School of Associative Socionics: Absolute and relative types of thinking (Te and Ti)

[Olga]

Dear friends,
I am happy to present to you my new article on differentiating the logics Te and Ti. Hope you will find it usefull and leave the comments.

http://www.socionics4you.com/index.p...hive/article-4

[Absurd]

This is an extension of Model A actually. What would be your thoughts on Ne(Ti) v. Ne(Fi), though - would one still be relativist and the other absolutist. Anyway, there was some guy once who said that there is a relative in every absolute, what do you think his type was?

[Olga]

This is an extension of Model A actually. What would be your thoughts on Ne(Ti) v. Ne(Fi), though - would one still be relativist and the other absolutist. Anyway, there was some guy once who said that there is a relative in every absolute, what do you think his type was?

Ok, I am gald if you understood the article as I realised that the quality of the translation is far from perfect.
Model A is integrated into associative theory and there is no contradiction. Types of psychic energy compensate the types of informational methabolism.
Ne(Ti) v. Ne(Fi) - you mean IEE and ILE? I am very sorry if i did not made it clear in my article that the types of thinking relate to all 16 types. All static tipes, which have Ti in the conscious block of model A - relativists and all dynamic types -absolutisits. However, I did mention that the type of thinking may be more or less obvious depending on other factors such as being logical or ethical. We must evaluate how the person acually express himself in thinking.

We can compare type os thinking with a certain accent. People support one and the same idea but they axpress themselves with different accent and this is how you know where the person belongs. The person himself does not notice his own accent - it is out of his focus of consciousness. But you do observe and you notice it. In some cases the "accent" may be prominent and you hear it straight ahead and sometimes not. You just need the person express himself on dfferent matters - to show his style of thinking and what he is inclined to. The person may exppress his support for unambiguity and it the same time show the relativism in the way he thinks and express himself. It can be compared to somebody who is saying what he is but he is not as you can hear his accent prominantly.
The person who said that must be relativist - one of the 8 static types Correct?

[Absurd]

Ok, I am gald if you understood the article as I realised that the quality of the translation is far from perfect.

I thought Reinin alone differentiated between those two in the first place.

The person who said that must be relativist - one of the 8 static types Correct?

Well yes, that guy seems to be Ti/Fe quadra and I changed the wording on purpose, it reads "there is an absolute within the relative". Wondered whether somebody uttering those words would make it differently in Gulenko's soup.

[Olga]

I thought Reinin alone differentiated between those two in the first place.

Which Reinins dichotomy you mean by that?

[Absurd]

Merry/Serious-Subjective/Objective. I wouldn't advise playing with it unless you know what you're foing, you can easily end up your own conflictor/some other type.

[Olga]

I thought you would say this dichotomy. But it has got a different meaning. In fact the meaning of this Reinin dichotomy is not clear - it could be close to logic and ethics. It is excatly how I see this dichotomy. Absolutists- relativists is another explanation for Te ad Ti -preference.

[Absurd]

Well, that's Reinin for you and this is the reason it shouldn't be tossed around lightly for it is going to produce different results even in the hands of somebody who allegedly knows what s/he is talking about. Not that people can't derive sociotype through the use of those dichotomies, any one can do that, but actually dwelling on it as sole means of getting at it is a bit limiting.

As for it being "close to logic and ethics", all of them Reinin dichotomies deal with logics/ethics, but I think I know what you mean, although I would require further info on it from you to not bark in the dark.

Model A specifies through its supermodel powers Ti/Fe as subjective stuff though and Fi/Te objective. I can be wrong though, I had a beer already. Anyway, subjectivity has always been analytical and based on interpretation whereas objectivity not.

For some reason I can't quote you. I think Jadae put a curse on me.

EDIT: Oh shit, I think I know what you meant.

[Olga]

Model A specifies through its supermodel powers Ti/Fe as subjective stuff though and Fi/Te objective. I can be wrong though, I had a beer already. Anyway, subjectivity has always been analytical and based on interpretation whereas objectivity not.

