Coldest of the Socion
IEIs and Architecture
I'm pretty sure it is type related as they have as a mobilizing function. Architecture is a means of self-realization.
Architecture seems IXTp. I used to design a lot of housing architecture back in the 3rd grade, I guess I wanted to be one. Architecture is kind of a nice word for Te creative. You have the ISTp craftsman, and the INTp architect/designer.
Coldest of the Socion
But Ti is structural whereas Te is process orientated. Te would be more suited to, say, the design of a highway or aqueduct, as it builds processes. With Ti, the objects themselves benefit from the design.
Te deals with the spatial recognition and physical processes of logical nomination and its effects, where as Ti seems to focus on the sequence of mathematical components, or the systematic calculation of different parts, so to speak. I guess each one develops a sense of structure, but I would call architecture more Te for its generalized lexicon. The perception of structure or architecture in Ti is definitely more internalized, basically where most of the deciding factors deduce or terminate and produce their effect.
Te is more discrete and factual, like looking at pieces and parts, their functionality, their utility, and their logical characteristics and properties. This is usually coupled with Ni or Si to form a cohesive intuition or sense of how these discrete factual elements form together into a whole.
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Ti is a different process, while similar in its logical nature to Te its more concerned with underlying principles and structure. Logical characteristics don't simply exist as discrete attributes but are derived from a deeper hierarchy of reasoning, some kind of structural framework. This is coupled with Ne or Se which provides a sort of critical observation in reality which works in tandem with a set amount of static logical principles.
In a way the introverted element is what glues together the pieces and the extroverted element is what inspires the pieces in each kind of approach.
A Ti type designs elements based of Ne or Se functionality, and fits these together with Ti into a logical framework
A Te type designs elements based of Te functionality, and fits these together with Ni or Si sense.
Consider someone designing a military rifle....
A Ti approach would consider Se/Ne functionality..... Se as in, what kind of force is the rifle capable of deliver in practice, how reliable is it; Ne as in, what kind of potential advantage does this rifle have over other rifles, what makes it unique, what sets it apart as a good design? Then once measures are set into place, Ti is used to accomplish this with set logical principles and structure, by considering the laws of physics and past designs of rifles and exploiting these to accomplish the required measures.
A Te approach would consider Te functionality.... Te as in, what is the muzzle velocity of the rifle, what is its penetration depth into various kinds of materials, how efficient is it in a given battlefield setting. All these facts are gathered together and then discrete decisions are made like stacking dominoes to produce a final product.
At the end of the day its all the same but the approach is different, all NT's are great developers of technology, and all ST's are great operators of technology.... ST's hold an advantage over NT's in their concept of using technology in real life (in the rifle example... the soldier would have a perspective over an NT weapons designer in the implementation of the piece of technology).... NT's hold an advantage over ST's in their concept of how technology actually works and how to create it.
NT: Mission Control Engineers
NT: Weapons Designer
NT: Automotive Engineer
ST: Automotive Mechanic
NT: Electrical Engineer
NT: Computer Engineer and Software Developer
ST: System Operator and Technical Support
In all cases ST's are more tactile with their technology, needing to touch and operate it
NT's are more mental with their technology, needing to comprehend how the gears turn and it works
Gamma NT => Efficiency and Utility Designer, Firm Understanding of Effectiveness of Logical Components, Looks for ways to push the effectiveness and efficiency of a design, then attempts to imagine a way of incorporating this into a system. Pushes limits of technology.
Alpha NT => Creative / Experimental Designer, Firm Understanding of Logical Structure , Looks for "Lightbulb" like insight solutions to problems and sets out using the logical principles and laws of operation to make it happen. Source for new ideas.
Beta ST => Practical Operator, Uses gut sensory perception to simplisticly and effectively implement technology , understands the principle on which something operates and can therefore draw upon that to surmise which situations are most practical for the technology to me implemented in. Finds best situations to use equipment in.
Delta ST => Efficient Operator, Understands limits and effectiveness and utility of instrument , and learns to utilize equipment as efficiently and effective as possible . Finds best usage of equipment.
I find my thought process tends to favor the Alpha/Beta technology matchup more so than the Gamma/Delta matchup
You may say gammas have a good idea on practical circumstance because of in their quadra values... but this is a value for gamma NTs not a STRENGTH.... the only place Se appears as a strength in the Gamma Quadra is when it is coupled with Fi... Gamma Se is more of a relationship based Se.... Gamma NTs greatly value this Se in relationships but don't know how to create it.
