Arrogance of the Hidden Agenda

[Olimpia]

After hanging out with my LSI-Se cousin and ILE-Ti brother yesterday, I've noticed how much they put my Ti usage to shame, haha. Meaning, their display of Ti competency has humbled me a lot. I've realized we tend to overestimate the strength of our mobilizing function, especially when we are of the Inert subtype.


In my case, I have developed a slight arrogance in terms of me using my Ti. Basically, I thought I was much better at it than I really am. I can see most people having this slight blindness when it comes to their HA. In comparison with others of your type, or those who are weak at your mobilizing function, you may think you are competent at it. But once you see people employing this function to the best degree, it is apparent how much mistaken you were.


I give you the task of hanging out with at least one person, preferably more, who's got your mobilizing function as their first (best option) or second function. And observe how much more proficient their use at it is, in comparison to you, haha. Besides that, how have been your interactions with people who are strong at your HA? And I am talking of "real life" interactions here.

[Olimpia]

Can you give at least one example from the conversation that made you feel shameful about your Ti?

I was not exactly ashamed about my Ti, I just realized I have been more confident in it than I should be, haha.

They both were talking about how certain technical things worked, about which I had no clue at all.

For instance, at one point my LSI cousin was tightening the screws of some smaller device.
Me: "What's this?"
LSI: "A hard drive. Never seen this before?"
Me: "Nope..."
ILE: "Probably not, she's using Mac."
LSI: "Oh, sure. The worst."
*both laugh*

Or this.
ILE at the LSI's PC: "What are you using? Windows 10?"
LSI: "Sure."
ILE: "Meh, Windows 7 is much better."
LSI: "Not really. Have you seen the graphics alone? The picture goes for the Windows 8.1 at the rate of *so-and-so* [He was explaining how many frames per second were being used in games for the Windows 8.1... I had little to no idea what he was talking about, haha, and I've forgotten most of it.]... Basically, the difference between Windows 7 and 8.1 was already a massive improvement."
ILE: "Nah, Windows 7 is still better. Better interface."
LSI: "Nope! Well, what do you have?"
ILE: "Windows 8.1"
LSI: "See? Not Windows 7."
ILE: "Yeah yeah".
And I have stayed silent the whole time, haha.

[Olimpia]

I marked your post as constructive because I appreciated you providing the examples and it pertains to the subject, but I am not sure that is Ti, on the basis of it sounds to me like tech talk. Ti is more about explaining what it's about, Te is more speaking the facts which results in a lot of tech talk rather than explaining what the tech talk means. At least this is my take. Point being that you could have a dominant Ti or Te function and still not understand because you aren't an IT person.

I cannot really recall everything they've been talking about... There were moments when my LSI cousin would explain how things worked, and I just thought "Wow, I had no clue at all".
I imagine Ti ego types may not "know" about everything, but they'll have some idea pertaining to *how* something is likely working. Whereas I usually have no idea, haha.

[Aylen]

I was not exactly ashamed about my Ti, I just realized I have been more confident in it than I should be, haha.

They both were talking about how certain technical things worked, about which I had no clue at all.

For instance, at one point my LSI cousin was tightening the screws of some smaller device.
Me: "What's this?"
LSI: "A hard drive. Never seen this before?"
Me: "Nope..."
ILE: "Probably not, she's using Mac."
LSI: "Oh, sure. The worst."
*both laugh*

Or this.
ILE at the LSI's PC: "What are you using? Windows 10?"
LSI: "Sure."
ILE: "Meh, Windows 7 is much better."
LSI: "Not really. Have you seen the graphics alone? The picture goes for the Windows 8.1 at the rate of *so-and-so* [He was explaining how many frames per second were being used in games for the Windows 8.1... I had little to no idea what he was talking about, haha, and I've forgotten most of it.]... Basically, the difference between Windows 7 and 8.1 was already a massive improvement."
ILE: "Nah, Windows 7 is still better. Better interface."
LSI: "Nope! Well, what do you have?"
ILE: "Windows 8.1"
LSI: "See? Not Windows 7."
ILE: "Yeah yeah".
And I have stayed silent the whole time, haha.

I understand what you mean about Ti but this example specifically is where I have shown my superior use ( ) of Ti in the past. lol I went to tech school and this would have amped me up and I would have gotten involved in the conversation, if I felt inclined, offering my own opinions. There is specialized knowledge out there that I have no clue about, and no interest in, that does my head in.

I like this description of Ti. It describes my thinking process pretty well.

Introverted Thinking (Ti) is a function that is primarily used inward.

People with Introverted Thinking want the world to make sense in a logical manner. They form an internal framework of how the world works. It is constantly being modified and improved through life experience and experiments.

Introverted Thinking’s goal is to create a web of knowledge in which everything is interrelated.
For example, someone with introverted thinking can find out how a car and all its parts work by relating it to some other system, such as a computer.

They have the ability to find commonalities in seemingly unrelated things.

Introverted Thinking is also great at troubleshooting. Someone with Ti can analyze something, figure out where the problem areas are, and fix them rather quickly.

Users of Introverted Thinking also strive for efficiency. If something isn’t working well, they can become very frustrated. They have trouble working for bosses that they don’t believe are doing their job well.

People with Introverted Thinking can be seen as wanting to do things that are “the most effective for the least amount of work.” Some people may see this as laziness, however, it’s a form of perfectionism most Ti users have.

