Te views of reality as perceived by the types

[stevENTj]

I should probably mention that a lot of the ISTj's I've had to deal with recently have been "certifiable", so I probably have a somewhat skewed perspective. I'm not kidding - the one at the office was told that if he didn't seek professional counseling that they were going to fire him, and another outside of work is probably bi-polar among other things. I haven't had good experiences with ISTjs lately to say the least, lol.

[Expat]

Ti types


Ti types perceive reality as if it were an instruction manual, or a country's constitution - that they are not merely reading, but actively writing, completing, and improving upon. The point is to have a consistent, hopefully fool-proof manual, or constitution.

An instruction manual - or a constitution - or a set of rules - must be consistent and cover eventualities. It won't do to have a law saying that people can't smoke in McDonald's but not in bars, or if there is, this inconsistency must be understood, explained, and eliminated as the case may be. Ti types will spend a great deal of time looking into this kind of thing in their constitutions, exploring possible loopholes and how to close them, making sure that what is said in one paragraph is consistent with others. In doing that, they will often focus on the already written parts of the constitution before looking at what other areas must be covered by it.

Constitutions can be ammended, corrected, and even totally re-written. But the new version must also be consistent. Ti types may recognize that some real-life cases are not handled well by the constitution as it is, but they don't want to make exceptions: if the constitution is to be changed, the change also has to be internally consistent, and until such a new consistent version is designed, they prefer to leave it as it is. The beauty of a logical, consistent, fair, impartial constitution is more important than isolated cases that it perhaps doesn't seem to handle well -- more likely those cases are aberrations, and if they are not, ok, then we can change the constitution - but only when such cases are understood in a way as to permit a consistent new version.

ISTjs write their "constitutions" from, and for, things they have observed in this reality. They have formed their own vision of what the constitution needs from what they have experienced in the real world - or at least how they have interpreted the real world. INTjs will be also concerned with "constitutions of an imaginary, ideal world" so to speak. They don't need to have experienced something to know that it's possible - they are looking at how the world, or the country, could be better potentially.

ISTjs scoff at this. Their constitution is for the real world, and it must last forever. They are looking at where the real country is going. INTjs are more concerned with changing the present world for the better, rather than where the real one may be going to.

[kopernikus]

Ti types
ISTjs write their "constitutions" from, and for, things they have observed in this reality. They have formed their own vision of what the constitution needs from what they have experienced in the real world - or at least how they have interpreted the real world.

That part I bolded makes a really important point, I think, when it comes to S and N types and what people mean when they talk about abstract thinking. Suppose you were to put an INTj of average or lower intelligence in the same room as an ISTj of high or extremely high intelligence to let them speak their minds... What the ISTj would say might seem a lot more abstract than the INTj in the sense that it would be somewhat abstracted from a context most people can relate to. And yet the ISTj would be using mostly a concrete way of thinking and the INTj an abstract one. The INTj might discuss abstract possibilities that are actually quite simplistic, and the ISTj a more complex, but still immediately "actionable" reality. Anyways maybe this is obvious to people but I don't think it gets articulated very often...

[Expat]

I'm not sure if that's what I meant. What I did mean is, for instance, let's compare

Maxime Robespierre - INTj and
Joseph Stalin - ISTj

From Stalin's point of view, Marxist-Leninist theory was already reality. It described the world as it really worked, and according to this PoV he introduced his policies (already started by Lenin). But his "reality" of Marxism-Leninism wasn't really "real". It was his interpretation of reality.

For Robespierre, his "ideal" world which he wanted to create did not really exist, but he was convinced that it could be made to exist.

[kopernikus]

Sure, maybe what I said was a bit beside your point. I just meant to say that "real world" S-type thinking, while it might be more simple and to the point, isn't necessarily adressing less complex issues than N-type thinking.

[Exodus]

Good metaphor, Expat, quite accurate.

It also occurred to me that (as I think StevENTj was saying) the laser beams/fog analogy would work equally well for Ti vs. Te.

