly so?

    who's to say whose reality is more "real"? as an irrational, i naturally think the irrational method of perceiving things is more accurate and close to nature.....but again who's to say?

    but, naturally, it is easy to see then why rationals and irrationals have difficulty at a close distance.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

Posting Permissions

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