Introverted logic Ti in INTjs and INTps

[Hugo]

What does an INTj have in their that an INTp doesn't have in their ?

[Jonathan]

Depending on one's understanding of who the INTjs and INTps are, I'd say maybe the tendency to follow and stick to their decisions (no matter what anybody else thinks) and to stay focused on stuff without taking breaks.

[stevENTj]

What does an INTj have in their that an INTp doesn't have in their ?

The inclination to use it? I'd have the same answer in the Te thread too.

Heavy duty is nice, but i'm like who cares? Big picture system/business logic is what I care about in my psyche. All the "little Ti factoids" don't seem all that relevant to me when you're focused on the big picture. Take a system that has performance that's represented by "ABC". Now whether it achieves that performance by using "def", "xyz", or "jkl" internal logical components and sub-systems just doesn't matter. I don't care. The system performance is still the same, "ABC". The reason I don't care beyond that is because I'm focused on other things internally and don't have the time to worry or care about that stuff.

[XoX]

Take a system that has performance that's represented by "ABC". Now whether it achieves that performance by using "def", "xyz", or "jkl" internal logical components and sub-systems just doesn't matter. I don't care. The system performance is still the same, "ABC".

But there are other attributes to a system than performance. Like for example maintainability and extendability. If you turn over your work to some other person who has to maintain it and extend it then it starts to matter whether it is "def", "xyz", "jkl", or "nkshfsbfnwoerhwknfsknkwnfqwinINWJFNWedgfnjnefnwjf wen" which provides the functionality and performance.

I think INTjs are very much into "quality thinking" i.e. they make the internals of the system as good as possible and are able to optimize several quality attributes at the same time. INTps and people in general are more into "quantity thinking" i.e. get the external functionality and external performance good enough and move on to solve the next problem.

If this is true then I'm more because I like to define the external characteristic of the system and work towards fulfilling them. When I'm done I'm happy and move on. people seem to be better in optimizing the internal characteristics of the system so e.g. their software is much better structured and more "beautiful" than mine. I can produce software really fast but if someone else has to understand how it works it won't be as easy...I can afterwards restructure my software i.e. force myself to use in order to optimize internal qualitiy parameters but I am not nearly as good as some INTjs I know. They can somehow optimize all the internal quality parameters at the same time. But if I do it I have hard time focusing on the whole internal structure. Instead I optimize it part by part. So one difference might be that INTj is better at seeing the whole structure where INTp can only handle smaller parts of the structure at once. It also requires more concentration from the INTp to use their . It is annoying even if the structure is really large.

In my case the INTjs are often like "yeah your software seems to work and is effective and it didn't take much time from you to finish it but you see you could have done this like that and that like this and then when you have to add another subcomponent in six months you wouldn't have to change anything. Just plug it in. With your current internal structure you need to make changes which can be costly to do when the system is online" and things like that. The problem with INTjs is they just keep on improving their systems when it REALLY is time to move on to solving the next problem or building the next system.

I assume here I'm INTp. But if I'm not then I'm not sure what my example prooves At least that I'm not INTj or dominant.

[FDG]

What does an INTj have in their that an INTp doesn't have in their ?

The inclination to use it? I'd have the same answer in the Te thread too.

Heavy duty is nice, but i'm like who cares? Big picture system/business logic is what I care about in my psyche. All the "little Ti factoids" don't seem all that relevant to me when you're focused on the big picture. Take a system that has performance that's represented by "ABC". Now whether it achieves that performance by using "def", "xyz", or "jkl" internal logical components and sub-systems just doesn't matter. I don't care. The system performance is still the same, "ABC". The reason I don't care beyond that is because I'm focused on other things internally and don't have the time to worry or care about that stuff.

You are incorrect in attributing the word "factoid" to the Ti components. ABC is the real factoid because it's not a deductive outcome but simply a fact.

