Proving introverted thinking is subjective

[Ben Vaserlan]

[The Reality Denialist]

Isn't this given? I do not recall him referring to mathematical truths ever.

Jumping to the gun is something what many Ti egos do when careless (I'd say strong Ti) being manipulated by their ethics.

[Expansion]

It can conjure up "what is true" with its own deductions, and ignore external reality of what actually takes place in the world. That would be ignoring external thinking or consensus.

Some Ti posters here will frame a reverse take on induction and deduction, Ti vs Te, where one started a thread on it, completely ignoring anything but the Ti dive & bias loaded into it.

You get a sense of a firm conviction in it.

I've noticed this with Exodus, also, like turning a Reinin dichotomy around to suit the subjective Ti take on it, making it true.

You get a sense of a strong personal conviction with it. It adds up in an a addition to existing mental structure & models and frames. If it adds, it sticks.

Just like with Fi, it is individual resonance that rings true. Very subjective, very personal.

[godslave]

Socionics definition of Ti has very little to do with the Jungian definition of it. Check this out :

L (Ti) structural logic — information about the relations between objects.

P (Te) practical logic — information about the properties of objects.

Jung factored in the traditional philosophical understandings and viewpoints related to epistemology (or gnosology) in the development of his definition of Thinking functions. Indeed, socionics doesn't factor the philosophical aspect of Jung's idea, for instance in socionics there are no objects within the subject, in other word the inner world of introverted types is amputated of a part of their worldview and way of beings. Socionics is biased towards the outerworld i.e. extroversion because its creator was an Extrovert, it's as simple as that. (I've deleted the post I wrote here yesterday in which I explained with a little more details why socionics and the Jungian paradygm are not fully compatible and it doesn't make a lot of sense to pretend that they are compatible or even worst, complementary. but I've already said it in this forum several times... ).

[The Reality Denialist]

Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

I'd say this ignorance can be manifest as cherry-picking. Guy McPherson, and certain IEI labeller come to mind. Notice the word external on facts.

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man.

OK, in this case of extreme extensity we see a collection of meaningless data, which I'd hesitate to call a fact but by Jung criteria it seems to fulfill it. I'd rather say a snapshot of a state expressed by a detector output (containing its own faults). Now, I must question Jung why Darwin qualifies here as a good example as it seems quite tandem like expression of thinking.

[godslave]

Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

I'd say this ignorance can be manifest as cherry-picking. Guy McPherson, and certain IEI labeller come to mind. Notice the word external on facts.

Indeed, as you can see In Jung's paradygm and definitions of TI and the Introverted Thinking type, We are far from : information about "External static of Field" , "Perception of the object’s position in space" , "Space, distance in space". I mean, in which Universe do Jung's Ti definition and that of Aushra have something in common ??!

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man.

OK, in this case of extreme extensity we see a collection of meaningless data, which I'd hesitate to call a fact but by Jung criteria it seems to fulfill it. I'd rather say a snapshot of a state expressed by a detector output (containing its own faults). Now, I must question Jung why Darwin qualifies here as a good example as it seems quite tandem like expression of thinking.

(I didn't understand the blue part). Indeed, Darwin would arguably qualified as a Ti Type in socionics but not in Jung. Remember that in socionics both Ti and Te are about the outerworld of objects. When we are talking about the "field" or "relation" between objects we are necessarily looking outward towards a reality which contains both fields and objects in other words we are orienting our consciousness like an Extrovert. Therefore talking about the subjective factor when it comes to "Thinking" in socionics paradigm would be at best paradoxal and at worst a nonsense. I would add that keeping MBTI abbreviation (Ti, Te, ect..) adds confusion but Aushra and her apostles have probably intended to use them primarily as an indicative purpose, as a semblance of link between Jungian Typology and Socionics . IEs and their symbols have several names anyway.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

it's difficult to describe your own cognition, but if I look at what I can do the best, it would probably be the reduction of most things to the essentials. this also manifests in my private life. for example, I delete chats between people that I have had contact with because I want to reduce information to the minimum and then later I regret it when I need to look something up again. I rarely ask how people are doing and basically only reply when I actually want to do something which can irritate some people and isn't for everyone, especially for more emotional people. I want to interact with people who have the most potential and if someone is just average, I do not see a point in wasting my time. everything I do is tied to reduction of structure in some shape or form but I can abandon it for positive emotions occasionally. when you write me, it's likely that I am going to take days to answer or I am not gonna reply at all or forget about it unless it's something really interesting to me. I think many Ti descriptions, as well as the other functions, are bullshit made up by imagination and not actual evidence.