[XoX]

It also occurred to me that (as I think StevENTj was saying) the laser beams/fog analogy would work equally well for Ti vs. Te.

Expat will rather alter the analogy than accept his logic to be "foggy"

[Expat]

Expat will rather alter the analogy than accept his logic to be "foggy"

if you had understood that metaphor, you would know that one reason for being a "fog" it's due to being dynamic rather than static as in laser beams, so your comment is just silly.

[XoX]

Expat will rather alter the analogy than accept his logic to be "foggy"

if you had understood that metaphor, you would know that one reason for being a "fog" it's due to being dynamic rather than static as in laser beams, so your comment is just silly.

No! No! Not the rolling eyes!!!!!

[Logos]

Expat, this was an incredible thread. I would like to see a more concise version of this thread with the write-ups being organized together. You can always edit them later anyway. It would also be interesting to see how those with other dominate functions interpret the other functions as well (i.e. the other functions according to a Si-dominant). What jsb'07 said about in Alpha NTs was also worthy of mentioning as well.

[Expat]

Good metaphor, Expat, quite accurate.

Thank you.

It also occurred to me that (as I think StevENTj was saying) the laser beams/fog analogy would work equally well for Ti vs. Te.

Hm, perhaps, but then not in the way he meant it ie connecting individuals. The laser beams for Ti would create some sort of structure.

[mikemex]

I'd love to see a Ti description, esp ISTj. At least my experience with several IxTj types is that it'd probably be extremely similar to IxFj's only logical instead of ethical. ie an ISTj likes to have blue laser beams established with other people of similarly oriented Ti thinking, but has red laser beam death rays towards those with different logical ideologies. They very firmly believe that things should be done in a particular Ti-oriented way, and can have a meltdown when they find out that that Ti method is obsolete or just plain wrong to begin with. ie opposed ISTj groups would be fighting over which "type" of engine is best for the boat, even if both provided similar performance and efficiency in the end. Blue laser beams would be established with ISTj's that think that the "Type #1" engine is the best, and red laser beams established with others who believe another type is the best. The INTj would probably match with the INFj where they're looking more at the potential of different Ti concepts and all they could be. Maybe to tie in with your previous analogy, perhaps the ISTj would be the one in the engine room of that boat looking over all the guages making sure that everything is EXACTLY as they should be, pacing back and forth continually watching everything. On the contrary a Te type might only care if something seemed amiss, whereas the Ti ISTj is more paranoid and continually watching, always afraid something will go wrong and fearing the unknown (PoLR Ne). The INTj might be the one continually analyzing boat performance trying to tweak and optimize for better performance, even if the change in performance would never even be noticeable to the ENTj who is "net results" time and efficiency related. The INTj could make it their life to optimize sub-system performance that in the end has little to no bearing on overall performance.

I think this quote from the bible pretty much describes the above with lesser words:

The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.

Except that they forgot to add "OUR way".

[Expat]

It also occurred to me that (as I think StevENTj was saying) the laser beams/fog analogy would work equally well for Ti vs. Te.

Expat will rather alter the analogy than accept his logic to be "foggy"

Some further comments on that --

is "dynamic" "logic", which is to say, from the point of view of a logical structure (as in the constitution metaphor I used), is not "logic" at all. That is why some Ti HA, Te PoLR types on occasion say that types "lack logic". In a way, they are right: they consider to be of little importance, and they see the EXTjs' "logic" as "illogical" because it keeps being "updated" by .

And that is what really is: it's about a continuous - so dynamic - update of factual information, as informed by the external world. It is the "reality"' of that external information that is central to , not how it fits together in a static logical structure.

Te types - as opposed to as a function - also value structural logic, but mainly if it reflects (and, well, "resists") the continuous update of external information. If it doesn't pass this "test", than the "constitution" is something nice, interesting, but in the end *yawn* of little importance.

For Te types, is a tool to evaluate information, not a goal in itself.