[stevENTj]

Take a system that has performance that's represented by "ABC". Now whether it achieves that performance by using "def", "xyz", or "jkl" internal logical components and sub-systems just doesn't matter. I don't care. The system performance is still the same, "ABC".

But there are other attributes to a system than performance. Like for example maintainability and extendability. If you turn over your work to some other person who has to maintain it and extend it then it starts to matter whether it is "def", "xyz", "jkl", or "nkshfsbfnwoerhwknfsknkwnfqwinINWJFNWedgfnjnefnwjf wen" which provides the functionality and performance.

By just generically saying "performance" I meant that as an all inclusive term for whatever is relevant in the external system level characteristics of the object. Efficiency, reliability, speed, maintainability, etc...........

[stevENTj]

You are incorrect in attributing the word "factoid" to the Ti components. ABC is the real factoid because it's not a deductive outcome but simply a fact.

The external characteristics of the system as a whole are what matter to me. Anything below that level doesn't really matter, so to me they're factoids.

ABC = d + e + f + j + k + l + x

But if e + f + h + m + s + y + z is also shown to = ABC I don't care, so long as the external characteristics of the system are still truly ABC.

Ti types seem to be focused much more on the individual parts that eventually make up the whole and "ABC" whereas Te types only really care about "ABC" and could care less about all of the individual parts. Just as long as they're "ABC" that's all that matters. Maybe a Ti type focused on "e" is competing to make their sub-system better than another Ti type focused on "f" so that their design is put into the system rather than the other.

[FDG]

You are incorrect in attributing the word "factoid" to the Ti components. ABC is the real factoid because it's not a deductive outcome but simply a fact.

The external characteristics of the system as a whole are what matter to me. Anything below that level doesn't really matter, so to me they're factoids.

Nooo, you are incorrectly using the definition of factoid. They can't be factoids "for you".

[stevENTj]

But ABC is not a "factoid". It's the whole of all of the external characteristics of a system. And all of the little "factoids" inside working together are what represent that. The system and its external characteristics (Te) are equal to the sum of all of its parts (Ti).

[FDG]

But ABC is not a "factoid". It's the whole of all of the external characteristics of a system. And all of the little "factoids" inside working together are what represent that. The system and its external characteristics (Te) are equal to the sum of all of its parts (Ti).

A brick wall. Reread what I wrote pleeease.

[XoX]

By just generically saying "performance" I meant that as an all inclusive term for whatever is relevant in the external system level characteristics of the object. Efficiency, reliability, speed, maintainability, etc...........

Hmm...o_O So how does this differ from the INTj approach now? I mean you have to be able to do "heavy duty " in order to achieve this? And do you think you are naturally good at optimizing all these attributes at the same time? For me e.g. maintainability is definately harder to achieve than efficiency. For example I pretty quickly know how I have to change the system to make it e.g. more effient but seeing the implications for long term maintainability is way way harder.

Like if I have a system "eifdbfdjbfbgfejbfgejbfgeebebebgehbe" that has average "speed". I can usually quickly see that by adding "dkjh" to the beginning and thus constructing a new system "dkjheifdbfdjbfbgfejbfgejbfgeebebebgehbe" you can make the speed jump from average to good but the new system is internally more complicated. And it is not obvious to me how the change affected maintainability. I often have to approach the maintainability as a separate problem and restructure the system bit by bit.

Now an INTj I know is very very good at seeing that the system could be first simplified to be "fbgfejbfgejbfgee" and then add "ryd" to the beginning thus forming "rydfbgfejbfgejbfgee" which would have same effect as my change. Just that he is quite slow with his work.

The difference is that I can very quickly construct a new system or improve many qualities of an existing system (like performance) but some qualities are just naturally hard for me. He is relatively slow to find the solutions to problems but qualities like maintainability and internal simplicity of the resulting solution are generally better.

Now if you don't relate to this at all I think I actually might have some kind of problem...

[xiuxiu]

What does an INTj have in their that an INTp doesn't have in their ?

