# Thread: Ti: Logic or inner confidence?

1. ## Ti: Logic or inner confidence?

It seems to me that one of the most confusing things about Socionics is the way the is described.

A good example is in the post http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3608. Notice the descriptions of , and the idea that it "Represents itself as the great director, emperor and the like."

Note also on sites, such as the very thorough Socioniko.net site, the descriptions of what LII people are like, and especially the pictures of LIIs. Similarly people talk a lot about having to do with inner confidence.

When I think of people who fit LII via this description, these are people who have a "default" sense of being right....as if they can't be wrong. Trying to show that they might be wrong is like hitting a brick wall. Even if they're wrong about something, they have such a "sense" of being right that everybody believes them.

Then, there's another interpretation of . This interpretation of says that it's really just pure logic, pure understanding of systems, understanding the inner logic of an argument, the essence, the kind of thinking you do when you prove theorems or program computers or solve computer problems...the sort of inner organic logic you use in creating something new that has its own internal logic to it.

That's what I'm using when I think I'm using , and of course here I am on this broken record track still wondering if it's or .

If it is , it's completely different from the "inner confidence" or "default I'm right" attitude in the other interpretation of . When I use what I think of as inner logic, it's something objective, completely pure, completely apart from "who I am," and it doesn't prove that I'm smart. In fact, it only proves how little I know, and how much we can all figure out just by thinking.

I think this distinction between two s is why Rocky says I'm an LII (perhaps intuitive subtype, or ILE) whereas Rick, Phaedrus and others say I'm more probably an ILI.

Do other people see this dichotomy? ...That it seems there are "two s in Socionics"? Or is it really that my "objective," impersonal view of what logic makes it no matter how "inner" and -like it may feel?

2. Edited for gayness.

3. I think this distinction between two s is why Rocky says I'm an LII (perhaps intuitive subtype, or ILE) whereas Rick, Phaedrus and others say I'm more probably an ILI.

Do other people see this dichotomy? ...That it seems there are "two s in Socionics"? Or is it really that my "objective," impersonal view of what logic makes it no matter how "inner" and -like it may feel?
If Rocky thinks that you are a LII, he simply must think that I am also a LII, otherwise it doesn't make sense, because anybody can see that you and I can not be different types - at least if you are an introverted type. I simply can not imagine that you are a LII and I'm an ILI, or the other way around.

I see your "dichotomy" in exactly the same way (I think), but I don't see it as a real dichotomy. I'll try to explain.

When I think of people who fit LII via this description, these are people who have a "default" sense of being right....as if they can't be wrong. Trying to show that they might be wrong is like hitting a brick wall. Even if they're wrong about something, they have such a "sense" of being right that everybody believes them.
This fits my view of LIIs perfectly. And I haven't yet changed my mind about Wittgenstein's type. I still think that he also fits this description, and that he was an LII.

Then, there's another interpretation of . This interpretation of says that it's really just pure logic, pure understanding of systems, understanding the inner logic of an argument, the essence, the kind of thinking you do when you prove theorems or program computers or solve computer problems...the sort of inner organic logic you use in creating something new that has its own internal logic to it.
This way of thinking I thought was a description of one of my own often used thought processes, but maybe it isn't. What it really is, though, (I think) is a description that fits my current understanding (or rather hypothesis) of the thinking of LIIs in the realm of philosophy, mathematics and meta-mathematics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but could not this be an explanation of:

1. The inclination to focus on the system, the model, instead of objective reality.

2. The unwillingness to make a clear distinction between the subjective and the objective, to distinguish between the world as an objectively existing structure, independent of our understanding of it, and our (subjective) model of reality. For some people the model seems to be "reality".

3. The tendency in mathematics and meta-mathematics to embrace attitudes of formalism and intuitionism regarding mathematical truths instead of realism (platonism).

All this put together results (that is my hypothesis) in a tendency in general to embrace relativistic, subjectivistic attitudes and doctrines in many areas of human knowledge. Everything is seen from "our" perspective, from one model out of many possible models, and the question which model is the "correct" or "true" model is seen as irrelevant, because the concept of truth is defined from within the model. For some of these people to think of an "objective" truth does not seem to make any sense. I have often wondered if they can even understand the concept of objective truth. Maybe they cannot think in that way. But that is very hard to believe, because from my perspective that would make them seem much less intelligent than I know that they really are. On the other hand I suspect that both LIIs and ILIs often can seem "stupid" viewed from the perspective of the other type, when in fact they are not.

4. Edited for gayness.

5. (Since one of you is going to take that seriously, I was joking.)
Typical ILE joke ... But, seriously, I am only trying to find the objective truth here ... (I am not joking.)

Typical ILE joke ...
... I thought, until I remembered your type. So, I take it back.