So, I have no problem with my Te "logic" being "foggy".

[Expat]

Addressing some valid comments that niffweed17 made in his type thread:

ISTjs write their "constitutions" from, and for, things they have observed in this reality. They have formed their own vision of what the constitution needs from what they have experienced in the real world - or at least how they have interpreted the real world. INTjs will be also concerned with "constitutions of an imaginary, ideal world" so to speak. They don't need to have experienced something to know that it's possible - they are looking at how the world, or the country, could be better potentially.

ISTjs scoff at this. Their constitution is for the real world, and it must last forever. They are looking at where the real country is going. INTjs are more concerned with changing the present world for the better, rather than where the real one may be going to.

I wanted to emphasize the difference between ISTj and INTj. However, this is not to be understood that had no connection to the outside world at all, nor that INTjs necessarily want to create a "better world". For ; usually the real world is the "starting point", and their "new world" may be simply a more interesting one rather than a "better" one.

[discojoe]

I think the best way to identify functions is to get a feel for each one, and for each type. To me, written descriptions come off more like artistic renditions than as useful information.

[Expat]

I think the best way to identify functions is to get a feel for each one, and for each type.

Well that's precisely what I try to do, with these descriptions -- perhaps it doesn't work equally well for everyone.

[discojoe]

I think the best way to identify functions is to get a feel for each one, and for each type.

Well that's precisely what I try to do, with these descriptions -- perhaps it doesn't work equally well for everyone.

I meant how people try to either rigidly or very abstractly define each individual function. It just seems impractical and boring. I know that there has to exist some definition, or else lmaonics would be meaningless, but I get the feeling that a lot of us are walking the line between knowledge and making stuff up, so when I see someone attempting functional descriptions it just feels like a big mess to me.

With socionics, simple is better, in my opinion.

[Expat]

Yes, but the thing is -- once you do understand the functions, they are simple; however, if you try to describe them in simple terms, that invariably leads to misinterpretations. What I hope to achieve with these descriptions is to help people to get a glimpse at how the functions feel like to people who have them as base function (according to my understanding, of course).

[discojoe]

Yes, but the thing is -- once you do understand the functions, they are simple; however, if you try to describe them in simple terms, that invariably leads to misinterpretations. What I hope to achieve with these descriptions is to help people to get a glimpse at how the functions feel like to people who have them as base function (according to my understanding, of course).

/shrug

You can create misinterpretations both ways, simple and in-depth. It may just be a matter of quality.

[Gilly]

I definitely agree with the idea that having a "feel" for the functions is the most important thing for typing people and using your understanding of Socioncis to actually benefit yourself and those around you.

Example: the other day I went to a new store to pick up contact lenses with my mother. We usually go to a different place, but after we had placed an order with the old store, we realized that they had another branch closer to us than the one we've been using, so we decided to call the old branch and have my prescription and order transferred to the new, closer one.

When we went up to the counter at this new place, I semi-instinctively did a quick facial VI of the guy who was standing there, and determined that he was probably an EP of some kind. Once we began talking to him, an Fe preference and extroversion became more apparent to me, and my general impression of the guy was that of an ILE. As soon as my mom began explaining our situation about how we had ordered at the other place and how we decided to come here instead, and blahdeeblahblah, I realized that she was about to go on a Te rant. I knew that all this information was probably totally unnecessary, and I could see that the guy was about to start getting impatient, so I just leaned over the counter and said to the guy "We need to pick up the prescription for [my last name]." The guy looked at me, smiled, and said "Ah, ok then." He turned around, punched a few things into the computer, and pulled out the boxes of lenses.

Now, I would not have made that connection or been able to use my conclusions in any way if I had sat there, tried to do a complete VI, and thought about every word he was saying in terms of information elements and tried to define everything perfectly. The fact that I could just tell that my mom was about to go Te by the kinds of things she was saying, and that I could tell by a few observations that the guy seemed more like a Ti type, made the whole process a lot faster, easier, and much less confusing. And just from a vibe.