The inclination to use it? I'd have the same answer in the Te thread too.

Heavy duty is nice, but i'm like who cares? Big picture system/business logic is what I care about in my psyche. All the "little Ti factoids" don't seem all that relevant to me when you're focused on the big picture. Take a system that has performance that's represented by "ABC". Now whether it achieves that performance by using "def", "xyz", or "jkl" internal logical components and sub-systems just doesn't matter. I don't care. The system performance is still the same, "ABC". The reason I don't care beyond that is because I'm focused on other things internally and don't have the time to worry or care about that stuff.

yeah, it's cool. don't trouble yourself over Ti, it doesn't mind being glossed over. it also won't mind as it engulfs you in a fury of blinding white logic because of a few simple errors you didn't care to pay any attention to.

[stevENTj]

@ XoX

I'll solidify the example a bit so we're not confusing terminology.

Here are some examples of what I would call in the redesign of a car. They represent internal characteristics of the car that are measurable, but are not necessarily seen as external traits.

- the engine is 10% more powerful
- the engine is 10% more fuel efficient
- the body structure is 5% lighter

Manufacturers put stuff like this in their press material all the time, and it gives the impression that the new car is a lot faster, a lot more fuel efficient, and lighter than the previous model. This generates hype and drives sales of the new model. But then people get the car and are underwhelmed when it doesn't perform up to expectations.

Here are the external traits of the new car which I would consider to be , as they represent the external system level performance of the object as a whole, not looking at individual parts.

- the vehicle is no faster than the previous model
- the vehicle is no more fuel efficient than the previous model.
- curb weight has actually gone up by 10%

The internal traits that marketing dweebs present paint a rosey, but they only selectively present "facts" that put their new product in the most positive light possible.

Now here are the opposing traits that are also part of the system, that isn't necessarily presented, is not apparent on the outside, and are often hidden.

- the overall weight of the car has increased by 10%
- the 10% weight increase negates the 10% increase in power
- the 10% weight increase negates the 10% improvement in engine efficiency
- the body structure may have been lightened by 5%, but only to lessen the impact of a 15% overall weight increase in other areas and the car is still heavier.

I see as a way of encapsuling all of that into a system or "bottom line".

Is the system as a whole faster or not? NO.
Is the system as a whole more efficient or not? NO.

It doesn't matter what's inside when what you're looking at is the bottom line. All you're looking at are the external traits at that point, and what's inside doesn't really matter. The first car I bought had a 200hp (149 kW) engine and it was slow, at least by American standards. The second car I bought had a less powerful 190hp (141 kW) engine. The internal trait suggests that the second car was slower, but when you combine all of the other internal traits together and encapsule them into a system or bottom line the less powerful car was actually significantly faster than the "more powerful" one. In fact, it would run circles around it the difference was so big.

types can see the big picture too, but they need to make sure that they have all of their facts lined up and that they're not missing anything. Otherwise they're going to get blind sided by something that they missed, and completely miss the big picture. I know some Ti types that are just awash in facts and a great wealth of information, but tend to lose sight of the big picture like that. Likewise, types can see all the little details too, but they'd better be sure they have the "system" that they desire very carefully defined or else something will fall through the cracks on them too, since they're not normally paying attention to minute little details.

Lack of attention to Ti by a Te can cause them to trip and fall flat on their faces just as easily as lack of attention to Te by a Ti can cause them to do the same.

[stevENTj]

yeah, it's cool. don't trouble yourself over Ti, it doesn't mind being glossed over. it also won't mind as it engulfs you in a fury of blinding white logic because of a few simple errors you didn't care to pay any attention to.

Sometimes the net sum of a system is greater than the sum of all of its individual parts , and sometimes it's LESS also. A Ti type who pays no attention to Te will never know that until it's too late.

[XoX]

@ XoX

Ok. So is this interpretation correct.