[The Reality Denialist]

Indeed, as you can see In Jung's paradygm and definitions of TI and the Introverted Thinking type, We are far from : information about "External static of Field" , "Perception of the object’s position in space" , "Space, distance in space". I mean, in which Universe do Jung's Ti definition and that of Aushra have something in common ??!



(I didn't understand the blue part). Indeed, Darwin would arguably qualified as a Ti Type in socionics but not in Jung. Remember that in socionics both Ti and Te are about the outerworld of objects. When we are talking about the "field" or "relation" between objects we are necessarily looking outward towards a reality which contains both fields and objects in other words we are orienting our consciousness like an Extrovert. Therefore talking about the subjective factor when it comes to "Thinking" in socionics paradigm would be at best paradoxal and at worst a nonsense. I would add that keeping MBTI abbreviation (Ti, Te, ect..) adds confusion but Aushra and her apostles have probably intended to use them primarily as an indicative purpose, as a semblance of link between Jungian Typology and Socionics . IEs and their symbols have several names anyway.

Darwin as an extraverted thinking type seems a bit crazy because there is a very clear engangement in synthetic thinking. Hence I fail to see Ti suppression. Altough he assembled his result in extraverted manner I'd argue that Ti is stronger there. (ILI being far more capable in tandem like thinking compared to LIE for instance).

Anyway, I don't see Aushra Ti radically different from Jung.

its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea

[Muira]

The feelings that arise when two objects are being compared based on some objective property, e.g. a sense of distance, weight, volume, value, strength or quality, we classify as logical. These are the feelings of objective evaluation; in certain cases this evaluation contributes to either activation or passivation of the person experiencing said feelings.


One perceives direct information that is obtained through the first signal system as a sense of proportionality or disproportionality of the objects, a sense of balance or imbalance between them, and a sense of understanding or not understanding the advantages one object has over the other. This includes all feelings that arise from objects and phenomena being known or unknown: curiosity, respect, fear, a sense of something being logical or illogical, a sense of power or powerlessness over a certain object.
[/QUOTE]
-Socion, Aushra Augusta


Ultimately, the only thing subjective amongst rational introverted judging functions (Ti + Fi) are that they are calculated within, to which there can be a possibility to have a margin of error. Be it to be able to tell how close you are to someone (Fi), or to assess the leverage of any particular object depending on the situation, advantages, disadvantages, common sense(it the sense that it is logical), so on, (Ti).

Ti is still largely objective in the sense it intakes information from the external world for the objective qualities of that object, and even to how it can be used(as it transfers to Te, etc).

At least from a classical socionic perspective, SCS. Maybe try covering that?

[godslave]

Darwin as an extraverted thinking type seems a bit crazy because there is a very clear engagement in synthetic thinking. Hence I fail to see Ti suppression. Altough he assembled his result in extraverted manner I'd argue that Ti is stronger there. (ILI being far more capable in tandem like thinking compared to LIE for instance).

This is how I see it, for each functions (T, F, S, N) there is either a subjective or objective a predominance in accordance to the conscious orientation of the Ego and the rules of functions blocking (if the first is extroverted then second is introverted etc...). This notion of supression you talked about doesn't really work in socionics when we are talking about 8 functions Models and TIMs, indeed a Thinking type will manifest high dimensionalities (3D and 4D) in both thinking vertness. We can say that Darwin's Ti didn't suppress his Te Just like Einstein's Te didn't suppress his Ti. Indeed, Einstein knew he was right before his theory of Relativity has been proven with The solar eclipse of May 29 1919 (Te). We can say that the Ti's subjective factor was predominant over his Te.

