How does it feel like to have dominant Ti?

[07490]

I am always fasincated by how the mind thinks/feel/sense/intuitive would work. I am wondering just what goes on in an TI dominant's head? do they see things in real life and able to understand exactly why things are happening? A good comparsion I have used to determine how an Ti mind work is by watching a character in film/movies that has TI narrative; good example is Dexter. In his narrative, he is always reminding himself, why things are the way it is, knowing what is going on(without being confused by other possible solution, something that i think can be mixed with Ni or Ne becuase both somewhat a function used to understand a situation but is an perceiving function which happens to confused the mind with more than one scenario). Like he will always tell himself that "he wants me to say what he wants to heard, I am going to say No"

[ArchonAlarion]

Uh...

I tend to analyze everything. People, events, places, ideas, etc. Like, I can't turn it off. I just look at something and evaluate it, define it, and categorize it.

My mind is like a rulebook. I make observations, record them, I decide if things "fit" in the rules. Its not really "rigid" though. I understand that my rules or principles are most likely a good part wrong, so my decisions are tentative and I base alot of things on probabilities. I am good at pinpointing hypocrisy and inconsistencies in what others are doing because I have a large store of knowledge about ideological positions...

Oh and another thing is that I have a good grasp on the metrics of systems, so if I encounter a new system its easy for me to integrate it because I have a guide to compare it to.

Idk if that was what you were looking for. Also like Dexter I talk to myself in my head. I think its about knowing the rules of interaction ahead of time and like I said, averaging things.

[Creepy-male]

Great work, Jake!

Now you just need to change your signature and typemeet profile!

[ArchonAlarion]

Waaaaa ???

[Creepy-male]

Waaaaa ???

"Ti-ENTp"

(People might think that's your Model A type)

[Brilliand]

I'll compare Ti to... straight lines drawn across a piece of paper. Each line divides the paper in two. There are an incredible number of them, and each has a meaning in itself, but the important thing is how they all work together - what the white sections are that they form, and which lines you must cross to get from one section to another.

I imagine Ti creative would have fewer lines, which are individually more significant.

[ArchonAlarion]

I imagine an infinite black space.

In the space are bright dots like stars. They are connected by white lines. I try to make a pattern out of the connections. Like an all encompassing constellation. The constellation pattern is made out of infinitely smaller patterns. Like fractal geometry.

Or its like Im trying to clear away all the extra "noise" and find the inner constellation. The formula for existence. Every other formula derives from that one.

Hmm that might actually be 6 fixation related...

Idk. Play with legos for awhile and you'll understand Ti.

[Creepy-]

In high school I knew a guy who was incredibly gifted in [seemingly] every academic area. Once I asked him how he did it, meaning whether it was the result of a natural gift or lots of work/studying, and he explained that whenever he learns something new, he files it in his mind, which he described as being like a giant filing cabinet. So there is a different folder for each subject, and he just puts new information/facts/whatever in the appropriate folder when he learns it. Do Ti-ego people identify w this analogy?

ETA: That was a long time ago, but I suspect he was Alpha NT.

[Creepy-male]

Idk. Play with legos for awhile and you'll understand Ti.

What if I do that with Si?

[ArchonAlarion]

In high school I knew a guy who was incredibly gifted in [seemingly] every academic area. Once I asked him how he did it, meaning whether it was the result of a natural gift or lots of work/studying, and he explained that whenever he learns something new, he files it in his mind, which he described as being like a giant filing cabinet. So there is a different folder for each subject, and he just puts new information/facts/whatever in the appropriate folder when he learns it. Do Ti-ego people identify w this analogy?

Yes.

But as an Alpha NT, Im always trying to combine the folders, or make common ground between the folders.

The system behind all systems.

That is more related to Ti with Si and Ne though.

[Brilliand]

In high school I knew a guy who was incredibly gifted in [seemingly] every academic area. Once I asked him how he did it, meaning whether it was the result of a natural gift or lots of work/studying, and he explained that whenever he learns something new, he files it in his mind, which he described as being like a giant filing cabinet. So there is a different folder for each subject, and he just puts new information/facts/whatever in the appropriate folder when he learns it. Do Ti-ego people identify w this analogy?