-types can somehow naturally evaluate the performance of the whole without looking at the parts. They make statements like "Yeah yeah. You think you got all the details figured out. But you know what, your system will still suck. You will see. " . And they trust this ability so much that they don't care to pay attention to all the causalities in the internals of the system. And if a system which they thought would work is not working then they go "Wtf?!?!?!?!".

-types are good at evaluating the internal causalities of the system and build the system bit by bit. They make statements like "Every single component and subcomponent in this system are perfect. Their causal relationships are perfect. Thus the end result must be perfect". If in the end the performance of the system sucks then they go "But how? Why? Every little detail is perfectly in place. The causalities are perfectly understood. This is impossible! This defies the rules of logic!" then they go slit their wrists.

Perhaps I'm more then although my capability to is not nearly as automated and holistic as the INTj I knew. Anyways I'm a "bottom-up" thinker more than "top-down" thinker. I guess types are naturally more "top-down"?

[FDG]

I'm not going to counter now, but your carefully crafted manipualtive example are an offense to anybody interested in looking for the truth. I'll edit later.

[stevENTj]

by the way, i think there is still an element of perspective going on here, depending on what level you're at.

Say I'm the overall design manager for a car (I wish). In this case all the sub-systems within that car are Ti to me (engine, controls, drivetrain, interior, etc). At the next level down are sub-system designers who just concentrate on those sub-systems. The engine as a system is seen as Te to that design manager, and every sub-system and component within that is Ti. To the component designer or manufacturer, their specific component that they make (a piston, for example) is seen as Te to them. it has outward traits, specifications, weight, dimensions, etc. Below that there are materials selection, production process, etc, all of which is Ti.

So what something represents to you exactly depends on what your perspective is and how you're looking at it.

Te I see as more of a top down approach.
Ti I see as more of a bottom up approach.

[XoX]

I'm not going to counter now, but your carefully crafted manipualtive example are an offense to anybody interested in looking for the truth. I'll edit later.

And this was for StevENTj I guess? Because my examples were not carefully crafted or manipulative

[XoX]

Te I see as more of a top down approach.
Ti I see as more of a bottom up approach.

If this is true in general (not just in INTp and INTj) then I'm clearly more and my wife is clearly more . Interesting. Can others confirm this holds true for them too?

[stevENTj]

@ XoX

Ok. So is this interpretation correct.

-types can somehow naturally evaluate the performance of the whole without looking at the parts. They make statements like "Yeah yeah. You think you got all the details figured out. But you know what, your system will still suck. You will see. " . And they trust this ability so much that they don't care to pay attention to all the causalities in the internals of the system. And if a system which they thought would work is not working then they go "Wtf?!?!?!?!".

Yes. They're good at defining what they need a system to do as a whole, and from that perspective how exactly that's made to happen is not as important, so long as the sum of the parts is "ABC". The way a Te type can get caught is if they declare that they need a system that does "ABC", and then they get a system later that does just that only they realize that they were missing "D" and really needed "ABCD". Oops! This is due to lack of attention to Ti.

-types are good at evaluating the internal causalities of the system and build the system bit by bit. They make statements like "Every single component and subcomponent in this system are perfect. Their causal relationships are perfect. Thus the end result must be perfect". If in the end the performance of the system sucks then they go "But how? Why? Every little detail is perfectly in place. The causalities are perfectly understood. This is impossible! This defies the rules of logic!" then they go slit their wrists.

I know you're being sarcastic, but there is a guy that I'm working with right now who is almost exactly like this. And when I bought that first car of mine (the one with 200hp) I had very much a Ti approach to buying it in that I was selecting a car based on the individual components and not based on the net system performance. The individual components I thought were all perfect, but their net sum was far less than expected. I also completely ignored my when buying that car too. I test drove it and flogged it and could sense something wasn't quite right, but I ignored it because I (wrongly) believed in the perfection of all of those parts.

The key point to emphasize here though is that Te types can get burned by ignoring Ti just as easily as Ti types can get burned by ignoring Te. Neither is more or less important than the other, IMO. You need people with both in order to have both a good system with a particular output (Te) and an efficiently designed system that runs well (Ti).