Besides, Jung himself talked about that famous "something deep in the background" which @CR400AF has brilliantly correlated to the Model A Demonstrative Function in this Thread. So when we talk about Jung's typology we must be careful and to not take his "Psychological Types" as his ultimate definitive opinion on the matter. His ideas and view kept developing way after the publication of that book back in 1921 (more than a century ago !).

Anyway, I don't see Aushra Ti radically different from Jung

its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea.

I do, the "Introverted thinking type" has already modeled from within his understanding of reality and if the external facts a posteriori don't correlate with his model then he will reject them (the subjective factor is predominant). Btw, I've always found (at least since I know about socionics) that Jung's description of the Introverted thinking type corresponds a little more to an INT than a Pure Ti. In socionics there is no Ti without the presence of at least two objects (of the objective world !), there is no thinking but an information aspect between between these objects, that's a major departure from Jung already. Jung's Introverted thinking type doesn't need objects from the external world to "think" in the first place. He finds the content with which he structures his model in his inner world, not just mere abstractions but a real manifestation of forms seen from within with his mind's eyes.

Now, Jung talks about a "goal" but what if the external fact don"t fit the framework ? How would the Introverted thinking type make them fit ? I think the answer in socionics is obvious but it is less in Jung. Indeed, Here we have to differentiate the Ti with N auxiliary from the Ti with S auxiliary. LII and LSI have different field of action, the former works with intuition and the latter with sensation. But I digress (and I'm too tired cuz this site is lagging right now and I had to write this twice !).

[Expansion]

If musicians, music enthusiasts and scholars exist, what logical conclusion can be drawn from the following two statements?

• No scholars are musicians
• All musicians are music enthusiasts

Select the correct answer

https://assess.ly/en/q/deductive-rea...sociate_degree


Introverted thinking works like this^

[The Reality Denialist]

I do, the "Introverted thinking type" has already modeled from within his understanding of reality and if the external facts a posteriori don't correlate with his model then he will reject them (the subjective factor is predominant). Btw, I've always found (at least since I know about socionics) that Jung's description of the Introverted thinking type corresponds a little more to an INT than a Pure Ti. In socionics there is no Ti without the presence of at least two objects (of the objective world !), there is no thinking but an information aspect between between these objects, that's a major departure from Jung already. Jung's Introverted thinking type doesn't need objects from the external world to "think" in the first place. He finds the content with which he structures his model in his inner world, not just mere abstractions but a real manifestation of forms seen from within with his mind's eyes.

Obviously, his typing style seems to emphasize emergence of functional attitudes, as this is clinically quite practical. Ni is easy to see as an aimless bum weakling crying in the corner having hazy visions, but surely I do not think this is necessary for the native type.

[godslave]

Obviously, his typing style seems to emphasize emergence of functional attitudes, as this is clinically quite practical.

Yes, however I wouldn't say that Jung has a typing style since most of what he did is to describe the types, he didn't really demonstrate proper typing only pointed to certain Great figure as examples like Kant, Darwin or even Hilter, indeed his typing are very rare (I don't remember all of them). As for the "functional attitudes"* we must not forget that they are occurring within the context of Jung's Psychology which is something utterly ignored in socionics to the point of remodeling his model. In fact, it's not a secret that Aushra's system don't claim to be Jungian, one could say that it's more Freudian at least in terms of terminology choice (Ego, SuperEgo, ID ) even if of course, Jung himself was essentially a Freudian but you get the point ! Socionics is inspired by Jung's Typology and MBTI (in fact it has more to do with the latter than with the former imho). it's like using spare parts of a Ferrari to build a Kangoo if you allow me that bad analogy.

*As a side note, I rechecked how Jung defined the word "Attitude" in chapter X of PT and I can see some "spare parts" from which the Mental and Vital rings could have been made of !