Ti users tend to be better in a reactive environment; somewhere where their skills can be called upon to “Save the day.” Ti users can create their own systems as well, but they are much better suited for improving an already working, but somewhat dysfunctional system.

Introverted Thinking has a desire for truth.

Someone with Introverted Thinking may take a while to fully understand a concept. This is because they want to know all the components and how everything works together. A Ti user would not be satisfied with someone saying, “this is the gas pedal, you press it to go.” A Ti user would want to know, what happens when you push it, what is the pedal connected to, how does it interact with the engine, etc.

A user with Extraverted Thinking may not need this much clarification.

However, once a Ti user figures out the whole system, everything clicks. They can see how the car and motor works, and how it all fits together. They have created a map and an internal framework, which could be applied to understanding how engines in other machines work. Pieces of this framework could also be used to understand seemingly unrelated concepts, like how a plumbing system works, or how computer programming languages interact with hardware.

Introverted Thinking wants to create a holistic understanding of the world. Maybe people with Ti appear to others to always be taking “short-cuts” and getting away with it. This may frustrate others or bosses that don’t understand. But in reality, the Ti user has spent a large amount of time and energy figuring out these systems beforehand, so that they are able to see what parts are truly necessary, and which parts can be skipped or eliminated.

Problems can occur with Introverted Thinking when the person does not take enough clues from their external environment into consideration.
Ti can be very stubborn and its users tend to believe they are always right. While they usually are, there are times when they might ignore facts and just revert to thinking about what they already know. This can be very unhealthy and lead to ways of thinking that are not very productive and are possibly detrimental.

A Ti user would be wise to make sure what they are analyzing is matching up with what is being observed in the external world. INTPs and ENTPs should take their Extraverted Intuition into play to see multiple angles and possibilities. ISTPs and ESTPs should use Extraverted Sensing to observe the current environment and use facts and data that they have gathered.

Check out more Cognitive Function descriptions:
http://personalitygrowth.com/cognitive-functions/

The main thing for me is that I do not need things to make logical sense to make sense and this is where I have had some issues with Te users and Ti users. I can't always give them a satisfactory explanation as to why I just "know" something. This tires me out.

[Muddy]

I was not exactly ashamed about my Ti, I just realized I have been more confident in it than I should be, haha.

They both were talking about how certain technical things worked, about which I had no clue at all.

For instance, at one point my LSI cousin was tightening the screws of some smaller device.
Me: "What's this?"
LSI: "A hard drive. Never seen this before?"
Me: "Nope..."
ILE: "Probably not, she's using Mac."
LSI: "Oh, sure. The worst."
*both laugh*

Or this.
ILE at the LSI's PC: "What are you using? Windows 10?"
LSI: "Sure."
ILE: "Meh, Windows 7 is much better."
LSI: "Not really. Have you seen the graphics alone? The picture goes for the Windows 8.1 at the rate of *so-and-so* [He was explaining how many frames per second were being used in games for the Windows 8.1... I had little to no idea what he was talking about, haha, and I've forgotten most of it.]... Basically, the difference between Windows 7 and 8.1 was already a massive improvement."
ILE: "Nah, Windows 7 is still better. Better interface."
LSI: "Nope! Well, what do you have?"
ILE: "Windows 8.1"
LSI: "See? Not Windows 7."
ILE: "Yeah yeah".
And I have stayed silent the whole time, haha.

Lol this is exactly the sort of stuff I talk to my LSI brother about. He refuses to download windows 10 because he thinks the government can use to spy on people, and I tell him there are ways to opt out of the spying programs.

A hard drive by the way is where your computer saves it data.

[uncivilized]

I think I might have come across someone with a Ni or Ne HA in a creative writing class. He always talked about how he could come up with really unique plots and characters, that he basically wrote imaginative masterpieces, but his stories were actually a bit trite although they weren't necessarily bad.

[tejing]

I cannot really recall everything they've been talking about... There were moments when my LSI cousin would explain how things worked, and I just thought "Wow, I had no clue at all".
I imagine Ti ego types may not "know" about everything, but they'll have some idea pertaining to *how* something is likely working. Whereas I usually have no idea, haha.

seeks out the most generally applicable knowledge it can find, like conservation laws in physics. One of the things that means is that when we encounter something we've never seen or even considered before, we can still usually conclude quite a bit about how it must work, because the "laws" of the background reality in which it exists force certain aspects of it.

[golden]

I agree this just sounds like people engaging in technology talk that was unfamiliar to you. You were less informed than these two people were about the tech.

I don't think it's about Ti, either. If I had to put it through the Socionics meatgrinder, I'd say you were taking very light Te polr hits because they were calling upon information you didn't have at the ready. I can further socionize this by saying that if you were talking to the LSI one-on-one it might not have happened, and with the ILE, maybe not, but the two of them together were on a roll.

[Suz]

I agree with the skepticism of the dialogue reflecting Ti, but i will say that i have experienced an undue self-overassessment in my abilities with Ne in the past, which was repeatedly pointed out to me by certain forum members and which i painfully realized myself once placed into a setting in which Ne proficiency was required of me (namely, coming up with new ideas for research), which i was fairly feeble in delivering.

