Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Introverted Logic

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Introverted Logic

    I've seen be described in a number of ways. For example, it has been described as a feeling of confidence in the truth of an idea. I don't identify with this. I think that that is more of a gut feeling, and I would think that, by its very nature, is a rational thought process, not just a feeling. I've also seen it described in certain ways that I think are too specialized. For example, as "constructing models" or "using formal logic." I think that these are things that depend more on one's profession than one's inherent skills.

    I've been trying to see how I use . I realize that is essentially the random insights I get - possibilities, really. I think that, for me, could be defined as comprehension. I think that it would be defined this way because this is the one part of my thought process that I use a lot and that doesn't fit neatly into any of the other information elements. It could be comprehending a theory, a situation, or a state of reality. The key is not just that I know what, but that I know why. For example, I might believe that I should vote for a specific party in the next election. However, it isn't enough that I simply have a gut feeling as to who to vote for. I have find reasons to comprehend why each party would (and would not) be beneficial to the country, and why it would (and would not) be superior to the other potential parties. After seeing which one would fit the criteria the best, I would decide.

    Does this sound like to you? If not, how would you define it?

    Jason
    LII

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've seen be described in a number of ways. For example, it has been described as a feeling of confidence in the truth of an idea. I don't identify with this. I think that that is more of a gut feeling, and I would think that, by its very nature, is a rational thought process, not just a feeling. I've also seen it described in certain ways that I think are too specialized. For example, as "constructing models" or "using formal logic." I think that these are things that depend more on one's profession than one's inherent skills.

    I've been trying to see how I use . I realize that is essentially the random insights I get - possibilities, really. I think that, for me, could be defined as comprehension. I think that it would be defined this way because this is the one part of my thought process that I use a lot and that doesn't fit neatly into any of the other information elements. It could be comprehending a theory, a situation, or a state of reality. The key is not just that I know what, but that I know why. For example, I might believe that I should vote for a specific party in the next election. However, it isn't enough that I simply have a gut feeling as to who to vote for. I have find reasons to comprehend why each party would (and would not) be beneficial to the country, and why it would (and would not) be superior to the other potential parties. After seeing which one would fit the criteria the best, I would decide.

    Does this sound like to you? If not, how would you define it?
    No, this does not at all sound like . In fact you reason much more like an INTp than an INTj in this post. And the structure of your post is also much more like than like . Whatever type you really are, you are most likely not an INTj.

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm sorry to give you a harsh reality check, but so much of what you said was bullshit on top of other bullshit, there are a few facts in there but I'd rather not dig through all the stinky shit to get them.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The most consistent definition of Ti that I've managed is "position", whether in space; in some abstract plane; or in a heiarchy of causes and effects. Coupled with Se, it tends to be experienced as a plane of points; with Ne, it's various forms of causal heiarchy.

    There is a relationship between Fi and Ti in that Fi is your orientation, what you are looking for and where you are heading to find it. To actually put yourself in position to receive what you want, you must use Ti. There is also the factor that depending on your position of closeness to one person or another, your orientation will change because you are always headed towards the first object which meets your requirements.

    You can of course also be caused to dislike a person by what they have done to harm you, the deeds they've caused.

  5. #5
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    My input:

    Ti is mostly all about evaluating the suitability of an end-result in a snap-shot way. The emphasis is on the judgment, not on it's justification or on it's origin.

    Ne is about undestanding things-in-themselves (actual objects, not their presentation; not language, words and images but what these refer to in reality) in terms of what catagories these are members of. In other words, it is a generalizing form of learning with an emphasis on objects themselves rather than on their presentation. Anything an Ne type learns about an object, teaches them about all objects that share properties with said object. This is similar to Ni, which generalizes over the presentation of things.

    When combined, Ne and Ti create a form of thinking where the person interfaces with reality in a direct way, receiving an understanding of things that they can not track back to it's origin. It is as if one "experiences" the actual object or situation directly, despite that what one actually receives is only a collection of images, sounds and words. The step of going from these images/sounds/words to an understanding of what exists behind the screens is bypassed.* Contrast this to the "Darwinnian" exactitude of gamma NT thought, in which the person doesn't allow him/herself to form any sort of conception of the object until careful inference from (possibly recorded and documented) observation singles one out. The former quickly attains volume. The latter is painfully slow, but accurate.