Perhaps I'm more then although my capability to is not nearly as automated and holistic as the INTj I knew. Anyways I'm a "bottom-up" thinker more than "top-down" thinker. I guess types are naturally more "top-down"?

I would tend to agree with that, generally speaking.

[FDG]

Steeeve, the problem with the inclusion of all Ti types in your defintion is that, quoting Lenore Thomson:

"Another definition: from an S attitude, the facts are the facts regardless of anything else, and facts regardless of context ought to command your attention. For example, $100 in the bank is $100 in the bank: that is a fact, regardless of anything else. All facts are independent. The fact that you have $100 in the bank implies no other facts."

If the car goes faster is a fact. If it weight less is a fact. You can use all the Ti and still know the Te. The Te is going to be used when the system is not already fully built in my mind, whereas the Ti will be enhanced after a certain level of coherence has been reached.

Things are things, and they're all things, they're not divided into Te and Ti.

[Logos]

Te I see as more of a top down approach.
Ti I see as more of a bottom up approach.

If this is true in general (not just in INTp and INTj) then I'm clearly more and my wife is clearly more . Interesting. Can others confirm this holds true for them too?

Actually, StevENTj's statement is in fact quite a valid look at how and differ in their approaches to systems. I have even noticed this difference in action. Using admittedly circumstantial evidence, practically all people I have pegged as dominants will talk about working things from the "top down," while most (myself included) will generally say "bottom up."

[Phaedrus]

Te I see as more of a top down approach.
Ti I see as more of a bottom up approach.

If this is true in general (not just in INTp and INTj) then I'm clearly more and my wife is clearly more . Interesting. Can others confirm this holds true for them too?

If this is true in general, then I am clearly more than . I would also like to add, that according to your interpretation:

-types can somehow naturally evaluate the performance of the whole without looking at the parts. They make statements like "Yeah yeah. You think you got all the details figured out. But you know what, your system will still suck. You will see. " . And they trust this ability so much that they don't care to pay attention to all the causalities in the internals of the system. And if a system which they thought would work is not working then they go "Wtf?!?!?!?!".

-types are good at evaluating the internal causalities of the system and build the system bit by bit. They make statements like "Every single component and subcomponent in this system are perfect. Their causal relationships are perfect. Thus the end result must be perfect". If in the end the performance of the system sucks then they go "But how? Why? Every little detail is perfectly in place. The causalities are perfectly understood. This is impossible! This defies the rules of logic!" then they go slit their wrists.

I am also clearly more than . Any socionist who reads my posts should be able to see that.

[FDG]

Reality can't really defy the rules of logic. Therefore, if the results aren't the expected ones, there must be a flaw in the system. It all seems pretty obvious to me.

[Phaedrus]

Reality can't really defy the rules of logic. Therefore, if the results aren't the expected ones, there must be a flaw in the system. It all seems pretty obvious to me.

I totally agree. But that is beside the point, isn't it?

[FDG]

Reality can't really defy the rules of logic. Therefore, if the results aren't the expected ones, there must be a flaw in the system. It all seems pretty obvious to me.

I totally agree. But that is beside the point, isn't it?

No, because I am a types as well.

[Phaedrus]

Reality can't really defy the rules of logic. Therefore, if the results aren't the expected ones, there must be a flaw in the system. It all seems pretty obvious to me.

I totally agree. But that is beside the point, isn't it?

No, because I am a types as well.

Every person, regardless of type, has to agree that your first statement is absolutely true -- if they understand what it means.

[stevENTj]

Steeeve, the problem with the inclusion of all Ti types in your defintion is that, quoting Lenore Thomson:

"Another definition: from an S attitude, the facts are the facts regardless of anything else, and facts regardless of context ought to command your attention. For example, $100 in the bank is $100 in the bank: that is a fact, regardless of anything else. All facts are independent. The fact that you have $100 in the bank implies no other facts."