[poops magoops]

I agree with the skepticism of the dialogue reflecting Ti, but i will say that i have experienced an undue self-overassessment in my abilities with Ne in the past, which was repeatedly pointed out to me by certain forum members and which i painfully realized myself once placed into a setting in which Ne proficiency was required of me (namely, coming up with new ideas for research), which i was fairly feeble in delivering.

If you ever need new research topics you should ask in the forum, I would love to help!

[Suz]

If you ever need new research topics you should ask in the forum, I would love to help!

Thanks that's so nice of you!
Once I made that realization, though, about a year ago, I made the decision to defer the research component of my career and just focus on what i do best, and given both settings, what i tend to focus on most -- patient care (and also teaching). Now that I'm in the throes of it, i feel i made the right decision. Even when i pull longer hours, I feel alive in this kind of setting. If i happen to come up with a topic at some point that i'm excited about researching i might revisit that, but i would probably need an alpha NT's mentorship if it's going to really go anywhere, otherwise i'll just get frustrated and give up before i even begin.

[xerx]

Windows 8's interface does suck according to most people I've talked to. Under the hood it has better performance than Windows 7.

I'm pretty indifferent to the interface as long as it's functional and I can quickly get what I need, so it's a no-brainer for me.

EDIT: you can use third-party software to make it look like Windows 7 if you really miss it.

[Olimpia]

I agree this just sounds like people engaging in technology talk that was unfamiliar to you. You were less informed than these two people were about the tech.

I don't think it's about Ti, either. If I had to put it through the Socionics meatgrinder, I'd say you were taking very light Te polr hits because they were calling upon information you didn't have at the ready. I can further socionize this by saying that if you were talking to the LSI one-on-one it might not have happened, and with the ILE, maybe not, but the two of them together were on a roll.

Hm, interesting. I am not sure regarding the Te PoLR hits exactly. My LSE father hits my Te PoLR constantly, and it feels very different, haha. It feels incredibly demotivating and shameful, it makes me feel bad about myself – bad for just being myself. Whereas with the LSI and ILE, their conversations did show me my own weakness in the Logical department, but not in a negative way. It did not make me feel bad about myself. It was more like I've experienced constructive criticism from their side, which gave me more clarity. There was some kind of positive experience coming out of that. It felt like "Oh, now I am aware I am actually not that good at this area as I've previously thought [I've never felt like I was proficient at Te, it always felt like a big blindspot, whereas I have thought my Ti was better – hence my argument for HA Arrogance]. I won't try to be cool in that area that much anymore, because it is apparent I am not as good at it anyways. I'll just be around people who are better at it, and focus on my own strengths."

All in all, perhaps this is what it feels like when you get help with your PoLR from Ti ego types as an IEI. Regardless, this experience was still making me feel more humbled over my Ti. As I have said, I've never felt like my Te was that great, especially with having an LSE father around who would constantly point it out. And, stronger Ti usually results in stronger Te... What the two guys were talking about was Logics in general; I could see it slightly hit my Te PoLR, but also because I did not understand what they were talking about, it made my weakness at Ti apparent (given Ti HA is about "understanding").

[Olimpia]

I think you're overestimating the universality of your experience. A smart IEI will be better at using Ti than a dumb LXI...the strengths of the functions are only relative within the individual. I've met plenty of IAmVerySmart LXIs and they left me feeling disdain...it's like they're not even that good at the thing they're best at.

I agree with the people who say this is Te PoLR rather than Ti. They're citing specific details rather than an understanding of the underlying principles behind how the system works.

Fair enough.

I've just noticed most people exhibit a certain arrogance concerning their HA (besides their main function perhaps, haha).
Like, many IEE and SEE people will act like know-it-alls (especially when E7), but it is rather obvious Te is not their strong suit.

Sure, a very intelligent IEE or SEE might come across as more intelligent than a "dumb" LIE or LSE. However, no matter how much an IEE or SEE will engage in their Te, they will always make a rather mediocre version (a weak copy) of LSE or LIE. Also, I do not equate strong Thinking with intelligence automatically. Rather, I believe everyone who is proficient at their ego functions will come across as an intelligent individual, or at least a good version of that type.

Anyhow, I still believe there is a wisdom in seeing that your HA is not as strong as you would like to believe. Most people would rather believe the opposite, given we are naturally striving to improve in that area, and feel shame over our weaknesses in general.

It is not mere coincidence that our Mobilizing function has got 2D only. Despite of that fact, most people (subconsciously) actually feel like it has got 3D or even 4D, which is obviously false.
This "arrogance" I am talking about could be tied to the fact we value our Mobilizing function and want it to be better, opposed to our Role which has got the same 2D and is unvalued.

P.S: The strong resistance to the mere suggestion most people could have some kind of arrogance tied to their HA just shows me how deeply rooted it is, haha.
I've talked with other people who know about Socionics about this issue, and they told me they have never heard an IEI admit that their Ti is actually not as strong in reality! Haha. There is a lack of people being humble about their HA's strength.

[golden]

Hm, interesting. I am not sure regarding the Te PoLR hits exactly. My LSE father hits my Te PoLR constantly, and it feels very different, haha. It feels incredibly demotivating and shameful, it makes me feel bad about myself – bad for just being myself.

Aw.