    The key is not just that I know what, but that I know why. For example, I might believe that I should vote for a specific party in the next election. However, it isn't enough that I simply have a gut feeling as to who to vote for. I have find reasons to comprehend why each party would (and would not) be beneficial to the country, and why it would (and would not) be superior to the other potential parties. After seeing which one would fit the criteria the best, I would decide.
    One question you could ask yourself is: do you just want to comprehend the reason for a decision, or do you also want to be able to proove and justify the validity of the decision (to the extent this is possible)? Which of these is more important?

    * I can decribe this way of thinking from a 1st person perspective because I have been using it to form an understanding of the behavior of my new cat for the last few weeks by thinking this way.

  6. #6
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    My input:

    Ti is mostly all about evaluating the suitability of an end-result in a snap-shot way. The emphasis is on the judgment, not on it's justification or on it's origin.
    LOL, that sounds like the 'result' form of -leading. I would say that iT is more of an unending 'process' of refining logic in order to find the most optimal position with regard to perceptual inputs. The pursuit of a logical 'position' in the context of relevant qualia is an idea that I share with tcaudilllg.

  7. #7
    <something> Wynch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On a Hill
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    3,910
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ti is often referred to as structural logic. I suppose that's true, in that its use can manifest rather structurally, and all static thinkers have a generally "structural" mode of constructing their thoughts.

    IMO, Ti is a true/false, yes/no works/does-not-work perspective in the same way that Fi is often considered a good/bad, yes/no, like/dislike perspective. Additionally, Ti is relationary: it sees how pieces will fit together properly. Can it be made to work (Ti and Ne in conjunction), does this work/is this functionable (Ti and Se in conjunction)?

    If you want to go by Augusta logic, then break it down to it's components: External Static of Fields. People will always have varying opinions from there. I'm too sick and lazy to extrapolate at the moment, but I may come back later and flesh out this thought.
    ILE
    7w8 so/sp

    Very busy with work. Only kind of around.

  8. #8
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mn0good View Post
    Ti is often referred to as structural logic. I suppose that's true, in that its use can manifest rather structurally, and all static thinkers have a generally "structural" mode of constructing their thoughts.

    IMO, Ti is a true/false, yes/no works/does-not-work perspective in the same way that Fi is often considered a good/bad, yes/no, like/dislike perspective. Additionally, Ti is relationary: it sees how pieces will fit together properly. Can it be made to work (Ti and Ne in conjunction), does this work/is this functionable (Ti and Se in conjunction)?

    If you want to go by Augusta logic, then break it down to it's components: External Static of Fields. People will always have varying opinions from there. I'm too sick and lazy to extrapolate at the moment, but I may come back later and flesh out this thought.
    I'm sorry you're sick! and lazy (although I'm lazy too. but I'm sorry about that too). Um, actually I really like your description of Ti here. I have nothing to add. Feel better soon!
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  9. #9
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post

    When combined, Ne and Ti create a form of thinking where the person interfaces with reality in a direct way, receiving an understanding of things that they can not track back to it's origin. It is as if one "experiences" the actual object or situation directly, despite that what one actually receives is only a collection of images, sounds and words. The step of going from these images/sounds/words to an understanding of what exists behind the screens is bypassed.
    Are you saying that one is operating with the representations of the reality rather than with the reality itself, and hoping that it will produce the result one is trying to attain? If it succeeds, it is OK. Otherwise,you just take another criteria. ???

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Are you saying that one is operating with the representations of the reality rather than with the reality itself, and hoping that it will produce the result one is trying to attain? If it succeeds, it is OK. Otherwise,you just take another criteria. ???
    The person is not trying to "attain" any result; s/he is just trying to understand the object s/he studies, to represent it as true to reality as possible. Both reality and the representation in the mind play a part in this process as the latter is being adjusted to the former. Usually the person first makes a set of "gambled" assumptions, then eliminates these one by one as new observations come to disallow them. This "making of gambled assumptions" is where Ne's "generalized learning" comes in. If you take a person who has "gambled" but not "eliminated" you could say you've got a person that works with a representation that has no counterpart in reality, but this is an intermediate product of the thought process, not the end-result of it.