6. Edited for gayness.

7. Anyway, I was going to suggest that maybe you are a feeeeeeeeeeeeler?

After all, if you can't decide between INTj and INTp, perhaps you are neither!
I can decide between INTj and INTp. It was just that it took me some time to do it. I am definitely not a feeler, but it is kind of interesting that you suggest it, because Sergei Ganin did it too in one of our discussions on his site. (Maybe you are SG ... :wink: ... since your style of writing and arguing is actually sometimes strikingly similar to his. It could be a coincidence, of course, but from what I have seen, if there is anyone on this forum whom I would guess is most likely to be SG in disguise, it would be you, Transigent ...) But it is absolutely impossible that I am a feeler. I know that I am an INTp, and I know that Jonathan is too (but you have to give him some time to accept the fact, since we INTps are never absolutely sure that we have found the truth, even when we have stronger arguments for our position than everyone else). If you really believe that I could be a feeler, you should probably give some thought to your own typing methods, since then it suggests that they are not that reliable. Anyway, it would be interesting if you could give me a hint why you even came up with the thought, since I can't understand why anyone would suspect that. But it is always difficult to see every one of your personal traits from an outside perspective.

8. Transigent: In other words, they naturally seperate things and traits that are important, from things and traits that are not important. This makes comparing/contrasting things easier for them, and they can percieve hierarchies of position/information/etc. with less effort.

P types can see this structure, and may change it; J types will see this structure, and live by it.

Types without will sort of see these things a bit fuzzier, and may be somewhat apprehensive about seperating the importance of things. They may view obligations and structure as something that is overly suffocating.
What if one perceives hierarchies of information with little effort, but views obligations as suffocating?
(By the way, I don't think Transigent is that much like SG...way too willing to offer assistance and explain stuff to be SG, and not sarcastic enough to be SG either. )

1. The inclination to focus on the system, the model, instead of objective reality.
2. The unwillingness to make a clear distinction between the subjective and the objective...
3. The tendency in mathematics and meta-mathematics to embrace attitudes of formalism and intuitionism regarding mathematical truths instead of realism (platonism).
That's an interesting application of the theory...I think that many lines of thinking reflect the personality type distinctions, but that doesn't mean that people of the various types will have the philosophy that reflects that type; there may be a tendency in that direction, but the actual views of people (content of thinking) will probably be quite diverse within a type (structure of thinking).
Actually, I do tend to like to focus on systems apart from their physical application; it depends what I'm doing. In understanding things such as Socionics, you can't ignore the 'real application' aspect of it.
As for formalism vs. realism in mathematics, could you explain? Are you talking about the distinction between viewing mathematics totally abstractly, in terms of pure structures, and coming up with things like non-Euclidean geometry, and other counterintuitive ideas, etc., as opposed to thinking in terms of geometric images or at least a set interpretation of what numbers, etc., mean?

9. Edited for gayness.

10. As for formalism vs. realism in mathematics, could you explain? Are you talking about the distinction between viewing mathematics totally abstractly, in terms of pure structures, and coming up with things like non-Euclidean geometry, and other counterintuitive ideas, etc., as opposed to thinking in terms of geometric images or at least a set interpretation of what numbers, etc., mean?
Something like that. I'm thinking of this polarity:

1. Formalists, intuitionists, constructivists, who believe that mathematical truths are syntactical (i.e. they are only true in relation to the stipulated rules), and they link the concept of truth to provability. Examples: Kant, Brouwer, Hilbert, Wittgenstein.

2. Realists, platonists, who believe that mathematical truths are true in the same sense that other propositions are true (i.e. they correspond with an objectively existing reality), and they are something we discover. Examples: Plato, Kurt Gödel, Thomas Nagel.

Here is a link that accidentally came across, which might, or might not, be helpful (I haven't read the whole text): http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/...thematics1.htm

11. Originally Posted by implied
this sounds good to me. i'd even go as far to say that a lot of female NTs are more likely to be intuitive/sensory sub (i don't have any evidence to back this up, but it seems feasible.) it seems especially feasible in female types with in the ego block.
Jung actually said something to this effect - women with strong Thinking are likely to be Intuitive first of all.

12. Originally Posted by Aleesha
Originally Posted by implied
this sounds good to me. i'd even go as far to say that a lot of female NTs are more likely to be intuitive/sensory sub (i don't have any evidence to back this up, but it seems feasible.) it seems especially feasible in female types with in the ego block.
Jung actually said something to this effect - women with strong Thinking are likely to be Intuitive first of all.
Yeah he sure did. I just got the book.......