Whereas with the LSI and ILE, their conversations did show me my own weakness in the Logical department, but not in a negative way. It did not make me feel bad about myself. It was more like I've experienced constructive criticism from their side, which gave me more clarity. There was some kind of positive experience coming out of that. It felt like "Oh, now I am aware I am actually not that good at this area as I've previously thought [I've never felt like I was proficient at Te, it always felt like a big blindspot, whereas I have thought my Ti was better – hence my argument for HA Arrogance]. I won't try to be cool in that area that much anymore, because it is apparent I am not as good at it anyways. I'll just be around people who are better at it, and focus on my own strengths."

All in all, perhaps this is what it feels like when you get help with your PoLR from Ti ego types as an IEI. Regardless, this experience was still making me feel more humbled over my Ti. As I have said, I've never felt like my Te was that great, especially with having an LSE father around who would constantly point it out. And, stronger Ti usually results in stronger Te... What the two guys were talking about was Logics in general; I could see it slightly hit my Te PoLR, but also because I did not understand what they were talking about, it made my weakness at Ti apparent (given Ti HA is about "understanding").

I see what you mean and wondered about that, as well.

I'm still struck by how you seem to be describing something to do with a vulnerable + conscious function here. Like, you're literally saying, 'I was painfully aware of a weak point.' That'd point to your superego block > super-id.

[Olimpia]

I'm still struck by how you seem to be describing something to do with a vulnerable + conscious function here. Like, you're literally saying, 'I was painfully aware of a weak point.' That'd point to your superego block > super-id.

I have known about Typology for a while now, and I bet without learning about Socionics and Duality, I would have never known that what I am seeking after and what I am attracted to in a partner is actually Se.

In that manner, it took me quite a while to finally realize my Ti is not *that* good as I thought it was, haha. Perhaps this is why this realization was such a big deal to me, haha.
Who knows, maybe it really was just me seeing with the help of Ti ego types how I am weak at Te and how it is not the worst thing in the world when a benevolent Ti user is around.

Still, knowing about this should also make me more aware of my lack in Ti strength, too. Given strong Ti users are good at Te and vice versa.

[bolong]

Hm, interesting. I am not sure regarding the Te PoLR hits exactly. My LSE father hits my Te PoLR constantly, and it feels very different, haha. It feels incredibly demotivating and shameful, it makes me feel bad about myself – bad for just being myself. Whereas with the LSI and ILE, their conversations did show me my own weakness in the Logical department, but not in a negative way. It did not make me feel bad about myself. It was more like I've experienced constructive criticism from their side, which gave me more clarity. There was some kind of positive experience coming out of that. It felt like "Oh, now I am aware I am actually not that good at this area as I've previously thought [I've never felt like I was proficient at Te, it always felt like a big blindspot, whereas I have thought my Ti was better – hence my argument for HA Arrogance]. I won't try to be cool in that area that much anymore, because it is apparent I am not as good at it anyways. I'll just be around people who are better at it, and focus on my own strengths."

All in all, perhaps this is what it feels like when you get help with your PoLR from Ti ego types as an IEI. Regardless, this experience was still making me feel more humbled over my Ti. As I have said, I've never felt like my Te was that great, especially with having an LSE father around who would constantly point it out. And, stronger Ti usually results in stronger Te... What the two guys were talking about was Logics in general; I could see it slightly hit my Te PoLR, but also because I did not understand what they were talking about, it made my weakness at Ti apparent (given Ti HA is about "understanding").

I can definitely relate to the experience of having a conflictor parent, and how much more it sucks (imo) in the particular case of an extraverted, logical conflictor in a position of authority over an introverted, ethical, intuitive child. There have been times when I know beforehand that I should not take my LSE mother's advice, and yet I'm bullied into it bc I don't want to hurt her feelings and also bc she's Se demonstrative, after all - she can definitely be a bully. Which she denies later, of course. I'm in my late 20s now, and I'm still figuring out new ways to diffuse the conflict with my mother while still remaining on cordial terms with her. It is exhausting.

And as for arrogance with your HA, I get that too, and I think you're right. An IEI's grasp of Ti matters is very internal and intuitive, and once in a while it comes out into the open and astounds everyone with its coherency. I had an ESE roommate, who thought I was a logical wunderkind, even though I was only using Ni with her. And then you realize you actually are out of your depth in front of a Ti-user (except for LIIs, they are too slow).

The problem with using computer/tech examples to show this is that I think all logical types display a competency with this, that can be impressive regardless if they are using Ti or Te. I'm from Silicon Valley, so I grew up with a lot of tech speak and nothing is new or unknown to me, but I will still freak out about small operational things, which both my ILI brother and LSI partner approach pretty much the same way.

One difference though, is my LSI partner is much more likely to tell me not to worry about whatever I'm worrying about. "Surveillance? There's millions of people's data everywhere, why would anyone want to go after your data?" That kind of thing, and it really reassures me. My ILI brother, on the other hand, will try to freak me out even more, tell me that I need to be a lot more careful with everything, and basically NOT reassure me.

[poops magoops]

I can definitely relate to the experience of having a conflictor parent, and how much more it sucks (imo) in the particular case of an extraverted, logical conflictor in a position of authority over an introverted, ethical, intuitive child. There have been times when I know beforehand that I should not take my LSE mother's advice, and yet I'm bullied into it bc I don't want to hurt her feelings and also bc she's Se demonstrative, after all - she can definitely be a bully. Which she denies later, of course. I'm in my late 20s now, and I'm still figuring out new ways to diffuse the conflict with my mother while still remaining on cordial terms with her. It is exhausting.