Now, for me, the way I developed my understanding and "feel" for the functions was by sudying the strict definitions and information elements, and trying to reword and reprogram the system myself until I could make sense of just about anything someone was saying to me in terms of Socionics. Once in a while there are discrepencies, and it doesn't work 100% of the time, of course, but I can definitely notice the difference in how it can help me deal with people. As far as actually using Socionics goes, definitions are pretty much useless "on the spot," but they can be used effectively in learning to recognize functions.

[UDP]

Addressing some valid comments that niffweed17 made in his type thread:

ISTjs write their "constitutions" from, and for, things they have observed in this reality. They have formed their own vision of what the constitution needs from what they have experienced in the real world - or at least how they have interpreted the real world. INTjs will be also concerned with "constitutions of an imaginary, ideal world" so to speak. They don't need to have experienced something to know that it's possible - they are looking at how the world, or the country, could be better potentially.

ISTjs scoff at this. Their constitution is for the real world, and it must last forever. They are looking at where the real country is going. INTjs are more concerned with changing the present world for the better, rather than where the real one may be going to.

I wanted to emphasize the difference between ISTj and INTj. However, this is not to be understood that had no connection to the outside world at all, nor that INTjs necessarily want to create a "better world". For ; usually the real world is the "starting point", and their "new world" may be simply a more interesting one rather than a "better" one.

I think that is a fair description. The LII is unable to avoid seeing the possibilities of things, knowing how things could become better, could improve. As such, he has to base his world view off of these understandings. Problems occur when the Se aspect of reality is avoided, overlooked, or purposely disregarded.

In the same way the LSI has problems when the Ne aspect of reality is avoided, overlooked, or purposely disregarded.

[guest32456]

Dear Expat,

Apologies if this has been answered before but, in your experience, how accurate is typing via functions (i.e. read the list of the 8 functions and pick out which ones you identify most strongly with)?

I ask this because I've just done that and got these results:-

Fi > Fe
Se > Si
Ni > Ne (difficult choice) (in your differentiation between ENTp and ENFp, I got ENTp)
Te > Ti

I.e. I could be ...

• Te Ni (ENTj)
  Fi Se (ISFj)
  Se Fi (ESFp)
  Ni Te (INTp)

Actually, now that I've thought about it, what are the 'best' ways of typing? Tests can be good (I got ESTJ on Rick's one) but I'm not sure about the Big Picture. Would you have any advice?


Yours,

[Expat]

To type yourself via functional preferences should be accurate to determine your quadra.

However, I'm not sure that you'll get there by using those descriptions of individual functions. What I tried to do was describe how the types with those functions as base functions perceive reality. How that works for other types, that's another story. I tried to use that to convey a better understanding of what the functions are.

The only real way of typing yourself is to understand every type, and understand precisely why those types have those relationships. For instance, if someone tells me that they're sure they're, say, ESFp but they still don't understand why the ESFp's dual is the INTp and its conflictor is the INTj, then to me they have understood very little and can't even be sure that they're ESFp.

Of the many discussions we had, assuming that you did get the preference right, the only possible type would be ISFj, among those. Which is what we always get back to, in your case. ISTj or ISFj.

[guest32456]

OK, nice clarification

I just find it amazing that there are so many ways to trip yourself up in Socionics :wink:

Thanks,

[liveandletlive]

wow amazing job expat- thanks for the great examples and clarifications!

[Expat]

Something to complement my metaphor of the Se types - with the soccer field.

The static Se types see the field as perfectly horizontal. The tend to assume that the ball will only get moving if it's kicked, and after it gets moving, it will eventually stop of its own accord. So the Se types assume not only that things need their kicks to get moving, but that they won't get moving for too long after their kick.

