# Thread: There's no truth in Ti There's no thought in Te

1. ## There's no truth in Ti There's no thought in Te

From time to time appears in typology forums some kind of debate about which function is "the best". This is a pointless debate. Best implies a subjective valoration, there's no objective answer. The most we can do is discussing which funtion is more useful for achieving a particular goal, or developing a particular task, according to a previously defined measurement criterion (time spend, quality of the final product, whatever). Even in these situations, a function alone could achieve nothing. I will exemplify this with Ti and Te.

But what is Ti, and what is Te? No debate about this is intended (here) so I will use the simplest definition that could be valid under most interpretations of the problem, and at the same time could be quite well related to reality (external phenomena): Ti = objective static conceptualizator; Te = objective dynamic conceptualizator. With these definitions in mind, we can easily see the correlation about Ti and logic, Te and empirical data. These are not synonyms, but the latter are consecuences of the nature of the functions. Ti is not logic, but it's the best equipped for developing this kind of task. Premises are well defined and inmutable concepts, so are conclusions, and logic stablishes well defined relationships between them...

So when any of us tries to solve a problem, which method would be superior, Ti ("logic") or Te ("empirical data")?. Void question, we need of both of them. Any of these methods if isolated will produce nothing. Reality is like the ocean, infinite. It contains infinite information. And this is pretty much true, not an analogy or even a "perception". There's a correlation between the physical property called entropy and the concept called information entropy which measures the amount of information contained in a system. But as we are finite entities, we cannot process an infinite amount of data. If someone wants to drink ocean water, a cup is needed, whose volume is fixed (like a well defined concept). If not fixed (open hand, for example) water will leak. Ti is necessary, then.

As commented, using repeatedly Ti will imply the rules of logic. More than this: Maths work (I know about Gödel, but that's another issue) and they are, in certain way, the static essence of Nature. the always working generalization (Ti users love universals, right?). Let's think about numbers, we can have two pencils, two rubbers, two computers... two whatever, particular cases. If we supress particularization as much as we can, we would have simply "two". The idea of two is always there, always working, and always the same...

But we must never forget that logic rules work in this way: a logical deduction allows to us to deduce a true conclusion from a true premise. It says nothing about the validity of its premise, which has to be deduced form another premise and another and another... And if we don't cheat (circular reasonings) the first premise is just that, Reality or Nature (Spinoza's God). A glass of water is not the ocean, thinking they are equivalent is a reification fallacy, (overtrusting concepts) which is a fault Ti users have an higher chance of making. They tend (more than the rest) to use premises without questioning if they are valid, and if so, how much. And as Russell said: "with a false premise, you can prove anything". Please nobody get offended; I'm saying just Ti users have an higher chance for unconsciously making such mistakes. Once aware about this, this inclination could be corrected. The same applies to any type. Russell was likely LII, by the way.

Ti is still needed. In fact, pure dynamic conceptualization is pretty much an oxymoron. If some information-processing machine like human brain operates in such dynamic way that tracks external world at the same speed it changes, then there's no way to be aware about what's happening. Storing information (memory) requires a (at least) temporal disconnection from the source of information; if not, there's no storing, only "transparent" processing. For comparing new information with old one, it must be previously stored in certain way. Certain coherence ("definition") is required, which is not possible if all changes and nothing is preserved.

So Ti without Te is blind; Te without Ti is dumb. Both (or equivalent) are required, hence the title.

2. hypothetico-deductivism, look it up. it's the reconciliation of rationalism and empiricism and the foundation of science and all correct thinking.

3. Originally Posted by labster
hypothetico-deductivism, look it up. it's the reconciliation of rationalism and empiricism and the foundation of science and all correct thinking.
. Te and Ti working together.

Excuse me if I'm a bit picky, but I would like to comment something for general benefit (because it's easily forgotten): the test part (experiment) only proves that the hypothesis works in the exact conditions of the experiment. It does not make it universally valid.

Also the test requires Popper-falsifiable concepts. If not it's meaningless.

4. I think it is needed to contrast the fields vs objects parts in the operational definition of functions. Your definitions of Te and Ti lack this information.

the importance of this is that Ti is evident in the dicrete relationships it proposes. It is true that this doesn't imply the use of logic, but it does state that every part in the dialectical process makes evident declarations, in contrast to ambiguous users (N or F). So the content that is exchanged is easy to follow because the manner in which the information is correlated is evident.
It suits rationalism and inductive thinking because it works from concrete observations working through the patterning of relationships between propositions to build up "logical"-evident assumptions (hypothesis ⇒ generalization).