And as for arrogance with your HA, I get that too, and I think you're right. An IEI's grasp of Ti matters is very internal and intuitive, and once in a while it comes out into the open and astounds everyone with its coherency. I had an ESE roommate, who thought I was a logical wunderkind, even though I was only using Ni with her. And then you realize you actually are out of your depth in front of a Ti-user (except for LIIs, they are too slow).

The problem with using computer/tech examples to show this is that I think all logical types display a competency with this, that can be impressive regardless if they are using Ti or Te. I'm from Silicon Valley, so I grew up with a lot of tech speak and nothing is new or unknown to me, but I will still freak out about small operational things, which both my ILI brother and LSI partner approach pretty much the same way.

One difference though, is my LSI partner is much more likely to tell me not to worry about whatever I'm worrying about. "Surveillance? There's millions of people's data everywhere, why would anyone want to go after your data?" That kind of thing, and it really reassures me. My ILI brother, on the other hand, will try to freak me out even more, tell me that I need to be a lot more careful with everything, and basically NOT reassure me.

My wife is IEI-Fe and has a LSE-Te father. Whats the deal with that!?

Her brother is ILI-Te, certainly not that easiest relationship with an LSE either.

[Olimpia]

My wife is IEI-Fe and has a LSE-Te father. Whats the deal with that!?

Her brother is ILI-Te, certainly not that easiest relationship with an LSE either.

That must suck, haha. My father is LSE-Si, that makes it a little less bad, but... it's still bad, haha.
Type-wise and sibling-wise, I've been blessed with an ILE-Ti brother and an SEE-Fi sister (though they both have trouble getting along with each other, go figure haha).

So yeah... Conflictor parents must be the worst, because you "have" to be close (at least until you are independent from them).
I have never had any illusions regarding my Te PoLR, haha. (Thanks, Dad. xP) That has always been clear. Regarding Ti, I would have the occasional "splurge" on devouring a lot of Ti information; Socionics systems being a part of that. Afterwards, I'd feel like I had accomplished something. But my recent experience has taught me my Ti is just alright...

Apart from the hanging out with my Ti relatives, another thing has made me doubt my "great" (ha) Ti use: I have been struggling with writing a certain essay. I've come to the point of realizing its inner logic might be off, and I may end up contradicting my main argument... I've had that moment of "Oh no, help!", and now I have to work at it myself... Not nice.

Aka, I like Ti and I am Ni subtype, but Ti can be difficult nonetheless. It is not as insurmountable as certain dreaded Te things, but it certainly is not as easy as using Fe (or Ni, duh).

[Skepsis]

Ti mode is like a switch and I become super logical and analytical. I would even go as far as to say that it can be quite good. I just can't stay in it for long though, like an alpha NT would, nor am I as picky about logical consistency. Only when I feel like it, lol.

I actually thought it was likely I was alpha NT for quite some time because I can make good use of Ti.

[ConcreteButterfly]

If a person is successful in the sphere of the third function he or she may flaunt and seek for approval of close ones, because success is a reason for good self-esteem. According to the third function people are in need of clear confirmation that “they are all right”.

Third function = hidden agenda. This is from Reinin's book

[golden]

My wife is IEI-Fe and has a LSE-Te father. Whats the deal with that!?

Her brother is ILI-Te, certainly not that easiest relationship with an LSE either.

All fathers are LSE and all mothers are ESE. Duh.

[tejing]

My sister's IEI, and it never seemed to me like she overestimated her capabilities, but then again, she grew up around an ILE father and an LII brother, both with very high IQs, so it would have been hard to keep any illusions. She worked very hard at developing her partly just for herself, but partly because she wanted to fit into the intellectual atmosphere of the family, and one of the things I noticed when watching her work with stuff was that can often compensate for a weak so long as things to don't get too incredibly abstract. For example, she was good at algebra, not because she had a good , but because she could "see" it with , though when she hit calculus, the error rate of the intuitive approach got to be too much, and she just couldn't keep it up anymore.

[Olimpia]

All fathers are LSE and all mothers are ESE. Duh.

Are those the types of your own parents, too?

[Olimpia]

How about a thought experiment - will a genius level IEE or SEE have stronger Te than an LXE with a severe intellectual disability?

That's a trick question, given that this "genius level" IEE or SEE would be judged to be intellectually superior to such an LxE in every way, not just in regards to Te.

In relation to the person's own psyche and personality, Te is the best function of that LxE, just as Te will never be the best function in the IEE and SEE. (Basic understanding of Dimensionality.) In comparison to their own functional make up, the dimensionality/strength of Ne or Se of the xEE will always be superior over any Te efforts.

And may the disabled LxE be inferior to the genius IEE and SEE in regards to Te, this is not truly relevant; given that such an abnormally inferior LxE would be inferior in every other way, too. (Basically, inferior to any normal type, actually. Not just genius people.)

All in all, I don't see a point in comparing extremes like that. It makes more sense to compare people of the same intelligence level. In that manner, an average Te lead would naturally always be better at Te than an average IEE or SEE, even if both people are intellectually on the same level. But at this point, one also has to consider how intelligence is being rated. Based on my observations, Thinking is rated as more "intellectual" in general; Thinkers are often seen as being more intelligent than Feelers in general, just based on the fact that Thinkers think rationally (logically). Intuition is also often rated as being more "intellectually superior" than Sensing. Likely because of the fact Intuitives think more abstractly, which is regarded as more "intelligent". It is no surprise NTs are universally regarded to be the most stereotypically "intelligent".