As to what is or is not relevant, this is decided by the already constellated combination of contents. Whether the point of reference is conscious or unconscious does not affect the selectivity of the attitude, since the selection is implicit in the attitude and takes place automatically. It is useful, however, to distinguish between the two, because the presence of two attitudes is extremely frequent, one conscious and the other unconscious. This means that consciousness has a constellation of contents different from that of the unconscious, a duality particularly evident in neurosis.

Jung. PT chapter 10 "8. Attitude".

One can say that Jung focuses on the Individual while socionics focus TIMs as object (again devoid of inner world imho) and their function within a superstructure called the socion. There isn't in Jung that pronounced focus on the sociological aspect and the place of the individual in society. It's as if the individual had his own socion inside manifested in Jung's concept of individuation. There is nonetheless always this Freudian notion of "talking cure" and observation of the individual unconscious, and its content through the interpretation of dreams (symbols and meanings) etc. All this are main ways to bring to consciousness some important latent and unconscious content through analysis.

Typology like socionics claim that some of this mechanisms happen naturally and in a systematic way through specific ITR (while some other tend to prevent conscious awareness and even induces stress) but always in the service of the socion and social progress. Information metabolism and exchanges between TIMs have no other purpose within that context. As a reminder Aushra was an economist not a psychologist and that may explain this in addition with her biases induced by her conscious orientation namely Extraversion. (My God I start to sound like a broken record !).

Ni is easy to see as an aimless bum weakling crying in the corner having hazy visions, but surely I do not think this is necessary for the native type.

LOL ! I would argue that Ni is one of the things that differentiates us from other hominids in particular and the rest of mammals in general. The ability to foresee imagining the future (near and far) is unique to human being and has been with us since the dawn of humanity. I don't buy the idea that primitive tribes don't "use" Ni or Ne, because these functions would allegedly not be useful in the context of human integration in some kind of symbiotic relationship with a given environment or because the tribe would be too primitive to significatively develop functions differentiations (From S to N), that simply doesn't make sense giving the fact that human being have the capacity do adapt and modify the environment when it is necessary for their survival (as the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention" !).

As you know, the basics of the whole range of human cognition has been established since the Neolithic revolution. Therefore one is either Human (with all the cognitive abilities that words implies) or is not. I am of the idea that the whole spectrum of the human condition has been always represented since human being have adapted a sedentary lifestyle in all human societies regardless of the type of society (bet it tribal or civilizational) .

That said, I agree that it is very difficult to isolate a function in complex thinking, in fact we use multiple functions all the time.

Sorry for the rambling !

[The Reality Denialist]

Yes, however I wouldn't say that Jung has a typing style since most of what he did is to describe the types, he didn't really demonstrate proper typing only pointed to certain Great figure as examples like Kant, Darwin or even Hilter, indeed his typing are very rare (I don't remember all of them). As for the "functional attitudes"* we must not forget that they are occurring within the context of Jung's Psychology which is something utterly ignored in socionics to the point of remodeling his model. In fact, it's not a secret that Aushra's system don't claim to be Jungian, one could say that it's more Freudian at least in terms of terminology choice (Ego, SuperEgo, ID ) even if of course, Jung himself was essentially a Freudian but you get the point ! Socionics is inspired by Jung's Typology and MBTI (in fact it has more to do with the latter than with the former imho). it's like using spare parts of a Ferrari to build a Kangoo if you allow me that bad analogy.

*As a side note, I rechecked how Jung defined the word "Attitude" in chapter X of PT and I can see some "spare parts" from which the Mental and Vital rings could have been made of !




One can say that Jung focuses on the Individual while socionics focus TIMs as object (again devoid of inner world imho) and their function within a superstructure called the socion. There isn't in Jung that pronounced focus on the sociological aspect and the place of the individual in society. It's as if the individual had his own socion inside manifested in Jung's concept of individuation. There is nonetheless always this Freudian notion of "talking cure" and observation of the individual unconscious, and its content through the interpretation of dreams (symbols and meanings) etc. All this are main ways to bring to consciousness some important latent and unconscious content through analysis.