13. 2. Realists, platonists, who believe that mathematical truths are true in the same sense that other propositions are true (i.e. they correspond with an objectively existing reality), and they are something we discover. Examples: Plato, Kurt Gödel, Thomas Nagel.
That's interesting. I don't know much about Godel other than the outline of his proof (well, I guess later in his life, he philosophized about what it meant more, right?). But the incompleteness theorem seems to bridge the two perspectives, in that it's a proof that uses rigorous, formal mathematics (and really more formalism than a clearly intuitive approach) that just happens to show that mathematics is a kind of process of discovery.

Or to put it in a meta-Godelian way, you could say that if you think you can prove your way to knowledge and avoid the "discovery" route, you're wrong, because you can't maintain that belief consistently and prove the statement "YOU (as the formalist type) can't prove this statement and thereby and avoid the 'discovery' route," because if you proved or disproved it, it must be true, which means you're being inconsistent, but someone of the other persuasion gets no contradiction with the case of the statement being right, so it must be true, and discovery wins.

But the meaning and consequence of the stuff you can't prove with the formal system always seems so remote that one is left with the sense that it's all about formalism and not about realism, as you call it. And, actually, a relativist could probably use Godel's proof to argue that truth is even more subjective than originally thought.

Ha! Well, then I would probably make a guess that it probably means you are an Intuitive subtype of ILI.
I've thought exactly the same thing. I find I have a lot in common with IEIs and even go into IEI mode sometimes, but I seem more T in relation to people who are IEI. On the other hand, I often wonder how different the intuitive subtype for ILI is compared to the intuitive subtype for LII.

14. And, actually, a relativist could probably use Godel's proof to argue that truth is even more subjective than originally thought.
Yes. Many have done it. But they have misunderstood the implications of Gödel's two incompleteness theorems. My father has studied much more mathematics than I have, but even so he seems to have misunderstood the consequences of Gödel's proof. I can't say for sure that he really has, because we are Quasi-Identicals, so it's difficult for me to determine exactly what we agree and disagree about. But he shows a clear tendency to embrace relativistic theories and to confuse the two concepts truth and knowledge.

Wittgenstein, who I still believe is the same type as my father, tried to ignore Gödel's proof and find a way around it. Every INTj that I have met in real life and on these forums seems to be a formalist in a wide sense of the word. If you can't prove something to be true, it is not true, they seem to think. They start from a point within the system, the model, and when they hit the wall at the outer limits of the system, they stop there. At the same time I arrive at the wall from outer space. I can hear the INTjs talking inside the system, and they can hear me talking to them from the other side of the wall. But we still haven't found a door that we can open to see the world from the other person's perspective. Maybe there is no door.

The last sentence could be interpreted as an argument for a relativistic position, but it isn't. To explain why is very difficult, though. I have failed every time I have tried to do it. But it is not impossible to see the truth in what I claim. Kurt Gödel did, and Thomas Nagel does. Even some thinkers who appear to be extreme relativists just might have realized it. I'm thinking of to names in the realm of literary theory: Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels. I'm not sure about them, though.

15. That bit with the pre-logic was helpful. A friend of mine (pretty sure she's INTj) seems to judge the world as if she's seeing things through a grid, and everything that doesn't fit neatly into a box is chopped off. She is also pretty unshakeable in her judgments, and I'd say it's because you'd have to use the same sort of logic she uses to convince her. It's as if "being right" and "using my kind of logic" were synonyms. -- So that is Ti?

16. Yes, that is , although to me what you described seems more (to me) like an ISTj -- but I think that an ENFp, dominant with PoLR would have this impression from INTjs too.

17. If you can't prove something to be true, it is not true, they seem to think.
But that would simply be incorrect. There are lots of proofs about things being undecidable (besides just Godel's work). So someone who accepts things based on proof must accept the possibility of true things that are unprovable.

Being disturbed about not being able to prove something, or having to accept it on practical grounds without proof, is something I can understand though....especially if the functions for dealing with "messy reality" aren't well-developed yet.

But we still haven't found a door that we can open to see the world from the other person's perspective. Maybe there is no door.
Of course there's a door. INTps have Ti also. Everybody has access to all functions. Just because you find it easiest to see the world in a certain way doesn't mean you can't see it in a different way (as long as it's valid).

Could you describe more what perspective you think INTjs have that you're not able to penetrate? I mean, you describe a certain philosophy that you see as related to INTj, so you must have a pretty good understanding of their point of view, no?

18. inner confidence may be how it appears to others. I think this can also be seen and understood as qualification when receiving information.

19. Ms. Kensington, Edited for gayness.

20. I think that both of those are manifestations of Ti. We cannot assume that there is one single underlying trait that characterizes it. The same is true of just about every socionics function. IMO, trying to find a definition of Ti that characterizes the function as a whole is similar to the problem in philosophy of trying come up with a single, unifying definition of "art." Based on Wittgenstein's philosophy, there is probably no completely consistent definition of art. This is because art is simply a word we use under specific circumstances; we cannot assume that these circumstances are consistent. In the same way, Ti is a term used to characterize traits that are empirically related to each other, but not necessarily the same, and so we cannot assume that there is one single trait that defines it.