Based on that, an LIE could be judged to be "more intelligent" than an SEE, even though their true intelligence levels are the same. But that's another issue.

[Pookie]

Hah the above is probably a decent example of an Arrogant HA sticking it's head up from under the pillows. Octo has you checkmated here SisOfNight, your original statement wasn't exactly Ti logical.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

The bigger picture is why are IEI str8 girl types so hung up on our flaws? It's like those two men you were talking with... well they sounded pretty arrogant themselves, stupid str8 male mansplainers. Only difference is they aren't going on and on about it and being self loathing about their own arrogance. That's why str8 men run the world.

I cringed when I read your post, maybe because I related strongly to it and/or I feel deeply for you. But you are like going on page after page picking at a scab or something.

I never thought my Ti was all that good though, I always felt the natural mediocre-ness of it or something... so I relate to you in a raw emotional sense but I think you are projecting your personal experience on other types. Anyway those two men were just teasing u cuz you are shy & sensitive, but it also seemed pretty rude. And you just stood there silently like a typical passive str8 girl...and there was no SLE protector hunk to smash their skulls together, so I kinda felt the awkwardness of that exchange purely. You are too innocent, too shy and too IEI str8 girl like. Next time a man makes you feel like shit, rub your period blood on his face.

[bolong]

My wife is IEI-Fe and has a LSE-Te father. Whats the deal with that!?

Her brother is ILI-Te, certainly not that easiest relationship with an LSE either.

Indeed, what is the deal with that. I wonder if IEIs are more likely to have a conflictor for a parent? Or, if having a conflictor for a parent makes you more likely to be IEI? Or... nope, I'm stuck.

[spritelite]

Except that in everyday life, you meet people of all intelligence levels, and it's extremely rare that you have a chance to compare two people of the identical intelligence levels. What's the point in examining a model of human interaction with no reference to reality? You're bending reality to fit your mould of what socionics predicts, when your concept of socionics should be adjusted to fit reality...

This is like saying in everyday life you compare someone at 178cm with someone at 208cm, infact most people fall into the middle zone - where 50% of people are, in height, in intelligence, in many things.

You are just nit picking and making a fool out of yourself. Try to use your Ni to see the bigger picture.

[mu4]

Most people are only subtly aware of their mobilizing function requirements, it's a vital ring function. However people can act out in this function(bold) usually in stressful/anxious situations or what not but the actions are usually requests to the individuals around them to fulfill the function. I wouldn't call it arrogant because most people aren't even aware of what they're looking for or doing. Bold function are used in a more free way vs cautious functions, and in the HA used to fill a void in interaction. Bold is a better term for it.

"arrogance" implies some level of moral/ethical/emotional/conscious grasp of this area and I'm not sure that is going to be consistently there for most people.

Socially individuals are always using their Ego's and requesting their super-id, but if that request is unacknowledged, recognized and validated, unconscious tension can build and release it self via mechanisms like shadow projection perhaps mimicry of other individuals displaying these functions.

Naturally mimicry may not be as fluid as individualized behavior from the ego but it depends on practice. In these situations, it's very much just mimicry. Information have a level of ability to transform and overlap and these aid in mimicry.

Most individuals do not seek to control usage of their mobilizing function, these are areas of quite limited ability and awareness.

[spritelite]

It's a thought experiment.

Did you read the OP? Reread it, read the examples of superior Ti the OP gave and think about what happens when you move a few standard deviations above the mean (let's assume that people who frequent this forum tend to be on the higher end of the intelligence spectrum, because let's face it, who the fuck sits on the internet all day talking about personality theory in full sentences?).



It's not just nitpicking, it's moving away from the asinine popular-MBTI-survey-based assumption that Ti-egos are automatically more proficient at Ti-related subjects, Te-egos are automatically more proficient at Te-related subjects, and therefore you could just give the entire population a maths test and type the top 50% T-ego when in fact the bell curves overlap a crazy amount.

I deal in realities, comparing a genius to a disabled person is a pointless comparison. Comparing two average people (which accounts for >50% of the population) is realistic for just about any scenario you will find in life.

[mu4]

It's not just nitpicking, it's moving away from the asinine popular-MBTI-survey-based assumption that Ti-egos are automatically more proficient at Ti-related subjects, Te-egos are automatically more proficient at Te-related subjects, and therefore you could just give the entire population a maths test and type the top 50% T-ego when in fact the bell curves overlap a crazy amount.

I think socionics would agree with you.

Socionics is as much about function in position vs function in strength.

It cannot be assumed that function strength/skill level is directly aligned with model A preferences. It's entirely possible the median/mean population falls into the preference = strength dynamic, but how do outliers get categorized and by what mechanism do outliers express their model A structure.

One example, the best chefs I've profiled are often EIE(Si-Polr) for some reason. There are very good reasons why this might be so.

Both base function and polr function are powerful motivators and as the same exact experience can be interpreted in a multitude of different ways, often the overlap and confusion is where things collide and the divergence is where individuals specialize.

Ti Mobilizing types and Ti Base type both have bold Ti, and the interaction is not the same as Ti creative with a Ti Base.

Ti base might seem neurotic in how they use their base function because this is something that is a clash with the irrationality of the Ti mobilizing individual.