Yes. I also think that Ti is well-suited for being good at (seemingly) everything, because everything's related, so one field is easily applied to another. Hmm, maybe Ne has something to do with that too though.

[Khola aka Bee]

[intjguy]

Uh I don't know about you guys but my Ti is just like, memorization of facts? It definitely doesn't help in conversation. Communicating with me is like talking to a robot who listens, smiles and asks questions.

I would say being Ti dominate just makes you have a love for knowledge.

[idolatrie]

UMMM. I feel very alienated from the description of Ti in this thread so far.

[Creepy-]

Yes.

But as an Alpha NT, Im always trying to combine the folders, or make common ground between the folders.

The system behind all systems.

That is more related to Ti with Si and Ne though.

Yes. I also think that Ti is well-suited for being good at (seemingly) everything, because everything's related, so one field is easily applied to another. Hmm, maybe Ne has something to do with that too though.

Okay, interesting that you guys relate. The reason I remember it now, probably ten years later, is that to me it was such a... foreign, I guess... way to think. I remember after he told me that I tried to see if I could do it [I lost patience w it] and then tried to come up w my own metaphor for thinking [which I don't recall ever actually coming up w]. I do think of it whenever I file something away in a manilla folder, though, heh.

UMMM. I feel very alienated from the description of Ti in this thread so far.

Do you? How would you describe your way of thinking or organizing thoughts/info/whatever in your head? [That is, if it's even possible to seperate yourself from it enough to actually do that, which I think is a tough thing to do]

[idolatrie]

Do you? How would you describe your way of thinking or organizing thoughts/info/whatever in your head? [That is, if it's even possible to seperate yourself from it enough to actually do that, which I think is a tough thing to do]

It's more the descriptions of filing cabinets and folders and all that which I found strange. Because it seems so...artificial? Like it is this construct which is, I don't know, imposed? I just found that very alien. Ti is just so fundamentally organic to me that the description completely threw me.

I find myself stumped at starting to describe my understanding of Ti, so I'll go through some of the posts here to start off.

I tend to analyze everything. People, events, places, ideas, etc. Like, I can't turn it off. I just look at something and evaluate it, define it, and categorize it.

My mind is like a rulebook. I make observations, record them, I decide if things "fit" in the rules. Its not really "rigid" though. I understand that my rules or principles are most likely a good part wrong, so my decisions are tentative and I base alot of things on probabilities. I am good at pinpointing hypocrisy and inconsistencies in what others are doing because I have a large store of knowledge about ideological positions...

Oh and another thing is that I have a good grasp on the metrics of systems, so if I encounter a new system its easy for me to integrate it because I have a guide to compare it to.

Idk if that was what you were looking for. Also like Dexter I talk to myself in my head. I think its about knowing the rules of interaction ahead of time and like I said, averaging things.

I analyse and judge things too. I agree that it is largely a process of association according to existing knowledge, but I'm not really conscious of this process. Like, I only am aware I do this when I look back later on and try to make sense of my thought processes.

The idea that the mind is a rulebook used to 'check' the fit of things was where I started to go 'this is different'. I don't conceptualise my own principles as wrong - rather that they are just mine and not something I can impose on anyone else. I don't have problems making decisions, and I'm not really for getting caught up in probabilities.

I really don't get what is meant by the metrics of systems, and comparing it to um...Ti? I have difficulties with new systems because I have a very strong sense of what is right, what makes sense to me. So to understand different ideological positions I have to try to fathom their internal logic and almost have to set mine aside for the purposes of working it out. And I'm often left feeling dissatisfied with the alternative positions because they just don't make sense the way my preferred position does. I'm not saying they are not internally consistent or whatever. Just, they don't make sense to me.

I don't narrate my own life in my head. I don't get what was meant in the last sentence.

I'll compare Ti to... straight lines drawn across a piece of paper. Each line divides the paper in two. There are an incredible number of them, and each has a meaning in itself, but the important thing is how they all work together - what the white sections are that they form, and which lines you must cross to get from one section to another.

I imagine Ti creative would have fewer lines, which are individually more significant.