You're right. Facts are facts. No disagreement.

If the car goes faster is a fact. If it weight less is a fact. You can use all the Ti and still know the Te.

Wrong! Only in theory can you do this. Knowing the net output of a system based ONLY on Ti requires knowing ALL of the Ti which is going to be impossible on very complicated systems. How can you possibly account for everything? Not only that, but in terms of system design , 1+1+1 is not necessarily equal to 3. It could be 2, and it could be 4 due to unforseen complications and interactions. Only on the simplest of systems could you really do this, and even then if you ignore Te you can still get burned.

At the company I work at now, they have what's called Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 testing.

Level 1 tests individual circuits within a module and has specifications to meet.
Level 2 tests the overall module performance and has its own specifications to meet.
Level 3 tests the system as a whole with all the modules and has yet another set of specifications to meet.

This is pretty much the same as every other engineering company that I've worked for. If it was possible to know the net output of a system (Te) just based on the sum of all the parts (Ti) then engineering would be a whole lot simpler, but it just isn't like that. Multiple "perfectly" performing components can have unforseen interactions with each other and cause the net output of the system to go bad. If all you're doing is testing at Level 1 and maybe Level 2, you will never see if anything goes bad at Level 3 or not, which is what the customer sees directly.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but I think you're grossly oversimplifying.

The Te is going to be used when the system is not already fully built in my mind, whereas the Ti will be enhanced after a certain level of coherence has been reached.

Things are things, and they're all things, they're not divided into Te and Ti.

Right again, but how you act on those facts and how you see them most certainly is dependent on whether you are a Te or Ti type of person.

Take a "Level 1" component that is failing to meet its specification. As a result of this failure the Level 2 component is also failing its specifications. But by the time you get up to the net output and performance of the system which is Level 3, everything is fine, even in the worst case scenario with the poorest possible performance from that Level 1 component.

The who designed the Level 1 component will be screaming. I need more time, I can make it perfect, I know exactly how to fix it. It can be done! To them it's a mark of pride and workmanship and it's all that they know. It is a "fact" that the Level 1 component is failing. The question is, is the fact relevant or not. Now you defer to Te. The net output of the system is still ok. The Level 3 specifications are being met even in the worst case. The "bottom line" is okay. To fix the problem it will cost xx weeks and xxx money, all for what reason? To fix a problem that doesn't really exist in terms of the net output Level 3 performance. The project manager decides to leave it as is and the product ships to the customers, who never know the difference and will never see the problem. The Level 1 Ti engineer is upset, because the ship sails with an "imperfect" design that they were responsible for, and not allowed to fix.

This happens all the time, and if it didn't products would never ship, and by the time they did they'd be significantly more expensive because of all of the added development time. Engineers don't work for free. :wink: A Ti type manager would have been "more likely" to hold the product and spend the extra money to fix the problem than a Te type manager, but with a negative tradeoff. Now you've delayed the product and upset the customer, made it more expensive, yet the net output is still unchanged. Why do that? This is probably why Te types are more known for management abilities, than Ti types.

[stevENTj]

Reality can't really defy the rules of logic. Therefore, if the results aren't the expected ones, there must be a flaw in the system. It all seems pretty obvious to me.

No disagreement here.

[FDG]

If you really want the truth, the type with whom I had the most problems with that are ISFj. They are always stressing on "the right way of doing things" whereas I only care about the end result. I end up just telling them "so you do it the right way and I do nothing, ok?". So, dunno.

[xiuxiu]

yeah, it's cool. don't trouble yourself over Ti, it doesn't mind being glossed over. it also won't mind as it engulfs you in a fury of blinding white logic because of a few simple errors you didn't care to pay any attention to.

Sometimes the net sum of a system is greater than the sum of all of its individual parts , and sometimes it's LESS also. A Ti type who pays no attention to Te will never know that until it's too late.

as if it were easy to ignore