Dynamic Ni types see the same field as slighly tilted. They know that the ball may be resting now, but eventually something - even if a breeze - will get it going, and once it gets going, the ball may well continue to roll, perhaps at increading speed. So Ni types are careful about when and how they kick the ball, and once it is kicked, they know that the ball may well go on and on.

What this means is that Se types will go "I have to kick that ball, otherwise it will stay there forever" and Ni types go "just be careful as to how, and when, and how strongly you kick that ball, it may get out of your control".

The Ni-Se duality is a mutual balance of these two viewpoints.

[EyeSeeCold]

^ That's kind of how I've always approached kicking moving objects.

The description on the first page was excellent. Creative

[Beautiful sky]

I think the best way to identify functions is to get a feel for each one, and for each type. To me, written descriptions come off more like artistic renditions than as useful information.

Extraverted Te needs to "get the feel for each one" because it can't use Ti to make the ones that are already written a reality..to introvert the logic...I kept telling DJ he was Te...exhausting. Who else would be concerned about "matter of quality" then an LSE?

It's interesting reading the exchange between LSE (DJ) and Expat (LIE). Expat is much more open to ideas then Dj

[jughead]

"Something to complement my metaphor of the Se types - with the soccer field.

The static Se types see the field as perfectly horizontal. The tend to assume that the ball will only get moving if it's kicked, and after it gets moving, it will eventually stop of its own accord. So the Se types assume not only that things need their kicks to get moving, but that they won't get moving for too long after their kick.

Dynamic Ni types see the same field as slighly tilted. They know that the ball may be resting now, but eventually something - even if a breeze - will get it going, and once it gets going, the ball may well continue to roll, perhaps at increading speed. So Ni types are careful about when and how they kick the ball, and once it is kicked, they know that the ball may well go on and on.

What this means is that Se types will go "I have to kick that ball, otherwise it will stay there forever" and Ni types go "just be careful as to how, and when, and how strongly you kick that ball, it may get out of your control".

The Ni-Se duality is a mutual balance of these two viewpoints. "

This is perfect

[Slacker]

hmm. Well first, a lot of people needed then, and some people still need the basics.

What strikes me is that there seem to be a reasonable number of people who said they related to expat's descriptions of a function they felt they were strong in and valued, but since this was written no longer believe they are a type that is strong in and/or values that function. I just will never understand how that works. Is it the descriptions, or is it how people read the descriptions, or what?

[Slacker]

just to clarify, my self-typing hasn't changed since i first stumbled upon socionics. i may have wanted "out" of the type (for what i've personally seen as limitations), or noticed that a large nr of descriptions are completely off (esp. where certain types are concerned), but never changed my self-typing.

when i talk of a flawed understanding in previous posts i'm primarily referring to things like Gamma Te being very different from Delta Te and so on and so forth for other elements/functions/ w/e.

I didnt' mean you as far as that goes.

Some people make that distinction by talking about +Ni and -Ni, but I just think Gamma Ni or Beta Ni, or Ni when blocked with Fe, etc. They do work differently depending on what they're paired with, and expat had talked about that in different threads, but I do think he intended this to be very very basic.

[jughead]

Sure they are analogies, ashton, as to the particular viewpoint each person is bent towards, not the actual person themselves. Thats what the rest of socionics knowledge is for. But they are much more concrete than endless qoutes and lack of any explanation. Please use some Te and as a byproduct instead of endless Quit saying the same line over and over.

Yes, but the thing is -- once you do understand the functions, they are simple; however, if you try to describe them in simple terms, that invariably leads to misinterpretations. What I hope to achieve with these descriptions is to help people to get a glimpse at how the functions feel like to people who have them as base function (according to my understanding, of course).
People always mistype themselves in any field, and more knowledge is required to get to that level. The analogy just makes sense though but lacks interaction of other types to fill out things.
Filatovas book IS bullshit and counterproductive. It should not be lumped in. Thats bullshit.

[1981slater]

Awesome thread

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Awesome thread

Agreed. I identify rather well with base.

[Nexus]

Agreed. I identify rather well with base.