I have encountered different meanings of subjective - objective. One of them was introversion-extraversion. As if an introvert tekes informaiton through your inner self, and extraverts are directed to the world of objects. In this sense we can say about all extraverted functions as being objective and introverted - subjective.
However, if we compare logical and ethical types then the difference is often clear that values are different. Logical types rely ore on the logics and ethical on feelings.

What you are saying I think refers to the dichotomy emotional - constructive: Ti/Fe and Fi/Te . Some sort of compensation between logic and ethics?

[squark]

Te is an object function and Ti a field function, so your explanation of Te being absolute and Ti being relative I thought was quite good in distinguishing the two - it also applies to other object and field fxns. It's not a new concept, but you did a nice job of explaining it. The section on the associative model and TPEs seems wholly extraneous to the point, but I haven't read anything on that model, so I'm probably missing what you're trying to communicate there.

[Olga]

Te is an object function and Ti a field function, so your explanation of Te being absolute and Ti being relative I thought was quite good in distinguishing the two - it also applies to other object and field fxns. It's not a new concept, but you did a nice job of explaining it. The section on the associative model and TPEs seems wholly extraneous to the point, but I haven't read anything on that model, so I'm probably missing what you're trying to communicate there.

Many thanks! I dont think that we can relate this dichotomy absolutists- relativists to object and field as to extroverted and introverted functions. I relate it only to logics in the conscious block or to be more precise - to static or dynamic types. Static types are relativists. I regret that I did not explain as clear as that in the article.

[Olga]

I would like to ask you- who is interested in this dichotomy, to wrtie the examples of thinking so that we can type into Absloute or Relative type?:

"Conduct a simple experiment. Gather 3-4 of the same type, no matter what it is, and which of the specialist schools to identify them. Put them any available job (work together to solve the problem of intellectual, to play the situation, etc.) and observe their behavior . and you will see that, despite the identity of types, some of them will be more active, others are more passive, some are more resourceful, others are more conservative, and so most interesting is that the greater the number of representatives of the same type, you collect, the more differences between them discover. Thus, the depth of typology can be extended even further. "

I guess, some of the examples can be less definitive than the others.

[Olga]

Now translation must be better: http://www.socionics4you.com/index.p...hive/article-4

[Creepy-pikachu]

I understand this principle of idea, but it gets confusing in other contexts of Socionics.

[Olga]

I understand this principle of idea, but it gets confusing in other contexts of Socionics.

What exactly is confusing regarding the other context of socionics?

[Psyhence]

I find this to complicate the theory without adding new Knowledge. In fact the easiest way to counterpole Te vs Ti is to depict them as deductive vs inductive thinking respectively.

Te is a process like thinking that doesn't center on the object perse, but in the objective way of measuring. Meaning it contemplates the theoretical knowledge that has been consented as objective first and then follows "if then else" commands which describe hypothetically what should be observed, just to go ahead and confirm the observation. In this process the center of attention is on what actually can be confrimed of a theory by observation.

On the other hand Ti is not continuous and procedural like Te, but rather is discrete without any obvious path. By this I mean that the process of Te could be followed by others with deductive thinking abilities (which is one of the reasons why it is consented as objective). On the other hand Ti process cannot be followed by anyone but the observer of the subsequent data that was used. in fact Ti allows for the same data to pattern in different manners; it gathers information from specific observations that serve the purpose of patterning and arriving to new hypotheses and theories. It can be understood that Ti will then increase "subjectivity" as depicted in the article, since the inductive way of thinking necessarily reaches many conclusions depending on the pattern used to stablish the hypothesis and then theories.

The merry vs serious dichotomy is as mentioned what separates Fe/Ti from Te/Fi types.

The absolutist as mentioned cannot be considered to seek for discreetness since discrete information is static in socionics (also a statistical term). Here the wording is problematic, as in the use of "subjective" because you are successfully increasing uncertainty of the definitions by reusing words that have been adapted to the theory in other ways. Also "Absolutist" cannot say to exist in reality; for instance science doesn't seek for that kind of "only one answer is right", since modernism is over, and also because the philosophy of science is instrumentalism; For science it's not the answer but the path, just like for Te, it seeks for not uncertainty (a kind of certainty in which uncertainty isn't increased by observation).