  11. #11
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    I'm sorry to give you a harsh reality check, but so much of what you said was bullshit on top of other bullshit, there are a few facts in there but I'd rather not dig through all the stinky shit to get them.
    And I'm sorry to give you a harsh reality check, but your argument is not an argument at all. In fact, I could do the same thing: much of what you said here is bullshit. There may be some truth to it, but I'd rather not explain my point and just make vague insulting comments that are, in essence, meaningless.

    Jason
    LII

  12. #12
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    One question you could ask yourself is: do you just want to comprehend the reason for a decision, or do you also want to be able to proove and justify the validity of the decision (to the extent this is possible)? Which of these is more important?
    It's important for me to justify the validity of my decision, but I don't hold the illusion that it's necessarily valid. Most things are too complex, IMO, to necessarily know the exact truth. That's why, for example, scientific theories are always being overturned, or why intelligent people often disagree about who should be elected.

    Jason
    LII

  13. #13
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    The person is not trying to "attain" any result; s/he is just trying to understand the object s/he studies, to represent it as true to reality as possible. Both reality and the representation in the mind play a part in this process as the latter is being adjusted to the former. Usually the person first makes a set of "gambled" assumptions, then eliminates these one by one as new observations come to disallow them. This "making of gambled assumptions" is where Ne's "generalized learning" comes in. If you take a person who has "gambled" but not "eliminated" you could say you've got a person that works with a representation that has no counterpart in reality, but this is an intermediate product of the thought process, not the end-result of it.
    The process of elimination that you mentioned seems pretty typical of the 'negativist' types (Synthetic and Holographic Thinkers, or Autocratic Extroverts and Democratic Introverts), and specifically for holographic thinkers like yourself who would require this type of consolidation to retain a purity of vision. I have recently correlated Gulenko's thought patterns in terms of supervision rings and epistemological biases, and the insights I have received on the rationale of each type has been unprecedented:

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    ILE/SEE (Cause-Effect)
    Deterministic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception

    LII/ESI (Holographic)
    Deterministic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment

    SEI/ILI (Synthetic)
    Probabilistic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception

    ESE/LIE (Vortex)
    Probabilistic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment

    LSI/EII (Cause-Effect)
    Deterministic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Judgment

    SLE/IEE (Holographic)
    Deterministic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Perception

    EIE/LSE (Synthetic)
    Probabilistic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Judgment

    IEI/SLI (Vortex)
    Probabilistic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Perception
    Last edited by Nexus; 10-02-2008 at 12:37 AM.

  14. #14
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    specifically for holographic thinkers like yourself who would require this type of consolidation to retain a purity of vision.
    Surely there are types that are interested in developing ideas apart from any consideration as to how they link up with anything real and working, and types that are less so. I would consider it a good thing if my type belonged to the second catagory. On the whole, though, this process of attempted suggestion -> elimination is something that holds true of thought in general. The types really only differ in the extent to which they offer attention to each of these stages, and which they delegate to others or simply expect to receive the products of from their environment. We all "require this type of consolidation to retain purity of vision", even if we are not equiped to provide such ourselves. No one gets the purity of vision as a freebie.

  15. #15
    idolatrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    413
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've seen be described in a number of ways. For example, it has been described as a feeling of confidence in the truth of an idea.
    I think that may be more of a Ti + Se experience of Ti, actually. I don't mean in a 'gut instinct' kind of way, which is inexplicable and possibly counterintuitive, but more that you can read something and say 'yeah, that sounds right, that's a good explanation'. And if asked, one can explain why it makes sense, but the immediate understanding of 'rightness' occurs without necessarily thinking each component element of the reasoning through.


    could be defined as comprehension.
    Quote Originally Posted by mn0good View Post
    Ti is often referred to as structural logic. I suppose that's true, in that its use can manifest rather structurally, and all static thinkers have a generally "structural" mode of constructing their thoughts.
    I agree with the use of the word 'comprehension'. But I think it fits only in the sense that for Ti-base types, it is the function that you use to analyse information. So it is comprehension of either Ne or Se material, in the sense of moulding that information taken in into a structure to understand it. I see it as giving you a framework to say 'if this, then that'. That phenomenon occur because of a comprehensible reason. And those reasons could be natural or artificial, but they are due to a structure which can be explained through logic.

    does this work/is this functionable (Ti and Se in conjunction)?
    Hmm...I think that is part of Ti + Se, yeah. I've got to admit that 'functionable' makes me think of Te though. But um, I can't come up with a better one line definition of Ti + Se.