Te is evident as well, but objective evident and not relationship evident. The changes in objects are so evident that the notion of its relationship with other objects is not necessary for an assesment of that kind of information. I.e. I don't need to know the value of gravity for noticing that objects are drawn to earth. In this sense I can make lots of analyses in objects based solely on their changes without knowing or taking into accout their evident relationships. Te logic works deductively since it starts of at the generalization that is obvious in change, like the notion that the flow of a river will end up in the sea, and then confirms particular cases.

Both processes don't need the other to be complete, but their interaction does create a refinement of thinking. They are supplementary to each other because they enhance their efficiency.

Of course this is an idealization of how a logical process could/should look like, but there are naturally lots of mistakes that could be done while using these processes.

5. @Zcyd, I think you take the definition of the functions a bit too literally. Also the Te part is questionable. Being object-focused function, quantity is pretty much a property if should notice (value of gravity and such). You can argue that saying an object is heavier requires comparison with a reference, hence relationships, but I don't think that applies here. Fields technically means absence of objects, or if you want, all minus objects. But mass, color, etc are properties of objects, so they fall more in the land of Te.

In your definitions it seems (keyword, seems) that Te is somehow implicit in Ti, being Ti capable of the same and more, and being Te a simple more direct approach. I prefer the more neutral definitions objective static/dynamic conceptualizators. These relatively simple definitions are quite well capable of explaining the behavior of these functions, and fits relatively well in Socionics interpretation. Maybe they do not equal, but I do not share completely Socionics point of view. I have my own with the idea in mind of trying to correlating "functions" with real mental processes that could happen (brain), and not simply describing a logic but meaningless system. Whatever definition you use, they're opposite attitudes for the same problem, two limit cases if you want. They speak about the same from two opposite angles, lacking each funtion the information the alternative is providing.

The purpose of the OP was not strictly to debate about what Te and Ti are. It was to show that the problem of achieving knowledge (knowing, and knowing how much you can know) cannot be solved from a single radical approach; you always need complementary methods. These functions were useful examples.

6. Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
The purpose of the OP was not strictly to debate about what Te and Ti are. It was to show that the problem of achieving knowledge (knowing, and knowing how much you can know) cannot be solved from a single radical approach; you always need complementary methods. These functions were useful examples.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post920867

EDIT:

Also http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...288-The-T-Wars

7. I disagree with the title of the thread, there is both truth and thought to both Ti and Te.

8. My current understanding is this:

Ti is purely theoretical and analogical until it yields predictable results.

Te is... only applicable if the thing yields predictable results already, however is much more unbiased and based on information that is widely agreed upon.

This is usually why Ti users can more quickly think "on the fly" while Te users have to refer to their mental Rolodex until they decide its time to get experimental.

9. Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
@Zcyd, I think you take the definition of the functions a bit too literally. Also the Te part is questionable. Being object-focused function, quantity is pretty much a property if should notice (value of gravity and such). You can argue that saying an object is heavier requires comparison with a reference, hence relationships, but I don't think that applies here. Fields technically means absence of objects, or if you want, all minus objects. But mass, color, etc are properties of objects, so they fall more in the land of Te.
Not literally, but operationally, the point is that the values of the matrix define those variables in such a way that the way of meassurement is clear, your definition aren't useful for that purpose.
What I meant is that the number assigned to gravity is discrete within the frame of reference (I.e earth) and in fact gravity is a relationship and not an object. Psychologically field actually means distancing from the object to grasp the interaction of them, also physically a field doesn't declare an absence of objects it rather sets confitions for their interaction.

In your definitions it seems (keyword, seems) that Te is somehow implicit in Ti, being Ti capable of the same and more, and being Te a simple more direct approach. I prefer the more neutral definitions objective static/dynamic conceptualizators. These relatively simple definitions are quite well capable of explaining the behavior of these functions, and fits relatively well in Socionics interpretation. Maybe they do not equal, but I do not share completely Socionics point of view. I have my own with the idea in mind of trying to correlating "functions" with real mental processes that could happen (brain), and not simply describing a logic but meaningless system. Whatever definition you use, they're opposite attitudes for the same problem, two limit cases if you want. They speak about the same from two opposite angles, lacking each funtion the information the alternative is providing.
Well I actually meant to expose how Ti can have acces to information evidently without Te, and at the same time Te without Ti. Nevertheless it seems clear that a mathematical declaration is not necessarily empirically correct, such as a continuous observation of a phenomenon doesn't necessarily lead us to theoretically correct description.