Jason

21. - White logic (structural logic) – a measure of logical information, analysis and systematization of information, a measure of cause-and-effect relationships, and understanding of formal rules and objective patterns.
As per Ti having "inner confidence" I do not see how that is it at all. Do EIIs and ESIs not have a similar "inner confidence?" Is this not something that can be said of every Ij type, whether or not it is true for individual members of that type?

22. My father is LII and he's an inventor like me.

One thing that annoys me to hell is that he doesn't seem to understand the difference between something backed up by empiric evidence and something backed up by logic. He sees everything that gets squared up in his mind as true; and while it works most of the time, some times it fails miserably.

As any ambitious inventor he's after the "philosopher's stone" of the trade: free energy. He's been amazed by the idea since he was a child and has built several prototypes of the thing. Needless to say, none of them have worked.

I do not pretend to say that's not possible; I simply question his approach. It's difficult for me to explain it, but I see all his attempts as pointless; while different cosmetically, they all follow the same simple rule that has proven not to work in the real world; but that he sticks up to because he's unable to go beyond logic.

It is like a dichotomy: systemic and empiricist. Empiricists understand the world not by generic rules, but by specific cases. This helps them to avoid repeating mistakes induced by pushing a system at all costs.

23. Originally Posted by Jonathan
It seems to me that one of the most confusing things about Socionics is the way the is described.

Note also on sites, such as the very thorough Socioniko.net site, the descriptions of what LII people are like, and especially the pictures of LIIs. Similarly people talk a lot about having to do with inner confidence.

When I think of people who fit LII via this description, these are people who have a "default" sense of being right....as if they can't be wrong. Trying to show that they might be wrong is like hitting a brick wall. Even if they're wrong about something, they have such a "sense" of being right that everybody believes them.

Then, there's another interpretation of . This interpretation of says that it's really just pure logic, pure understanding of systems, understanding the inner logic of an argument, the essence, the kind of thinking you do when you prove theorems or program computers or solve computer problems...the sort of inner organic logic you use in creating something new that has its own internal logic to it.

That's what I'm using when I think I'm using , and of course here I am on this broken record track still wondering if it's or .

If it is , it's completely different from the "inner confidence" or "default I'm right" attitude in the other interpretation of . When I use what I think of as inner logic, it's something objective, completely pure, completely apart from "who I am," and it doesn't prove that I'm smart. In fact, it only proves how little I know, and how much we can all figure out just by thinking.
What a profound post about the nature of ! As someone who is currently considering LII as my type, I am investigating precisely what is. The one thing that keeps coming back to me about this IM Element is that the process of 'analysis' and 'investigation' appears to stem from it. This makes sense since is all about taking a new concept and applying general logical reasoning skills in order to distill the general essence or meaning of the concept. I agree with Jonathan that it actually does not stress how smart I am, but rather how I am willing and interested in dissecting and investigating all aspects of the concept in order to uncover some larger truths about it. If anything, the process gets at how little I know but how much more willing I am to learn and uncover these emergent truths. I find it fascinating that LIIs are called "Analysts", and assuming that analyzing is the modus operandi of the LII, I can see myself fitting well as this type (and heck, being an Enneagram 6 with its constant analytical mental chatter doesn't hurt this in any conceivable way).

Now it is possible that the additional form of which relatess to fierce adherence and support to one's particular logical truths might reflect a subtype variant of LII. For example, assuming that LII is my type, I am likely the -subtype. I could easily see how the ''fierce adherence' of some LIIs might pertain more to the -subtype, while a more open, investigative style might belong to the -subtype. Perhaps this can be partially chalked up to a subtype diifference. (My confidence in this assertion isn't necessarily high).

Great post Jonathan! Cuts right to the heart of the distinctions!

24. im sorry i just find it interesting that a thread from 2006 has been necro'ed. but i thought what he said was also kinda interesting.

inner confidence seems redunant. the entire point of confidence is that it always has to be inner. If it's external then it doesn't count. it's like then you're just the big brute who can still be trolled by some sort of emotional weak point. True confidence is sort of like that one episode of Buffy, even though it was so annoying, when Cordelia was a super bitch to Xander, and he just shrugged it off at the end and didn't have anything to say. (It would be nice if maritsa had that experience with some people on here..) Confident people are never dependent on external circumstances for how confident they feel.

(btw even though I already know all this I still fucking hated that episode, because I understood the point but it was really horrible to watch because they turned Cordelia into a tolerable person just to make her back into uber bitch again (all for the sake of some preachy point that I already knew anyway), it was a bit unsettling. anyway buffy nerd rant off.)