    Quote Originally Posted by tuturututu View Post
    Are you saying that one is operating with the representations of the reality rather than with the reality itself, and hoping that it will produce the result one is trying to attain? If it succeeds, it is OK. Otherwise,you just take another criteria. ???
    If I can take a stab at responding to this from a Ti + Se perspective to compare with the Ti + Ne one already given, I don't think Ti is about creating a representation of reality, or at least not consciously doing so. I see Ti as my means of accessing a Se world. The sensory world, if you will, is my 'reality', or what I take for reality. I navigate it with Ti - linking what I want to achieve with a means of doing so. Perhaps that is what you were referring to? I don't see it as necessarily end-determined, but one does work towards a goal.

    For example, I know I want to come across as professional and mature when I'm teaching - so I make sure I collared shirts and skirts to teach, because I believe it helps to reinforce my position. It is a personal and internalised 'rule', if you will, which I developed as a result of observation. I have a sensory moment I want to achieve (looking professional), which I get by following logic I have developed. Breaking that down feels kind of ridiculous, because I don't actually think 'I have to wear a collared shirt and skirt', it's more that it wouldn't occur to me, without purposely considering it, to rock up to class in jeans and a t-shirt. Because I'm aware of sensory images all the time, and I use my logic to determine which one I want to achieve for any given context.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    It's important for me to justify the validity of my decision, but I don't hold the illusion that it's necessarily valid. Most things are too complex, IMO, to necessarily know the exact truth. That's why, for example, scientific theories are always being overturned, or why intelligent people often disagree about who should be elected.

    Jason
    Yes. A world of yes.
    allez cuisine!

  16. #16
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    884
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Some people here have said that my interpretation of isn't valid. First of all, I wouldn't say that this is the only interpretation. Just like any function, there are several ways in which it can manifest itself. However, it raises an interesting question: if it isn't that I'm talking about, then what is it? I would assume that socionics attempts to divide all ways of processing information into the classifications it has designated. Otherwise, there could be people who don't really fit any designation, because they usually process information in a way that cannot be classified by socionics. So, assuming that what I'm talking about involves one function, it raises the question as to what function is producing it. I would assume that, by its nature, it would be either a logical function, or an intuitive function. If it is an intuitive function, then it raises the question as to why what I'm describing is a logical, rational process of thought; I'm not talking about random perceptions of things, so why would a thought process that, on the surface, seems logical be described as intuitive? If it's a function of logic, then it raises the question as to why it is neither structural logic (as has been claimed here), nor "business logic" (since it clearly does not fit that description). Perhaps what I describe is a function of a combination of two information elements, and, if that's the case, it would be useful to state which combination it is, and why (as Phaedrus has).

    Jason
    LII

  17. #17
    Éminence grise mikemex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Third Planet
    TIM
    IEE-Ne
    Posts
    1,631
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli View Post
    ILE/SEE (Cause-Effect)
    Deterministic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception

    LII/ESI (Holographic)
    Deterministic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment

    SEI/ILI (Synthetic)
    Probabilistic: Skeptical: Top-Based: Bottom-Up: Perception

    ESE/LIE (Vortex)
    Probabilistic: Reliable: Bottom-Based: Bottom-Up: Judgment

    LSI/EII (Cause-Effect)
    Deterministic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Judgment

    SLE/IEE (Holographic)
    Deterministic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Perception

    EIE/LSE (Synthetic)
    Probabilistic: Skeptical: Bottom-Based: Top-Down: Judgment

    IEI/SLI (Vortex)
    Probabilistic: Reliable: Top-Based: Top-Down: Perception
    Care to explain?
    [] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)