The purpose of the OP was not strictly to debate about what Te and Ti are. It was to show that the problem of achieving knowledge (knowing, and knowing how much you can know) cannot be solved from a single radical approach; you always need complementary methods. These functions were useful examples.
I realized that the approach was more of a Ti perspective of how Ti and Te need each other, but I wanted to argue that they don't, but that their interaction could be of use for reducing uncertainty, which is the example of science, as mentioned before

10. Originally Posted by Zcyd
Not literally, but operationally, the point is that the values of the matrix define those variables in such a way that the way of meassurement is clear, your definition aren't useful for that purpose.
What I meant is that the number assigned to gravity is discrete within the frame of reference (I.e earth) and in fact gravity is a relationship and not an object. Psychologically field actually means distancing from the object to grasp the interaction of them, also physically a field doesn't declare an absence of objects it rather sets confitions for their interaction.
Psychologically field can mean a lot of things, which does not imply that these concepts represent true realities (remember, socionics is not a science). Not only gravity; any observable characteristic you can attribute to an object is in fact relative, there's always an underlying relationship. Big->compared with smaller one; bright->darker one; heavy->lighter one, etc. According to this, all would be Ti and nothing Te. Picking some observable characteristics and putting them as Ti and leaving the rest as Te is arbitrary, and the result of taking literally the socionic definitions, even if you call this operationally (operationally according to a definition with represents a concept which is not proven...).

Physically, you always need an object for detecting and producing a field, so there's no object without field neither field without object. Technically, they are two aspects for a same reality, so to speak.

Pure Ti cannot exist, neither pure Te, except as mere concepts (limit cases). There would only be users prone to consider one of these aspects before and more frecuently than the alternative, and that's all. But that does not imply that you can perceive anything meaningful with pure Ti, neither Te.

Well I actually meant to expose how Ti can have acces to information evidently without Te, and at the same time Te without Ti. Nevertheless it seems clear that a mathematical declaration is not necessarily empirically correct, such as a continuous observation of a phenomenon doesn't necessarily lead us to theoretically correct description.
You can't. A pure sets of relationships (fields, if you want) are useful for nothing. A formula is just a formula; you always need to put meaning in it for making it useful. Logics, for example. A->B; B->C; A->C. But What are A, B, C? Or Physics. Newton's Law and Coulomb's are identical expressions. You need to stablish which variables are masses, which are charges, etc, and also to put an arbitrary reference for making measurements (connecting somehow with the object and its properties).

At the same time, pure measurement without relationships is just a bunch of data. Relationships (Ti, fields) give format to what would be otherwise chaotic, incoherent, meaningless.

The examples you've provided are not pure Ti (fields) neither pure Te (objects), just an inclination for each one. Because nobody can think in terms of pure Ti and pure Te; this is a reification for concepts which refers to single, indivisible, reality. I took them to the limit cases instead arbitrarily stopping in what socionics could consider fields and objects.

I realized that the approach was more of a Ti perspective of how Ti and Te need each other, but I wanted to argue that they don't, but that their interaction could be of use for reducing uncertainty, which is the example of science, as mentioned before
They need each other. Ti provides precision, Te accuracy, so to speak. One without the other goes nowhere.

I'm not sure if you've properly understood what was discussed about knowledge in the OP. If Ti is static and Te is dynamic (which is a premise in socionics), you cannot understand reality from a pure static or dynamic point of view. You've not considered any of this in your argumentations, only the field/object aspect, which has the commented problems (still I've answered to you as best as I could). The static/dynamic viewpoint can be managed in a more accurate way, and it's still part of the original definition.

If you still consider that Ti and Te can achieve knowledge without needing each other, you've to prove there's a way for a pure static knowledge and a pure dynamic one. Go ahed.

11. Originally Posted by InvisibleJim
I disagree with the title of the thread, there is both truth and thought to both Ti and Te.
Consider it a metaphor.

I'm not sure if you disagree with my particular definitions or even using them you disagree with my conclusions. Anycase consult conversation with Zcyd.

12. Excellent.

I'm not sure if I have for contributing there more than I expressed here, but I'll check.

13. In socionics, rationality and irrationality is termed with Cyclothymia and Schizothymia in Aushra's original work.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...gustinaviciute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizothymia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclothymia

In this sense rationality itself is a spectrum of schizophrenia, and it's not that far fetched because rationality is a distillation of truth that we have adopted from thinking and condensing a large body of sensory inputs and previous knowledge. However this distillation is not representative of sensory information in its entirety.