Beta Se is different, Beta Se is forceful implementation of structure and hierarchy, that is why beta is aristocratic, it appears as a STRENGTH in betas when it is coupled with Ti.... Beta NFs greatly value this structure and implementation but don't know how to create it.
Last edited by male; 12-08-2010 at 07:59 AM.
I'm not sure I understand your example, or its somewhat misleading me. Ti often more so specializes in a certain mechanical or structural knowledge base of something, and strives for modeling the performance or plan, etc. Te on the other hand would look more at the conceptual direction, would name things primarily for their functionality within the specific goal and it's logical reality, not for their designed purpose or meaning (internal workings, iow, of a scheme or structure), so that a subject or subjective experience is generalized and integrated into their sense of logical fluidity and they can work smoothly around foreign knowledge bases. Te would be more like "Is this going to work? If not then I'll try this." "I need the up-and-up so I can move on with the project. Save the technical jargon." Which, don't mistake as I like to point out, that a Te goal-first mentality is more significant to ETjs and their dominantly goal-oriented attitudes, just as active modeling is for the same primarily goal-oriented Ti doms, so I don't mean the generalized term "goal-first logic" as in IXTps are strongly goal-oriented, since Te is the area of creativity, just more as in the goal reflects the same external sense of logical orientation.
Originally Posted by HaveLucidDreamz
I love architecture but am not sure that I would make a good architect. If I had to do a job related to architecture, interior design would be a much better fit for me. Not just adding decorative fluff, but really understanding how the people who are going to inhabit the space will live and work. How they will feel in response to the environment; what will give them a sense of flow, balance, ease ... or not. What fixtures, finishes, and furnishings will really stand the test of time.
I also easily understand the other end of architecture, which is how and whether a structure fits into its setting--its siting on the land, how it resonates with natural surroundings, and whether its style harmonizes or clashes with the current appearance of a neighborhood/city and its historical influences and values.
So basically, I would be good for pre-structure vision, and post-structure life-quality-enhancing design. In either case, I could interact effectively with clients to support their dreams.
And in between ... probably not. Technical disaster--I would design a whimsical house that might topple over. Project management disaster--I would probably have a horrible time trying to advance a project on the practical front.
Architecture is all S and T...
I'm not sure I agree architecture is S. I mean, an architect could use S, but.
There's so much visioning and big picture and feeling one's way forward going on in an architectural firm. I'd think the firm would need some S people on board, and that leads to a different, side point, which is that architecture involves different things: the client side, the project management, the economic matters, the creative planning and visioning, engineering, drafting, legal stuff, bluh bluh.
I know two ST types who are involved in building projects. One is dead, but whatever. The first guy built houses on spec and sold for a profit. The other builds apartments and reworks apartments on spec, same deal. This kind of business undertaking involves some of the same things an architecture firm must deal with, but it omits architecture as an art or craft, even if the structures are of very high quality and have aesthetic appeal.
Coldest of the Socion
nvm I don't know shit about architecture
I understand what you mean about planning, etc. What do you think about the more detailed aspects? Does it require an eye for detail and aesthetics?
Coldest of the Socion
When going into detail and aesthetics, of course they will overlap, as it is a matter of interpretation. But Te detail and aesthetics will showcase an interesting way to achieve functionality(e.g. sundial being made of primitive material, yet functioning accurately). While Ti detail and aesthetics will showcase an interesting way to achieve a concept(e.g. sportscar being designed with a new look to improve upon the model).
So I think you might react to Te's magnificence as "Hey, who would've thought you could get it to work that way?". And you might react to Ti's magnificence like "Hey, that design looks nice, how did you think of it?"
My question was about how sensing is used in architecture, not logic. I find it hard to believe that architecture is purely a logical field with no sensing or intuition at all.
Coldest of the Socion
I actually think sensing and intuition are more important, there is no obvious logical derivation or solution to an architectural project. It usually is a sensory or intuitive thing, probably both. I've heard an interesting thing somewhere that architectures sometimes describe feeling the force of a support in their bones, that in some odd way their creations are some kind of intuition of bodily structure and support. I think that holds true to some levels, definitely at the most basic level. Of course in modern times there is a fairly robust amount of theory on structural mechanics to describe buildings. So its possible these days to design something with pure mathematics and logic without any sense or intuition or talent in architecture at all.
Originally Posted by thehotelambush