    You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life.
    - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Some people here have said that my interpretation of isn't valid. First of all, I wouldn't say that this is the only interpretation. Just like any function, there are several ways in which it can manifest itself. However, it raises an interesting question: if it isn't that I'm talking about, then what is it? I would assume that socionics attempts to divide all ways of processing information into the classifications it has designated. Otherwise, there could be people who don't really fit any designation, because they usually process information in a way that cannot be classified by socionics. So, assuming that what I'm talking about involves one function, it raises the question as to what function is producing it. I would assume that, by its nature, it would be either a logical function, or an intuitive function. If it is an intuitive function, then it raises the question as to why what I'm describing is a logical, rational process of thought; I'm not talking about random perceptions of things, so why would a thought process that, on the surface, seems logical be described as intuitive? If it's a function of logic, then it raises the question as to why it is neither structural logic (as has been claimed here), nor "business logic" (since it clearly does not fit that description). Perhaps what I describe is a function of a combination of two information elements, and, if that's the case, it would be useful to state which combination it is, and why (as Phaedrus has).
    The structure of this post of yours, the way you arrange your thoughts and put them together into sentences, the general writing style in which it is written, and how analyze the various options, is a clear example of . It is not . If you compare it with some posts of Jonathan, you will see that this post is very similar to how he tends to write. And for some obscure reason Jonathan is accepted as an ILI by most members of this forum -- it is obscure because he really is an ILI. In fact, Jonathan is an indisputable example of that strange type.

  19. #19
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    I've seen be described in a number of ways. For example, it has been described as a feeling of confidence in the truth of an idea. I don't identify with this. I think that that is more of a gut feeling, and I would think that, by its very nature, is a rational thought process, not just a feeling. I've also seen it described in certain ways that I think are too specialized. For example, as "constructing models" or "using formal logic." I think that these are things that depend more on one's profession than one's inherent skills.

    I've been trying to see how I use . I realize that is essentially the random insights I get - possibilities, really. I think that, for me, could be defined as comprehension. I think that it would be defined this way because this is the one part of my thought process that I use a lot and that doesn't fit neatly into any of the other information elements. It could be comprehending a theory, a situation, or a state of reality. The key is not just that I know what, but that I know why. For example, I might believe that I should vote for a specific party in the next election. However, it isn't enough that I simply have a gut feeling as to who to vote for. I have find reasons to comprehend why each party would (and would not) be beneficial to the country, and why it would (and would not) be superior to the other potential parties. After seeing which one would fit the criteria the best, I would decide.
    Yeah, that makes sense for an LII. For me, it's essentially a vehicle for my Se ("I do what I do because x dictates it"). I'm actually very into this idea of the leading function being a "vehicle" for one's creative function; basically, when one uses one's creative function, they are using it in conjunction with their leading function, and always in this way.

    Does this sound like to you? If not, how would you define it?
    I wrote a description of my Ti in an old thread, which you may be interested in. The thread caused a level of disagreement, even between other Betas and myself. It may have had something to do with the title for some people though (Why Ti is more important than Te) . I think in hindsight, I wouldn't say that Ti was better than Te so much as call this an explanation of how I use Ti.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    My perspective. Some of you may disagree.

    I think the thing that stands out about Ti is organisation. This is lacking in Te types. There's no rigidity; no consistency or principle nature in those weak in Ti, and they couldn't care less, because they have their Fi system instead. Personally, I think this is useless when standing it up against Ti. So, why is Ti so important to me? Because I am far more concerned with organising what I think about something - anything - in the world than I am with throwing (or receiving) a myriad of facts or a shitheap of information at someone's (or my) brain and having the desire for them to digest it. Being able to know exactly what I think about a certain thing when it is brought into question, and being able to precisely relay this to an individual, is very important to me. It's an internal chemistry I'm talking about; it's about my organising what I think about something internally so that I can use it in the external world through my Se. To exchange my Se with Te would be a death wish; I am who I am because I know exactly how to utilise my strengths and put on the backbench my less useful strengths (Te and Si). It's not that I think Te is utterly pointless or useless (indeed, it has its uses, which is why I do use it from time to time); it's that Se is far more useful and, what's more, when it's combined with Ti, it's unbeatable.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Ezra has had, since the day he first entered this forum, a strong tendency to confuse with in a lot of situations. This is one of them.