Individuals that display excessive rationality can have very strange beliefs, believing in their deductions and inductions irregardless of evidence, new information and sources. While individuals with underdeveloped rational functions can believe whatever happens to be told to them or forced on them, willing receivers of brain washing and all sort of memes. The manifestations are quite diverse and varied, but I think the functional arrangement of information elements within the psyche provides a model for analysis.

It's also important to realize that logical ego types are not logical types in the fullest sense and that 1/2 of the logical egos are sensors and intuitive types and that the rational function is secondary. Fundamentally logical intuitive and logical sensors are intuitive and sensory types and not logical types. And vice versa.

However each individual with a logical producing function will have in their ID a 4D logical function in the demonstrative 8th function. And this is a very important function as far as world view as it is the most powerful unconscious function as strong as the base function.

There is a great deal of diversity within the human population and it's important in Socionics to focus on the manifestation of information elements within the various types vs other typology. Everyone has every function and to grasp the truth it might require all of them.

14. Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam
Psychologically field can mean a lot of things, which does not imply that these concepts represent true realities (remember, socionics is not a science). Not only gravity; any observable characteristic you can attribute to an object is in fact relative, there's always an underlying relationship. Big->compared with smaller one; bright->darker one; heavy->lighter one, etc. According to this, all would be Ti and nothing Te. Picking some observable characteristics and putting them as Ti and leaving the rest as Te is arbitrary, and the result of taking literally the socionic definitions, even if you call this operationally (operationally according to a definition with represents a concept which is not proven...).

Physically, you always need an object for detecting and producing a field, so there's no object without field neither field without object. Technically, they are two aspects for a same reality, so to speak.

Pure Ti cannot exist, neither pure Te, except as mere concepts (limit cases). There would only be users prone to consider one of these aspects before and more frecuently than the alternative, and that's all. But that does not imply that you can perceive anything meaningful with pure Ti, neither Te.
true, i should have specified that the psychological definition we are concerned with is that which is most useful to us in the context of socionics, while using jung's work as a backup layer to relate cognitive functioning with information metabolism. We could randomly define for no purpose in particular, or we could use the evident information exposed in theory to define the terms in a way that we know what we will be meassuring, but most importantly how we will be meassuring, aka the use of operational definitions. Field relates to introversion in the case of functional assignment according to the matrix. This doesn't make it true but it is evident, so we may want to consider it.

yes, the relativity of the characterictics is also obvious in general language, but that's why we could make use of Jung's work to define the observation of the object as extroversion, then we would arrive at the conclusion that when the direction of the observation and the assignment of qualities is psychologically attributed to the object, then the function is extraverted.
In the case of Te it is a continuous observation of evident changes directed to the object.

For introvertion the judgment is still evident in thinking, but the evidence is relative, postulated as discrete relationships. In introversion the direction of thinking is the subjects reasoning according to the understanding of static information that is systematically consistent (evident) with reality. The difference is that the focus is not on the object, but on the system of relationships, and of course that the relationships are discrete, static.

Also true, fields and objects dependancy is evident, but also physics gives us these terms to notice how there are at least these two fundamental ways of meassuring to arrive at some level of certainty.

I disagree on the dependancy of Te to Ti or viceversa because their focus on information is different, if Ti needs objects to complete the systematic fields it will most certainly not seek for Te information, but rather complete the direction to the object (physically/psychologically required) with some kind of extraverted perception that is discrete.

I'm just saying that Te and Ti don't need each other, they aren't complementary, but suplementary. This doesn't mean that a certain individual won't engage in some sort of detection or production of both at all, they will most certainly do, but with different emphasis.

socionics may not be scientific enough, but we can make it scientific by using those methods we can rely on.

You can't. A pure sets of relationships (fields, if you want) are useful for nothing. A formula is just a formula; you always need to put meaning in it for making it useful. Logics, for example. A->B; B->C; A->C. But What are A, B, C? Or Physics. Newton's Law and Coulomb's are identical expressions. You need to stablish which variables are masses, which are charges, etc, and also to put an arbitrary reference for making measurements (connecting somehow with the object and its properties).

At the same time, pure measurement without relationships is just a bunch of data. Relationships (Ti, fields) give format to what would be otherwise chaotic, incoherent, meaningless.