This completely lost me. Ti for me is a process, not a line on a page? I mean, I get that it is represented by , but like, that's not actually what it is? Ti is a logic process. If this, then that. I don't mean to imply linearity with that, because it can shoot off in multiple, twisting and random directions that fold back on themselves. It doesn't always seem to work together, but you keep persevering on until you can draw together the strands that make sense and bring you to a conclusion.

I imagine an infinite black space.

In the space are bright dots like stars. They are connected by white lines. I try to make a pattern out of the connections. Like an all encompassing constellation. The constellation pattern is made out of infinitely smaller patterns. Like fractal geometry.

Or its like Im trying to clear away all the extra "noise" and find the inner constellation. The formula for existence. Every other formula derives from that one.

Hmm that might actually be 6 fixation related...

Idk. Play with legos for awhile and you'll understand Ti.

I...uh...um. Completely on a different planet, here. No deep space and comet tails. And I really don't think in maths.

Is the legos thing a joke?

In high school I knew a guy who was incredibly gifted in [seemingly] every academic area. Once I asked him how he did it, meaning whether it was the result of a natural gift or lots of work/studying, and he explained that whenever he learns something new, he files it in his mind, which he described as being like a giant filing cabinet. So there is a different folder for each subject, and he just puts new information/facts/whatever in the appropriate folder when he learns it. Do Ti-ego people identify w this analogy?

ETA: That was a long time ago, but I suspect he was Alpha NT.

As I said above, I don't visualise a filing cabinet in my head. I can see the use of that metaphor as an aid to explain things, but I don't actually think of any office furniture in my head. I don't think Ti equals intelligence. I'll leave it to the other types to be appropriately offended by that implication.

I also did not resonate with the sense of separating information into discrete 'folders'. One of my main intellectual concerns is drawing links between different disciplines to bring a new perspective to existing ways of thinking to expand them in a process of reformation (as opposed to revolution). So to separate knowledge is quite alien.

On the actual Ti point, though, I see it more as association, and trying to make sense of things by determining how the conclusion is reasoned. I don't see it as 'what' you understand, but rather a means by which one can come to an understanding. I, uh, fear that doesn't make sense, sorry.

Uh I don't know about you guys but my Ti is just like, memorization of facts? It definitely doesn't help in conversation. Communicating with me is like talking to a robot who listens, smiles and asks questions.

I would say being Ti dominate just makes you have a love for knowledge.

*cries* Ti is really really not memorisation of facts! You're joking, right? Like, Ti has nothing to do with your ability to have conversations, surely.

I think having a love of knowledge is a human thing. Knowledge has such different definitions, and the love of it spans such a wide variety of approaches, both in methodology and ideology.

[ArchonAlarion]

@Idolatrie

Yeah in my previous posts I was intentionally spelling out my thought process, because it is far more subtle and complex than I made it out to be. Just trying to give something for non Ti-ers to understand, thats all.

and yeah the lego thing was a joke, but I do love lego-building lol.

[Creepy-male]

but I do love ego-building lol.

This is what I read.

Sixes.

[ArchonAlarion]

You bast!!

[Creepy-male]

Don't deny it!

Seriously, I know another LII Six. You're actually scarily different from the Fives, especially when you're counterphobic.

[ArchonAlarion]

DONT TELL ME WHAT I AM AND AREN'T, FACSIST PIG!!!!!

[Creepy-male]

<3

[Wynch]

I'm going to give this a run just for the heck of it.

I tend to approach problems from a true/false, works/doesnotwork mentality. Ne presents an array of possibilities to choose from, Ti chooses to put them into place or discard them. I tend to organize my thoughts in a series of systems where I've built layers of reasoning to justify how something works. If any two points in the system do not function together properly, then the entire network is flawed, so Ti works to make sure that only the most sound building blocks are used.

Unlike idolatrie, I'm contantly renegotiating my frameworks as new information is being added. My purpose is not so much to build conclusions until I find an answer, I want to build as many frameworks as possible. I don't really care which one is the "right" one.

Here's my summary on Ti egos from the position of idealism:

INTj: Sees Ti, structures with Ne -> uses frameworks of knowledge to create multiple feasible possibilities

ENTp: Sees Ne, structures with Ti -> selects from an array of individual possibilities to create frameworks or systems of thought

ISTj: Sees Ti, structures with Se -> uses frameworks of knowledge to establish the best outcome or conclusion

ESTp: Uses Se to produce Ti -> selects certainties to create frameworks or systems of thought

[1981slater]

How does it feel like to be TI?