  21. #21
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by idolatrie View Post
    If I can take a stab at responding to this from a Ti + Se perspective to compare with the Ti + Ne one already given, I don't think Ti is about creating a representation of reality, or at least not consciously doing so. I see Ti as my means of accessing a Se world. The sensory world, if you will, is my 'reality', or what I take for reality. I navigate it with Ti - linking what I want to achieve with a means of doing so. Perhaps that is what you were referring to? I don't see it as necessarily end-determined, but one does work towards a goal.
    Yes, that is true for a Ti+Se ego types because they are Ti+. Their Ti conclusions are very well defined. For Ne+Ti types that isn't the case.

  22. #22
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Surely there are types that are interested in developing ideas apart from any consideration as to how they link up with anything real and working, and types that are less so. I would consider it a good thing if my type belonged to the second catagory. On the whole, though, this process of attempted suggestion -> elimination is something that holds true of thought in general. The types really only differ in the extent to which they offer attention to each of these stages, and which they delegate to others or simply expect to receive the products of from their environment. We all "require this type of consolidation to retain purity of vision", even if we are not equiped to provide such ourselves. No one gets the purity of vision as a freebie.
    I agree. However, reliabilists (ESE, ILE, LIE, LSI, SLI, SEE, EII, IEI) tend to be less evaluative of their IM and more constructive.

    Quote Originally Posted by jason_m View Post
    Some people here have said that my interpretation of isn't valid. First of all, I wouldn't say that this is the only interpretation. Just like any function, there are several ways in which it can manifest itself. However, it raises an interesting question: if it isn't that I'm talking about, then what is it? I would assume that socionics attempts to divide all ways of processing information into the classifications it has designated. Otherwise, there could be people who don't really fit any designation, because they usually process information in a way that cannot be classified by socionics. So, assuming that what I'm talking about involves one function, it raises the question as to what function is producing it. I would assume that, by its nature, it would be either a logical function, or an intuitive function. If it is an intuitive function, then it raises the question as to why what I'm describing is a logical, rational process of thought; I'm not talking about random perceptions of things, so why would a thought process that, on the surface, seems logical be described as intuitive? If it's a function of logic, then it raises the question as to why it is neither structural logic (as has been claimed here), nor "business logic" (since it clearly does not fit that description). Perhaps what I describe is a function of a combination of two information elements, and, if that's the case, it would be useful to state which combination it is, and why (as Phaedrus has).

    Jason
    It is not just the IM element that is blocked with Ti, but also the order. TiNe is Holographic and NeTi is Cause-Effect. Also, while Ti-valuing is always merry and Ti-egoism is always static, Ti-leading is obstinate + emotivist and Ti-creating is yielding/constructivist .

    Quote Originally Posted by mikemex View Post
    Care to explain?
    Deduction
    (Process)
    &#198;: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
    F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
    Autocratic Rationals - Top-Down Judgment
    Democratic Irrationals - Bottom-Up Perception
    N>T>S - Abstract Conjunctions have Logical Justification
    S>F>N - Concrete Phenomena require Emotional Clarity

    Induction
    (Result)
    N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
    B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
    Democratic Rationals - Bottom-Up Judgment
    Autocratic Irrationals - Top-Down Perception
    S>T>N - Concrete Phenomena have Logical Justification
    N>F>S - Abstract Conjunctions require Emotional Clarity

    Analysis
    (Static)
    &#198;: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
    N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
    Rational Introverts - Judgment @ Top
    Irrational Extroverts - Perception @ Bottom
    Specifically Exclusive Conceptualization (Pe) decided
    Internally (Ji) by Determination of Unchanging Relations

    Synthesis
    (Dynamic)
    F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
    B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
    Rational Extroverts - Judgment @ Bottom
    Irrational Introverts - Perception @ Top
    Holistically Inclusive Representation (Pi) decided
    Externally (Je) by Probability of Unrelated Changes

    Reliabilism
    (Optimist)
    &#198;: TiSe>SeFi>FiNe>NeTi
    B: TeNi>NiFe>FeSi>SiTe
    Introverted Autocrats - Top-Downs @ Top
    Extroverted Democrats - Bottom-Ups @ Bottom
    Information Metabolism is Augmented by Reactants,
    which are used to Supplement and Reinforce the operation

    Skepticism
    (Pessimist)
    N: TiNe>NeFi>FiSe>SeTi
    F: TeSi>SiFe>FeNi>NiTe
    Extroverted Autocrats - Top-Downs @ Bottom
    Introverted Democrats - Bottom-Ups @ Top
    Information Metabolism is Diminished by Products,
    which are used to Evaluate and Criticize the operation
    Last edited by Nexus; 10-03-2008 at 04:19 AM.