[Olga]

Thank you for comment, Zcyd.
I wonder if you can actually show those parts of text where I use the words inadequetly in you opinion?
I see the point in what you are saying about the deductive and inductive thinking. I do no remember however that this quality has been linked to version of the logics (Te & Ti) before, or may be I just not rememer it. What I remember that this dichotomy was linked to questim ( questioning) - declatim (declaring) in Reinin dichotomies.
I assume I could not explain good enough for everyone to grasp the idea of absolutists- relativists as I see it. May be some of the words I used like descrete were not right. I apologize for that.
I am successfuly differentiating between absolutists and relativists by the style of writing. The Te-types show the high degree of interest in the concrete observable fact - as you say. This fact could be only one: yes or no. And they try to emphesize it in their own usual way: only this and only this way - the best of the best. They do not wan many (variety) - only one. This ONE is for me a tendency to absolute - absolutism like the leading idea, object, thing - you name it. They assume that the others may not see or not hear them well enough- what they mean. They shout often in big letters to make it stand out :

Чтобы отражались значки, то В ЛИЧКЕ НУЖНО НАЖАТЬ НА кнопку "ЦИТАТА" и скопировать весь мой пост со значками.

However, although I said in the article that this type of thinking is charteristic of all dynamic types I repeat that it is more evident in the speech of the logical types than ethical types. And again this is just a supportive criteria for subjective use like many other instruments in socionics.

[Psyhence]

Thank you for comment, Zcyd.
I wonder if you can actually show those parts of text where I use the words inadequetly in you opinion?
I see the point in what you are saying about the deductive and inductive thinking. I do no remember however that this quality has been linked to version of the logics (Te & Ti) before, or may be I just not rememer it. What I remember that this dichotomy was linked to questim ( questioning) - declatim (declaring) in Reinin dichotomies.
I assume I could not explain good enough for everyone to grasp the idea of absolutists- relativists as I see it. May be some of the words I used like descrete were not right. I apologize for that.
I am successfuly differentiating between absolutists and relativists by the style of writing. The Te-types show the high degree of interest in the concrete observable fact - as you say. This fact could be only one: yes or no. And they try to emphesize it in their own usual way: only this and only this way - the best of the best. They do not wan many (variety) - only one. This ONE is for me a tendency to absolute - absolutism like the leading idea, object, thing - you name it. They assume that the others may not see or not hear them well enough- what they mean. They shout often in big letters to make it stand out :

Чтобы отражались значки, то В ЛИЧКЕ НУЖНО НАЖАТЬ НА кнопку "ЦИТАТА" и скопировать весь мой пост со значками.

However, although I said in the article that this type of thinking is charteristic of all dynamic types I repeat that it is more evident in the speech of the logical types than ethical types. And again this is just a supportive criteria for subjective use like many other instruments in socionics.

One of the problems is that the Te focus is as you mentioned dynamic, but as you refer to the absolutist part, you loose sight of this and declare that this is a systematical decision-making function. For Te there is no certainty, just probable/improbable, in reliance to evidence in objects. The idea of absolute truths is disliked by a function which is concerned with changes, it is rather attracted to methods.
What you mention is a particular state in the consciousness of Te deciding whether x path is reliable, but that's just partially representative of Te process

[Olga]

One of the problems is that the Te focus is as you mentioned dynamic, but as you refer to the absolutist part, you loose sight of this and declare that this is a systematical decision-making function. For Te there is no certainty, just probable/improbable, in reliance to evidence in objects. The idea of absolute truths is disliked by a function which is concerned with changes, it is rather attracted to methods.
What you mention is a particular state in the consciousness of Te deciding whether x path is reliable, but that's just partially representative of Te process