If you want to know, just put lumps in your coffee!

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Wynch]

The way idolatrie talks about it = my own thought process (except I actually do narrate things in my head sometimes heh). It's why I always say that Fi and Ti are so similar. I think I get the Ti way of thinking, because it's how I think, just not so categorical/defined/solid. I don't think in math or rules or strict frameworks, but I am always noticing whether or not something fits/makes sense/ties together in a way that I see as similar to how Ti is described.

Recently, I was commenting to Expat about how Andrew Jackson bothered me with his politics, because they didn't fit together, his views were so disconnected from each other. I couldn't make sense of them, to get a complete view. He said that it was Jackson's weak Ti, and common among SEEs (which is what he types Jackson as). So, creative Fi in my guess does not work the way leading Fi does, to bring things together (ENFps also seem to have a tendency to be disjointed in their views, imo).

It makes me think of a time that Minde described her own thought processes, and nearly everyone said, "Ti" which I thought weird, because she and I, imo, are both easily leading Fi. Also, the comment Ritella made about mystic and herself on the wiki, how the way they communicated was "the same language" both using Fi and Ti, makes a person think. Think what? I don't know yet, I'm still sorting that out

I can't really comment on the Ritella thing since I think she's actually an ENFj, not an INFj, but what you're saying definitely hits on an interesting point.

Yes, Ti and Fi are very closely tied together. The essential difference is what realm they deal with. Ti attempts to deal with external logic, which is why I call it True/False logic. Fi seems to deal with Good/Bad logic. The reason it manifests this way is because Ti is dealing with information systems in the same realm as Sensors, where things must be concrete. In that sense logic has to be concrete: if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Fi deals with information in the same manner, but in an internal realm. This is the same realm as Intuitors where information functions on an abstract plane. It's not exactly tangible, but it still exists. Fi then establishes a Good/Bad framework.

When you start getting into how these two IEs create systems, you can kind of see how they hold True/False or Good/Bad at the core. Ti will build a structure of ideas out of a series of decisions True/False. Kind of like a computer, where things are 0/1 and the combination of 0s and 1s create a program. Similarly Fi builds a structure of ideas out of a series of decisions on Good/Bad. The reason these two information elements oppose each other and create a PoLR is not because they are opposite or irreconsilable, but because the deal in opposing realms of information.

[FDG]

The way idolatrie talks about it = my own thought process (except I actually do narrate things in my head sometimes heh). It's why I always say that Fi and Ti are so similar. I think I get the Ti way of thinking, because it's how I think, just not so categorical/defined/solid. I don't think in math or rules or strict frameworks, but I am always noticing whether or not something fits/makes sense/ties together in a way that I see as similar to how Ti is described.

Recently, I was commenting to Expat about how Andrew Jackson bothered me with his politics, because they didn't fit together, his views were so disconnected from each other. I couldn't make sense of them, to get a complete view. He said that it was Jackson's weak Ti, and common among SEEs (which is what he types Jackson as). So, creative Fi in my guess does not work the way leading Fi does, to bring things together (ENFps also seem to have a tendency to be disjointed in their views, imo).

It makes me think of a time that Minde described her own thought processes, and nearly everyone said, "Ti" which I thought weird, because she and I, imo, are both easily leading Fi. Also, the comment Ritella made about mystic and herself on the wiki, how the way they communicated was "the same language" both using Fi and Ti, makes a person think. Think what? I don't know yet, I'm still sorting that out

I suppose that the similarity in temperament tends to help, mutual comprehension being quite high between adjacent types in the temperament ring (i.e. for an ISFj-mixed, both ISTj-Se and INFj-Fi).

[marooned]

that's kind of what I see Fi and Ti doing with reality (it doesn't quite look right, but not terribly far off)

[marooned]

hmm maybe something more like this is better

YouTube - 3D Space

[calenwen]

The way idolatrie talks about it = my own thought process (except I actually do narrate things in my head sometimes heh). It's why I always say that Fi and Ti are so similar. I think I get the Ti way of thinking, because it's how I think, just not so categorical/defined/solid. I don't think in math or rules or strict frameworks, but I am always noticing whether or not something fits/makes sense/ties together in a way that I see as similar to how Ti is described.