  23. #23
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  24. #24
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  25. #25
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    you're talking about Te. that eternal pursuit and research for refining are specific to it and imo you have Te (+Ni), too. in my experience Te combined with Ni so LIE but especially ILI, are the most prone to be undecided about their type because of their feeling that things can be endlessly improved and discovered. Ti's are interested in "the one" final result. if you feel you have something in common with jason_m, this inclines me he's rather ILI than LII.
    Didn't you just PM me stating that you believed me to be ? I am quite confident at present that the information I have considered (which is vast) supports ; also, has nothing to do with process (as is result and is process), it has to do with manipulating knowledge that is optimized for communication (hence extroverted logic).

  26. #26
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  27. #27
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Ezra has had, since the day he first entered this forum, a strong tendency to confuse with in a lot of situations. This is one of them.
    What, because I recognise that you are a Ti type, and because you believe your definition of Te is correct? In fact, do you even have a definition of Te?
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  28. #28
    the Omniscient Nexus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    TIM
    INTp
    Posts
    1,408
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    mmmnop. sorry, i wrote "I actually consider you have TeNi, I can't decide if LIE or ILI but I think you should put me in the other list." you put me to the LIE option and it's ok for me because that's my primary choice about you. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...128#post431128

    well i'm not sure Ti types have a larger palette of interests, knowledge, basically they would need the same amount of options. what i wrote applies to the creative process not necessarily to their life, as a whole. the larger - the better:
    - Ti needs large database for selections, they usually prefer "raw material" beng confident of their ability to discern, it is known the stubbornness of the Ti. their greatest research is done before the working starts on a specific task.
    - Te needs large database to choose the best alternative as a starting point and they usually prefer proven and working options (don't they tell Ti "let's not reinvent the wheel"?). their greatest research is done after choosing a specific task.


    i don't know what to say about the focus on communication but certainly Te has initiative when used as a base function.
    Oh sorry, I must have been confused.

  29. #29
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post

    what would be the connection between Ti and Fi? what do you mean by "orientation"?
    Exactly what I said it was: implication of attraction. Consider there being two women nearby. They are twins, therefore either is equally beautiful. However, one is closer to your physically than the other. Neither indicate that one is more willing than the other for sex with you. Which will you go towards? I would have to say, the twin that's closer because it requires less effort. The effort was a factor of position, and attraction always follows the path of least resistance.

  30. #30
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    Exactly what I said it was: implication of attraction. Consider there being two women nearby. They are twins, therefore either is equally beautiful. However, one is closer to your physically than the other. Neither indicate that one is more willing than the other for sex with you. Which will you go towards? I would have to say, the twin that's closer because it requires less effort. The effort was a factor of position, and attraction always follows the path of least resistance.
    Hm, I never thought about this before in those terms but I guess it makes sense.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  31. #31
    Trevor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,860
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    is that Ne+Ti my case? :| i don't understand what you mean by "well defined". "well explained" or "accurate"? but i'd agree, check my previous post here.
    Well,I will start with Ti+Ne ego types. They are concrete Ne and abstract Ti. What this means is: they are starting with Ne insights they have, and trying to arrange them in some kind of structure. This structure which they are trying to achieve is Ti, I guess. So in this process Ne is the start-point and Ti is the end-point.

    Ti+Se ego types are concrete Ti. What this means is: they are starting with Ti logical conclusions which are already arranged and well defined in their mind, and trying to apply them in the Se realm. I guess. So in this process Ti is the start-point and Se is the end-point.

  32. #32
    diljs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    348
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    attraction always follows the path of least resistance.
    so that's why I dig ugly chicks!
    ILE - Ti.

  33. #33
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by diljs View Post
    so that's why I dig ugly chicks!
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  34. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You're not drawn to what you can't work with. That said, you can be drawn to someone whom you can work with, but they may not be able to work with you. This is where unrequited love comes from.