I wonder if you are ILI type?
TE is an objective function, directed to facts which are as good as the objects themselves. So they want to see the world as facts and objects - concrete and absolute. This is the meaning. Dynamics can be considered as process or form of thinking but absolutism as an objective. TE is the functions which is directed to the objectives and the estimative process is serving the objective.
Absolute does not mean static and does not mean subjective. It means superiority of one object/fact before many. This is not about the way we see things as a part of the everchanging process. It has got nothing to do with it. Or may be it is as compensation. Just becuase everything is changing we have to trust only what we can see as object - as one. Like a stepping stone.What else can you trust being a Te-type?
If you follow with your eye the movement of the pattern - you need to follow one at a time - so that it will make sense to you. If you stop the picture - you dont need to look at one object as objects do not move and do not change. You can see many of them and evaluate them as a part of a network in relation to each other. But in the picture with chaotic movement of many objects this would not have any sense. This would be a work of perception - not logic functions at all.

Does it make sense?

[Psyhence]

Well I just read that article again, and still cannot see how the description added relevant information. I don't know whether my type is ILI, but I rarely use capitals, in my country that would be perceived as Fe rather (I.e attention whore writes her feelings in capitals to increase drama), so I ain't sure if what you are suggesting is consistent.
what I am sure of is that what you are describing in absolut vs relative is exactly the same information (at least statistically seen) as that contained in objects vs fields.

Here a problem with your description of dynamics: not only Te is concerned with them. So why or how would an Si or Ni dominant, which is also a dynamic, focus on one object at a time if their Dom function which is also focal is concerned with fields?

A problem with ENTJ: according to gulenko they have Voryical-Synergetic cognition which process doesn't resemble the use of Te as you depicted in the article. Real life examples of TeNi have supported the fact that their thinking process they cannot follow, they are simultaneously weighting the importance of information (not consciously selecting) and they intuitively know which way is more reliable.

I'm not totally against your theory, it just seems not to to fit other model explanations, and it won't offer me interesting data which would help me develop my typing skills.

[mikemex]

Real life examples of TeNi have supported the fact that their thinking process they cannot follow, they are simultaneously weighting the importance of information (not consciously selecting) and they intuitively know which way is more reliable.

That's essentially how the intuitive process works. It is amplified by Fi/Te, as it widens the extension of the data set compared to Ti/Fe, which restricts it to a more specific criteria.

[Olga]

Well I just read that article again, and still cannot see how the description added relevant information. I don't know whether my type is ILI, but I rarely use capitals, in my country that would be perceived as Fe rather (I.e attention whore writes her feelings in capitals to increase drama), so I ain't sure if what you are suggesting is consistent.
what I am sure of is that what you are describing in absolut vs relative is exactly the same information (at least statistically seen) as that contained in objects vs fields.

Thats ok, I am glad that you see at least some sense in the article.

Here a problem with your description of dynamics: not only Te is concerned with them. So why or how would an Si or Ni dominant, which is also a dynamic, focus on one object at a time if their Dom function which is also focal is concerned with fields?

Misunderstanding. One thing at a time can be interpreted as a sign of rationality. What I suggested may be was not a very good analogy~comparison at the end. I understand about the fields but we are talking about the process of thinking/judging and not about perception. That is why dichotomy rationality - irrationaliy is irrelevant. Yes?

A problem with ENTJ: according to gulenko they have Voryical-Synergetic cognition which process doesn't resemble the use of Te as you depicted in the article. Real life examples of TeNi have supported the fact that their thinking process they cannot follow, they are simultaneously weighting the importance of information (not consciously selecting) and they intuitively know which way is more reliable.

Gulenko had absolutely different criteria for his description of cognitions of different types. I am not sure what exactly his criteria were and how he came to his classification of cognition. We are taltking about very different perspective on the process of thinking and describe it from different perspective. I don't think it is a good idea to compare my and his approach. And if we want to do it - we need to look at the criteria and to understand how it came to shape.

I'm not totally against your theory, it just seems not to to fit other model explanations, and it won't offer me interesting data which would help me develop my typing skills.
I understand it - if it does not make sense to you - you cannot use it. We all process information differently and different things make sense for us. Thank you for comments.