Typology like socionics claim that some of this mechanisms happen naturally and in a systematic way through specific ITR (while some other tend to prevent conscious awareness and even induces stress) but always in the service of the socion and social progress. Information metabolism and exchanges between TIMs have no other purpose within that context. As a reminder Aushra was an economist not a psychologist and that may explain this in addition with her biases induced by her conscious orientation namely Extraversion. (My God I start to sound like a broken record !).



LOL ! I would argue that Ni is one of the things that differentiates us from other hominids in particular and the rest of mammals in general. The ability to foresee imagining the future (near and far) is unique to human being and has been with us since the dawn of humanity. I don't buy the idea that primitive tribes don't "use" Ni or Ne, because these functions would allegedly not be useful in the context of human integration in some kind of symbiotic relationship with a given environment or because the tribe would be too primitive to significatively develop functions differentiations (From S to N), that simply doesn't make sense giving the fact that human being have the capacity do adapt and modify the environment when it is necessary for their survival (as the saying goes "necessity is the mother of invention" !).

As you know, the basics of the whole range of human cognition has been established since the Neolithic revolution. Therefore one is either Human (with all the cognitive abilities that words implies) or is not. I am of the idea that the whole spectrum of the human condition has been always represented since human being have adapted a sedentary lifestyle in all human societies regardless of the type of society (bet it tribal or civilizational) .

That said, I agree that it is very difficult to isolate a function in complex thinking, in fact we use multiple functions all the time.

Sorry for the rambling !

Oh well, I was just merely discussing mental health (as clinically practical). Fixations and such under the attitude, not to a type or theory per se.
I don't really care to consider Aushra's thoughts much deeper. She seemed to have some bizarre thing going on with herself, just as typing every successful theoretical physicist (not to be taken literally) as an ILE which also carries to her use of kinetic and wuteva energies As Jung would have put this under the Ne leaving cleanup for others.

[godslave]

Oh well, I was just merely discussing mental health (as clinically practical). Fixations and such under the attitude, not to a type or theory per se.

I don't really care to consider Aushra's thoughts much deeper. She seemed to have some bizarre thing going on with herself, just as typing every successful theoretical physicist (not to be taken literally) as an ILE which also carries to her use of kinetic and wuteva energies As Jung would have put this under the Ne leaving cleanup for others.

What about acupuncture ?






Her meridian/IE correlation idea was the most unwise published idea she ever had imho.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think she was a sorceress ! (RIP)

Your interest in signalling and such makes me entertain an EII for you as a possibility among other factors. My philosophy has always been: possibility exists. In a way this was my problem with biochemistry as it answered to things with specifics charts whereas real chemists are like generalists like what is a chemical bond.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

dunno about Ti and ignoring facts. doesn't seem very logical to me. I might not use aspects of the theory or ignore them, but that's because they don't make sense or I have observed that they are wrong so I don't bother with them. if people think Aushra's or Jung's definitions are "Facts" that you ignore due to Ti, that's seems pretty stupid to me (it's not directed at anyone here). I would consider myself rather empirical in most aspects, more than most people on this site who claim to be Te base. what is objective anyway? it's all just a bunch of subjective definitions that people have made up and agreed on over time.

[godslave]

Your interest in signalling and such makes me entertain an EII for you as a possibility among other factors. My philosophy has always been: possibility exists. In a way this was my problem with biochemistry as it answered to things with specifics charts whereas real chemists are like generalists like what is a chemical bond.

Thank you for the typing ! I don't really understand what you meant by "signaling" and how that would be indicative of EII but that typing has been suggested for me by other forumites so I'm not really surprised if it is indeed the best fit for me (I mean it certainly is in at least one of the many socionics schools !). I must admit that I like to be typed !

Yes possibilities do exist indeed ! I don't know much about chemistry or biochemistry (although I find it fascinating and as one of the most valuable knowledge ever) but I can understand the passion exploring and expand the field of possibilities and boldly go where no men has gone before ! Indeed, it is important to always try new things !