  35. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    Hm, I never thought about this before in those terms but I guess it makes sense.
    That's an application of the theory of general relativity to IM processing. Fi is attraction, that we know. We also know that Te is work and efficiency. If Fi and Te go together, then it follows that Fi will want the Te which is best, because inefficient Te just means frustrated Fi. That's assuming the functions want to maximize their own efficiency, which the IM elements apparently do. The theory of relativity is based on a mathematical proof, consistent with observation, that work follows the pathway of least resistance; that is, the points of highest gravitation. If you have a point of equal attraction and repulsion, then accordingly you have no gravity and therefore, a point of maximum resistance. It is also possible though, to have resistance to work, as in the case of electricity. Work and attraction are not the same thing any more than gravity and electricity are the same. Yet both, apparently can experience resistance and a system wanting one or the other would invariably try to select, to the extent that it could, the path which offered the most efficient work. Any dual-seeking system tries to eliminate resistance so that its yields will be as high as possible.

  36. #36
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ephemeros View Post
    i don't know if this is the case (couldn't understand all you theories), but if you think "PoLR" from Model A is similar to the path of least resistance (like the lightning track) it is not true. PoLR is the vulnerable point, the weakness, you may compare it with the joint between the armor plates. one should be skeptical to take the notions literally, it is very dangerous, even if this makes some connections to vague abstract ideas that cannot be visualized otherwise.

    i told you this just in case, please don't get offended.
    That's not what I was saying at all. When you think of an ideal Ne state, then you try to imagine the best Si possible in the context of it. Conflict has no place in the ideal. By choosing the best possible Si content to give your vision tangible form (labcoat was the one who explained the Si/Ne connection to me, BTW), you are choosing the Si aspects when have the least resistance to each other. It's just how duality works.

    Dual-type theory means two types which interoperate. I use the hyphen to emphasize that socionics duality isn't what I mean by it.

    another thing, that i'm sure of is that your explanations are too confusing, you need to clean them up if you want to communicate your ideas:
    I do need to clean up that last one. I got tired and was going to come back to the post later. I also got sidetracked a bit when I realized that aspects disliking each other was on an Fi basis, which lead to a sense that my argument was undifferentiated. That Ne/Si example has set me back on track, though.

    - don't use confusing terms. this mistake is not new in Socionics, for example "feeling" in current language can mean both Feeling ("i don't feel anything for ...") and Intuition ("i have the feeling that ..."). two of the confusing terms you used i noticed were "least resistance" (the case above - i'd say "shortest path" or "lightning's track") and "dual types" (they have nothing to do with duality, that means "perfect fit" or "missing half" in Socionics already). again, if i was you, i'd use "universal attraction", "particle physics" or anything appropriate rather that "general relativity". i don't doubt these two areas have a strong connection (typology and quantum physics) and the observation on one of them could explain obscure things in the other, especially probabilistic.
    Those are terms from physics. You're right though, "lightning's track" is a better analogy than is general relativity. On the other hand, least resistance is the basic idea behind the principle. General relativity is relevant because it is an empirical formulation which proves the methods of duality. It says in no uncertain terms "energy follows the path of least resistance". It's a very intuitive concept, but its terms are so broad -- all energy, in fact -- that it applies to everything. It's the same principle which governs concentration gradients and even the psyche, in fact. It's been proven that the brain seeks to stimulate those parts of it which are unstimulated, and thus have the least electrical charge.

    - use more clear examples. take the above example you gave me, with those two women, why didn't you use apples instead, or balls? if i was in that situation, i'd create a tactic to find out which one would agree to fuck, maybe they're different even if not apparently and the closer one would refuse me and i'd have more success if going to the distant one directly, but not after seeing me trying to the other. or what if they are in the same state but i'd have more chances to the distant one because i show a determination to choose her.
    this is only a simple example from which most of the ppl would understand what you mean, in a complex theory this habit creates an insurmountable bloat.
    I said they were equally beautiful. And twins. You couldn't even develop a determination toward one or the other because there is no biological basis for it. If you find one attractive, then you necessary find the other attractive. Did I mention they were identical? It's actually a pretty clear-cut situation with far reaching consequences.

  38. #38
    Creepy-Pied Piper

    Default

    Removed at User Request

  39. #39
    hoodrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    162
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Niffweed? Wait... what is this thread about?

  40. #40
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoodrat View Post
    Niffweed? Wait... what is this thread about?
    lol @ ur ti polr
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

Posting Permissions

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