The Ti mobilizing individual may simply see the rational as being too stubborn and sure of themselves. And Base function can often go haywire, see Godel who went insane and was trapped in a Ti loop until he finally starved himself to death. One can say this is "strong usage" and "strong preference" but it certainly was fatal as well.

In a different way the interaction is colored for Ti creatives. They are more cautious about their creative function, and use it only in select situations, it may be difficult to assess proficiency or importance for the Ti creatives. These individuals might seem surprisingly reasonable and rational despite their irrational informality, while also offering a take on the mobilizing function.

[Adam Strange]

That's a trick question, given that this "genius level" IEE or SEE would be judged to be intellectually superior to such an LxE in every way, not just in regards to Te.

In relation to the person's own psyche and personality, Te is the best function of that LxE, just as Te will never be the best function in the IEE and SEE. (Basic understanding of Dimensionality.) In comparison to their own functional make up, the dimensionality/strength of Ne or Se of the xEE will always be superior over any Te efforts.

And may the disabled LxE be inferior to the genius IEE and SEE in regards to Te, this is not truly relevant; given that such an abnormally inferior LxE would be inferior in every other way, too. (Basically, inferior to any normal type, actually. Not just genius people.)

All in all, I don't see a point in comparing extremes like that. It makes more sense to compare people of the same intelligence level. In that manner, an average Te lead would naturally always be better at Te than an average IEE or SEE, even if both people are intellectually on the same level. But at this point, one also has to consider how intelligence is being rated. Based on my observations, Thinking is rated as more "intellectual" in general; Thinkers are often seen as being more intelligent than Feelers in general, just based on the fact that Thinkers think rationally (logically). Intuition is also often rated as being more "intellectually superior" than Sensing. Likely because of the fact Intuitives think more abstractly, which is regarded as more "intelligent". It is no surprise NTs are universally regarded to be the most stereotypically "intelligent".

Based on that, an LIE could be judged to be "more intelligent" than an SEE, even though their true intelligence levels are the same. But that's another issue.

There are other complicating issues.

Studies have found that people are very good at judging how smart other people are in real life, as long as they are smarter than the people they are judging. When you expose someone with an IQ of 150 to someone with an IQ of 100, the person with the IQ of 100 will know that the other person is smarter than they are, but will be a very poor judge of just how much smarter that person is. (They usually underestimate.) Not so the other way around. So, judging a person's IQ is a very tricky business, even if you disregard the fact that, yes, Thinkers are rated higher by IQ tests than Feelers, Intuitives are rated higher than Sensors, and Introverts are generally rated higher than Extroverts. This clearly creates a typing bias in standard IQ tests, because the tests are, in part, measuring for thinking intuitive introverts.
http://oddlydevelopedtypes.com/content/intp-iq

However, I think a truly smart person is able to see that there are different kinds of smart. There is the measured kind of smart, and then there is the operational kind of smart. Personally, I think a person is smart if they usually make good choices in most of the things they do.

[Pookie]

Sprite, sis spoke in absolute terms. Octo found a hole that showed it doesn't work in absolutes. Sprite your arguing that Octo isn't addressing reality and is therefore wrong? I don't understand how that makes sense to you. If you only deal in realities, how are you overlooking the reality that the original statement doesn't work in the real world and that you're agreeing its correct.

I mean it's all semantics. Sis had a point. Oct had a point. it really isn't something to get worked up about.

[marooned]

i don't think a 4D function (for example) is the same in brilliance across the board. i imagine if you were to gather 100 IEIs and find some way to evaluate their use, some would seem to demonstrate more advanced than others, despite that they all lead with it - so, some really will be "better at it" in that sense. but most of them will likely display the telltale signs of a supposed 4D function at work, though some will be more showy about it than others.

i don't know if i agree that one person's 2D could be "better than" another's 4D . from reading that one article on dimensionality it seemed that the way you "spot" these dimensions is by how far the "user" can go with it. if they can only go off of convention/norms, then no matter how good their (in this case) formal logic or reasoning capacity... it's still a 2D function. i think it's mainly because so much is put into the stronger functions that there isn't room/time for greater "dimensionality" of the weaker ones. it's weak because it's constantly overridden.

so i guess it would depend on what is meant by "better." supposedly "full information processing" is only possible with a 4D function.

but i don't even know what i think about dimensionality - i question really this idea of how limited some of the weak functions are, especially the notion of being stuck in convention/norms/rules with it. i guess i'm wondering if this is more of an average? maybe it's actually that although the IE in your 2D function may often stay in its low level processing state, it can at times (or even for periods of time) leap up out of that, and so for a while you would go beyond its usual limits. you will still be more 2D with it (averaging over your entire life) than someone who has it 4D. but even the great pillar that is the 4D function can be weighed down by the others. if you have to play down your lead every time you use your role, for instance, i doubt your lead is all that "4D" during those times. so it seems more an idea of capacities and averages. the more *that's* the case, the more it seems one person's 2D could be better than another's 4D, especially when considering health and intelligence.

lastly, i definitely think that an ethical type can be better at tech things than a logical one. it's just in the realm of the technical, you'll find more logical types. i also agree the world is full of logical idiots.

but now that i've thought about it more, i think @octo is right. i think a 4D function is simply "fully versatile" in a way. that doesn't mean what it puts out there is sheer brilliance. just because you can wield it in every way, with great flourish, doesn't mean the fruits it drops are any good. i think a kind of "intelligence" (for lack of a better word) is what makes it "good" or not often. (however, i don't think intelligence is the only factor by any means...)

and, since i can't end this post: people may be way more likely to feel perpetually lacking or insecure about weaker functions, and more likely to compare with others. the feeling of this 2D function (i'm saying exists for the sake of argument) will probably be one where you can't ever really get a handle on it. you can over-estimate it as a way of coping, or feel inadequate. so even if you are the most brilliant person ever and your IE products all happen to be somehow more brilliant than those of others, still you may feel what is wanting in the weaker functions and doubt yourself. (which isn't to say you can't doubt your strong fcts too, imo.)