The examples you've provided are not pure Ti (fields) neither pure Te (objects), just an inclination for each one. Because nobody can think in terms of pure Ti and pure Te; this is a reification for concepts which refers to single, indivisible, reality. I took them to the limit cases instead arbitrarily stopping in what socionics could consider fields and objects.
True the information of Ti requires discrete objects, but no Te notion of them. Likewise Te may need fields to correlate changes, but not Ti static one's.

They need each other. Ti provides precision, Te accuracy, so to speak. One without the other goes nowhere.

I'm not sure if you've properly understood what was discussed about knowledge in the OP. If Ti is static and Te is dynamic (which is a premise in socionics), you cannot understand reality from a pure static or dynamic point of view. You've not considered any of this in your argumentations, only the field/object aspect, which has the commented problems (still I've answered to you as best as I could). The static/dynamic viewpoint can be managed in a more accurate way, and it's still part of the original definition.

If you still consider that Ti and Te can achieve knowledge without needing each other, you've to prove there's a way for a pure static knowledge and a pure dynamic one. Go ahed.

Actually i've included the discrete and continuous part of Ti and Te the whole time, i didn't need to argue on that because the way those are defined also makes sense; i don't see how the need for understanding is fundamentally dependant to the coexistance of dynamic vs static, since they represent just two ways of understanding. Also i believe that you do not need to understand to make use of any function, a mere sense of "understanding"/knowing?/perceiving/accessing the information is enough.

"Pure static knowledge": the relationship between density and hardness

"Pure dynamic knowledge": the prediction of changes in the stock market values

15. Originally Posted by Zcyd
true, i should have specified that the psychological definition we are concerned with is that which is most useful to us in the context of socionics, while using jung's work as a backup layer to relate cognitive functioning with information metabolism. We could randomly define for no purpose in particular, or we could use the evident information exposed in theory to define the terms in a way that we know what we will be meassuring, but most importantly how we will be meassuring, aka the use of operational definitions. Field relates to introversion in the case of functional assignment according to the matrix. This doesn't make it true but it is evident, so we may want to consider it.

yes, the relativity of the characterictics is also obvious in general language, but that's why we could make use of Jung's work to define the observation of the object as extroversion, then we would arrive at the conclusion that when the direction of the observation and the assignment of qualities is psychologically attributed to the object, then the function is extraverted.
In the case of Te it is a continuous observation of evident changes directed to the object.

For introvertion the judgment is still evident in thinking, but the evidence is relative, postulated as discrete relationships. In introversion the direction of thinking is the subjects reasoning according to the understanding of static information that is systematically consistent (evident) with reality. The difference is that the focus is not on the object, but on the system of relationships, and of course that the relationships are discrete, static.
OK, you keep using a more socionics-accurate approach to the issue. But that was not my goal, so I'll leave this as it is.

Also true, fields and objects dependancy is evident, but also physics gives us these terms to notice how there are at least these two fundamental ways of meassuring to arrive at some level of certainty.

...socionics may not be scientific enough, but we can make it scientific by using those methods we can rely on.
I think you're mixing real and non real things here. Physics don't give us these concepts for applying two styles of knowledge or whatever. Objects and fields are entities at the same level for it.

Not because something is described mimicking scientific language is automatically scientific or has scientific implications. If you want to make socionics scientific, you need to submit it to scientific methodology (see Labster's post). The first thing you need are falsifiable hypothesis and concepts (Popper). Socionics definitions do not satisfy this.

I disagree on the dependancy of Te to Ti or viceversa because their focus on information is different, if Ti needs objects to complete the systematic fields it will most certainly not seek for Te information, but rather complete the direction to the object (physically/psychologically required) with some kind of extraverted perception that is discrete.

True the information of Ti requires discrete objects, but no Te notion of them. Likewise Te may need fields to correlate changes, but not Ti static one's.
That's true, according to the original definitions. Ti seeks for Pe and Te for Pi, but I disagree that this is only a matter of style and you can somehow adquire complete knowledge with this.

Actually i've included the discrete and continuous part of Ti and Te the whole time, i didn't need to argue on that because the way those are defined also makes sense; i don't see how the need for understanding is fundamentally dependant to the coexistance of dynamic vs static, since they represent just two ways of understanding. Also i believe that you do not need to understand to make use of any function, a mere sense of "understanding"/knowing?/perceiving/accessing the information is enough.

"Pure static knowledge": the relationship between density and hardness

"Pure dynamic knowledge": the prediction of changes in the stock market values
Completely disagree, and the bolded part suggests you maybe haven't properly understood my argumentation.