Interesting, I was thinking the same thing as I read idolatrie's post and was wondering why I related so much, heh.

[Brilliand]

The idea that the mind is a rulebook used to 'check' the fit of things was where I started to go 'this is different'. I don't conceptualise my own principles as wrong - rather that they are just mine and not something I can impose on anyone else. I don't have problems making decisions, and I'm not really for getting caught up in probabilities.

I really don't get what is meant by the metrics of systems, and comparing it to um...Ti? I have difficulties with new systems because I have a very strong sense of what is right, what makes sense to me. So to understand different ideological positions I have to try to fathom their internal logic and almost have to set mine aside for the purposes of working it out. And I'm often left feeling dissatisfied with the alternative positions because they just don't make sense the way my preferred position does. I'm not saying they are not internally consistent or whatever. Just, they don't make sense to me.

I think you've caught the difference between and here. We did get into explaining to some extent.

This completely lost me. Ti for me is a process, not a line on a page? I mean, I get that it is represented by , but like, that's not actually what it is? Ti is a logic process. If this, then that. I don't mean to imply linearity with that, because it can shoot off in multiple, twisting and random directions that fold back on themselves. It doesn't always seem to work together, but you keep persevering on until you can draw together the strands that make sense and bring you to a conclusion.

OK, I was probably describing a particular thing I do with , not itself. I do relate to your description.

I also did not resonate with the sense of separating information into discrete 'folders'. One of my main intellectual concerns is drawing links between different disciplines to bring a new perspective to existing ways of thinking to expand them in a process of reformation (as opposed to revolution). So to separate knowledge is quite alien.

I do need to maintain separations in my knowledge - perhaps this has to do with -based knowledge having more independent meaning, and thus less risk of merging into something meaningless.

I don't see it as 'what' you understand, but rather a means by which one can come to an understanding. I, uh, fear that doesn't make sense, sorry.

That makes perfect sense to me. I've often heard this related to the Judging and Perceiving functions - the Perceiving functions take in information, and the Judging functions interpret it.

*cries* Ti is really really not memorisation of facts! You're joking, right?

I agree with you. I'd tend to apply that more to Te, although Te does more than that as well.

[ArchonAlarion]

So far all these posts are right on the money

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Brilliand]

However, the difference is between internal/external only, or subjective/objective, abstract/concrete however you'd like to phrase it to get the point across best.

Abstract/concrete is something different, at least as I use it.

Yes, but I think the similarity of how I see you and calenwen and idolatrie talking is too uncanny to attribute the similarity simply to the similar makeup of Ti and Fi.

I attributed it to shared creative.

[buckland]

is just a form of mental organization, isn't it? A way of removing the gray and classifying into black or white, so to speak. It does mean an almost robotic way of thinking. Once those categories are formed, in my case, then kicks in and makes inferences (though this could still be ) and connections. How does that sound to other s out there?

[ArchonAlarion]

Doesn't sound too bad. Ti lends itself to logical structuralization and defined, "objective" systems, so yes that works.

[Brilliand]

is just a form of mental organization, isn't it? A way of removing the gray and classifying into black or white, so to speak. It does mean an almost robotic way of thinking. Once those categories are formed, in my case, then kicks in and makes inferences (though this could still be ) and connections. How does that sound to other s out there?

I think is robotic because robots were based on .

I agree with this.

[07490]

I think that in my opinion, that the explanation in information element in Socionics as well as Meyer Briggs is lacking. There are more description about any of the sixteen type than the core element used to identify a type (Infromation element). It is fairly easy for me to talk to a person, as well as reading their comprehension work to know what their dominant IM egos are. But there just aren't a precise actuate information to label all the information element.

I do very much appreciate everyone sharing their insight, and like dolphin said. I think that everyone is explaining the concept of Ti as well as Fi in a way less influence than what they read about Ti or FI than their own interpretation. Where as you can see, the mixed up of Ti and the other ego function are apparent.

[07490]

By the way, what is the best site for explaining Information element? I don't trust many site that is written by just a few amateur in Socionics. Even if they are an expert, their description can still be controversial if their work is not validated by other people who can pinpoint their mistakes. Unlike many of other official sources which goes through when it is ready to published.