[marooned]

which i painfully realized myself once placed into a setting in which Ne proficiency was required of me (namely, coming up with new ideas for research), which i was fairly feeble in delivering.

i don't know if i'd say that is "weak " per se. research can be driven by things such as curiosity and seeking knowledge/understanding along with liking to investigate areas one is interested in using scientific methods; or like you said later, by something you're excited about or actually care about. without a personal reason to come up with a research topic (i.e. maybe there's nothing one really feels like "researching"), it wouldn't be easy to come up with ideas that would last longer than the sounding board of one's internal thoughts.

[Suz]

i don't know if i'd say that is "weak " per se. research can be driven by things such as curiosity and seeking knowledge/understanding along with liking to investigate areas one is interested in using scientific methods; or like you said later, by something you're excited about or actually care about. without a personal reason to come up with a research topic (i.e. maybe there's nothing one really feels like "researching"), it wouldn't be easy to come up with ideas that would last longer than the sounding board of one's internal thoughts.

yeah but i tried to formulate research ideas on a topic i was excited about, and i had a hard time. Unfortunately my then boss's Ne sucked too, so his "ideas" were stupid, boring, and impractical. I do better when others formulate the research ideas and vision, and i can then pick the one(s) i like, and get things moving and get things done.

[spritelite]

You've misunderstood my point.

Ideal situation: Two perfectly average people
Extreme situation: One genius, one retarded
Real situations: Somewhere in between

You do not understand what average is. Just about everyone you'll ever meet is average, like 99% of people.

You are just projecting your imagined feelings of superiority.

For instance: someone might have an extra 10 points of IQ than someone else (which is an irrelevant number) that 10 points extra of IQ person, they may not have travelled as much as you. Someone else may not have travelled or have the 10 IQ points, but they cared for their dying relative so gained experience out of that. All in all everything combines to create an average person, some highs, some lows, but par. The people of truly outstanding character, are people that have been driven since birth which we hardly ever meet, they usually become Nobel prize winners or the heads of their countries in politics etc.

[mu4]

You do not understand what average is. Just about everyone you'll ever meet is average, like 99% of people.

You are just projecting your imagined feelings of superiority.

For instance: someone might have an extra 10 points of IQ than someone else (which is an irrelevant number) that 10 points extra of IQ person, they may not have travelled as much as you. Someone else may not have travelled or have the 10 IQ points, but they cared for their dying relative so gained experience out of that. All in all everything combines to create an average person, some highs, some lows, but par. The people of truly outstanding character, are people that have been driven since birth which we hardly ever meet, they usually become Nobel prize winners or the heads of their countries in politics etc.

I'm not sure if you understand what 1% really means. 1% is high when talking about populations.

I'm also not sure if you understand IQ. Because average IQ is actually not that much. 68ish% of the population is 1 standard deviation from from 100 ut the 34ish% below norm are certainly not average because they have great difficulty in life as a whole, they certainly don't live average lives, more below average lives often quite difficult. The rest that's way outliers below 1 standard deviations usually are in jail or are often disabled.

So when you're talking about "average people", which is basically people 1 standard deviation above norm, you're really talking about 30% of the population, above that things look pretty good, below that, things look somewhat bad.

Almost everyone you meet will be not normal, 70%... and this is just IQ, not counting various other outliers.

Given the 15% of the population are 1 standard deviation above the norm, it's 1 in 2 chance you will meet a above average person vs person and when you count the 50% who are below the norm, chances are, there will be a big asymmetry in a lot of interactions.

However we humans have sort of organized ourselves in a way that people of similar (1 standard deviation apart) cluster somewhat, so take this forum, it's likely at least 1 standard deviation above norm.

Now I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're 1 standard deviation above norm, but there are many people here on this forum who are 2 standard deviation above the norm, 130ish+, you're probably not one of them given your lack of understanding in various topics or even basic statistics. In this forum of 2000+ registered users there's at least 60 of them and given the topic, probably quite a lot more. Chances are you're talking to some of them right now, but you probably can't notice because it's pretty impossible for someone of lower intellect to understand they're talking to someone of higher intellect.

And, oh by the way, I have met a Nobel Prize Winner before, I used to live in one of his family houses and he came to visit.

[tejing]

For instance: someone might have an extra 10 points of IQ than someone else (which is an irrelevant number) that 10 points extra of IQ person, they may not have travelled as much as you. Someone else may not have travelled or have the 10 IQ points, but they cared for their dying relative so gained experience out of that.

That actually sounds like an argument that no one is average, which is true if you don't tie it down to a specific measurement/dimension. No one is average in every way, but everyone is average in some (even most) ways.