Simple words: if you're pure static, you can't change. This implies you can't adquire new information. If you're pure dynamic, you are always changing. You can't store information, so you can't compare new one with old one.

16. Originally Posted by MensSuperMateriam

I think you're mixing real and non real things here. Physics don't give us these concepts for applying two styles of knowledge or whatever. Objects and fields are entities at the same level for it.

Not because something is described mimicking scientific language is automatically scientific or has scientific implications. If you want to make socionics scientific, you need to submit it to scientific methodology (see Labster's post). The first thing you need are falsifiable hypothesis and concepts (Popper). Socionics definitions do not satisfy this.
Sure i did read between the lines, to get there and show you a point: we cannot meassure all of reality's qualities at the same time. Either you are aware of, for example, the human as individual marching object, or anthitetically, as a field in a social movement, noticing the "mass of people". Since knowledge is gained with experience and is related to awareness restrictedness, then you have to focus on something, either changes or discrete states (aka. dynamic and statics). The nature of science isn't rational actually, because it's influenced by the knowledge of humans at a certain point in history. Popper is good lecture, but procede to read Kuhn and see how there is also a state of science where there is no necessity for certainty. So Socionics may not be a paradigmatic instrument, but it serves intrumentalism, and it may suit science.

Scientific method: The objective of keeping theorizing with OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS, is that if they were to be put in an hypothesis, then the meassurement would be clearly accesible. It's true that it's not easy to create internal consistency for the a-model to be "intrepretable" in a scientific sense. But then again, what exactly do we need to proove? we call for instance the judgment directed towards the evident changes of objects: Te, is there to be prooved that humans can judge in such a way? (a posibility of judgment isn't cuantifiable ehm... shit!) well no that would be Logical Empirismus right? ok falsifiable you say, then we have to DEFINE what we should not be observing... but wait if we don't observe what we defined then the theory must fall?? or just the existance of Te should be impossibilated (improbable?) hmm... nope this doesn't work at all...theories are probable or not probable, never getting to the true or false part .... well not for science at least, theories cannot just fall with falsifications, there will be inconsistancies for sure, this is the only certainty in fact.

Actually what i needed to prove is that there is a relationship (or not) between static vs dynamic that correlates with fields vs objects while forcing individuals to present an analisis or make a desicion according to evident infromation.

Anyhow the current state of socionics as not interpretable because of lack of internal consistency is not necesarily permanent.

That's true, according to the original definitions. Ti seeks for Pe and Te for Pi, but I disagree that this is only a matter of style and you can somehow adquire complete knowledge with this.
it's a matter of focus... which information is more relevant for the individual

Completely disagree, and the bolded part suggests you maybe haven't properly understood my argumentation.

Simple words: if you're pure static, you can't change. This implies you can't adquire new information. If you're pure dynamic, you are always changing. You can't store information, so you can't compare new one with old one.
oh i do understand what you mean, it requieres not much effort to notice that you are qualifying static information actually as fundamentally with no changes, (seems like YOU are taking the definiton too literaly) but the only this describes is a manner of perceiving and judging that focuses on discrete pictures of reality, to focus on its parts, poles, characteristics, attributes. This is not difficult to prove, since we are defining static is a way that is meassurable....i can't say that i have proven this, but i have had confirmations of cases that think in an athithetical way as the one proposed here, aka as a progression of ideas in movement. And one confirrmation of a negation of the case mentioned before thus the proof of the existance of ideas that aren't in movement. I wouldn't say that is the end of the case, there is sure to be more real testing but the idea isn't that improbable to be confirmed.

So:
A) As you think do you use dicrete information for analysing the parts and ideas and focus on details that at a particular moment aren't moving and thus in a certain state in space?
Statics means, so to speak, that the though is localized, as if aware of the structure. That's how Ti can be described as inductive: reaches conclusions according to particularities that pattern into hypothetical premises, to create theories... it's system- or structutral minded, the discrete relationships take priority. This clarifies how static thinking is also moving because it follows a process to accumulate discrete information.

Or:
B) As you think, do you see your ideas in a history-like manner, changing like a book or a movie, were the awareness is on the consequential changes in time?
In Dynamics the thought is not localized, it's moving, changing, as if aware of the process. General observations, synthetical information of the consequences, so to speak, become more relevant, from which hypothesis can arise.

17. Yeah I agree. Mother nature doesn't make any of our incredibly hateful and judgemental human biases. She just accepts everything equally in reality as one.

But think of it this way, the quicker you help other people follow their own personal preferences, the less they will bully you for yours. At least, hopefully.