[idolatrie]

First off, I wrote my earlier posts in this thread when in a massively shitty mood, so I apologise if I came across as bitchy/defensive.

I tend to approach problems from a true/false, works/doesnotwork mentality. Ne presents an array of possibilities to choose from, Ti chooses to put them into place or discard them. I tend to organize my thoughts in a series of systems where I've built layers of reasoning to justify how something works. If any two points in the system do not function together properly, then the entire network is flawed, so Ti works to make sure that only the most sound building blocks are used.

Some of this resonated with me. I think the 'works v does not work' dichotemy is very much part of my process, in the sense I take data input and incorporate (or reject) it on that basis when I'm determining my own personal beliefs. But when I'm analysing other people's systems (theories), I look at how it is structured internally, and whether that system works independently. So I guess that is more of the true/false process.

The last sentence I absolutely agree with. Ti is how I determine what to use and believe. And that is judged on how it interfaces with truths I already hold, and the overall integrity of my thinking. It may mean I have to reevaluate what I already believe, or that I can discount the new information.

When you start getting into how these two IEs create systems, you can kind of see how they hold True/False or Good/Bad at the core. Ti will build a structure of ideas out of a series of decisions True/False. Kind of like a computer, where things are 0/1 and the combination of 0s and 1s create a program. Similarly Fi builds a structure of ideas out of a series of decisions on Good/Bad. The reason these two information elements oppose each other and create a PoLR is not because they are opposite or irreconsilable, but because the deal in opposing realms of information.

This made a lot of sense for me. As in the distinction between true/false and good/bad. I honestly believe that my thought process goes along the lines of true/false judging, rather than whether I think the new data is good/bad.

To be honest, it's hard for me to see why the clear differences in this thread are going by the same name.

Hmm...I know my original post was very defensive and sulky, but strangely enough, all the self-typed Ti-ers didn't seem to have much problem with what I wrote, and the ESIs who identified with it, well, we do share Se-creative as Brill pointed out. I'm not sure there is as much difference as you have argued in further here, besides the fact I had a tantrum about filing cabinets.

I know you aren't trying to turn this into a thread about my type, and I thank you for that, but I just don't think that anything I've written here implies that I'm an ESI (based on the identification with Diana and Cal). I'm not sure if you're suggesting I'm an LSE instead, but at a guess, I would think LSIs and ESIs have more in common in terms of thought processes than ESIs and LSEs. I think I've fairly exhaustively covered how I went from thinking I'm LSE to LSI, but hey, as you said, we'll keep speculation of my type out of this thread.

If there are specific points in your critique which you think I should address, please point them out to me?

is just a form of mental organization, isn't it? A way of removing the gray and classifying into black or white, so to speak. It does mean an almost robotic way of thinking. Once those categories are formed, in my case, then kicks in and makes inferences (though this could still be ) and connections. How does that sound to other s out there?

Hmm, that's more acceptable to me, to an extent. I am fine with the word 'organisation' to describe the process, though I can't really see how it leads to black or white results. I don't believe that there is a single, universal 'truth' or answer (for most things). I try to resist the robotic thinking, because that can be limiting, but I guess it is something I indulge in and have to ward against. Like, I'll read a sentence, and interpret it in one way, and answer accordingly. If it is pointed out to me I read it wrong in the first place, I'll be initially resistant, but consider the possibility. And if in the light of the alternative perspective, I agree with the new interpretation, I'll replace my initial analysis with the later one. Though sometimes, in my heart of hearts, even though I know the later analysis is more appropriate, I'll still think that I was 'right' the first time.

Doesn't sound too bad. Ti lends itself to logical structuralization and defined, "objective" systems, so yes that works.

Hmmmmm. I balk at the word 'objective', haha. Sorry. That's just a complete stumbling block for me. I see it as fundamentally subjective. That the only thing you can know is your own mind, your own processes. So my Ti structures are subjective. I apply them in many areas, and I hold them out as my way of thinking. But I can't say that they are objective? Like, they do not just inherently exist out there in the ether waiting to be discovered. Rather they are creations of the mind influenced by all my biases and social embeddedness. 'Logical structuralisation' works for me though.