I knew it

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

i'm sure this guy would know it too

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I knew it

This coming from the man who long thought I was IEI. o.0

[717495]

Here some Fi is applied to the unsuspecting victim:

Fe!

[Amber]

Fi

The difference between the ISFj and the INFj lies essentially on which kind of software feeds their laser beam detectors. The ISFj's is fed by an observation, and memory, of real events and real actions as perceived by the ISFj. The INFj's is fed rather by the INFj's perception of potential qualities and alternative possibilities regarding the specific person. Both are static, not easily changing; however, since the INFj's criteria are based on a potentials as perceived by the INFj, they can "jump" from one static state to another with less trauma than for the ISFj, for whom reality should be more fixed.

Ime one gets what makes a person tick faster and the corresponding Fi is established based on a more "holistic" understanding. That's why they can also forgive or overlook stuff easier ...even when a person does smth. undesirable. It's as if they'd already absorbed much of what that person can be and trust that info more readily. The other goes in a more case-by-case manner and disappointment can be nasty when fueled by a new experience --- say, finding out some detail about a person (like, dunno, some embarrassing failure or creepy act ...or seeing the person in a shitty state / moment of weakness, not fit enough ...and others). Such a thing is not as easily tolerated and the impression / opinion about the person can change due to new experiential (sensory) input.

[ShiningLunette]

Fi

Fi is not necessarily just about judgements regarding people but that is where Fi is most characteristic.

Fi types are most confident in evaluating reality in terms of connections between specific people - like laser beams connecting them.

Let us imagine that there are indeed laser beams connecting individuals. Everyone posses both a laser projector and a detector of other people's beams.

When a laser beam is established between two individuals, information between them is exchanged. If there is agreement on a set of criteria between the two individuals, the laser beam will turn, let us say, blue. And if there is a great lack of agreement on such criteria, the laser beam will turn red. Intermediate levels of agreement lead to intermediate colors (yellow, green, etc). The color of the laser beams connecting them to other people is the most important reality of all for Fi types.

Fi types are static. Perhaps the beam connecting them to a specific person will "flicker" a bit before settling on a specific color, but, once it does settle, Fi types prefer, and expect, that the color remains unchanged - and all things being equal, it will remain unchanged. Since Fi's own detector-criteria do not change easily, neither will the color of the beam connecting it to another person's, since Fi types tend to assume that others' color criteria are also fixed. It takes some major upheaval to make Fi reboot its laser-beam color for an specific person, and once it has changed, another, perhaps even greater, upheaval to make the color change again or change back.

Fi types prefer to surround themselves with those people with whom they share a blue laser beam, that's when they feel most comfortable. They prefer to isolate themselves from those with whom they share a red laser beam - and once it's red, it's not impossible for it to change, even to blue, but it's not something that the Fi types expect to happen very frequently. A constant change of color would leave them confused and mistrustful of the quality of their detectors.

The color can be established, of course, even with someone the Fi type never met personally, and up to a point, with people they don't really know, such as public figures - whereas in that case the color is more easily rebooted when new information is received.

The Fi types' own sense of identity, however, is not determined by how many people they can connect with in blue: rather, their sense of identity is determined by the solidity of their own detector-criteria that establish the color. Those criteria are the essence of the Fi type's willingness to establish a blue laser beam with someone, they are based on the Fi type's idea of which kind of people they would like to have a green beam to begin with. Should those criteria change and the Fi type suddenly have red beams which previously were blue, the Fi type will sense that reality itself, the own self of being, has been violated.

We can refine this image further by adding that deep romantic feelings are blue with silver stripes, for instance.

The difference between the ISFj and the INFj lies essentially on which kind of software feeds their laser beam detectors. The ISFj's is fed by an observation, and memory, of real events and real actions as perceived by the ISFj. The INFj's is fed rather by the INFj's perception of potential qualities and alternative possibilities regarding the specific person. Both are static, not easily changing; however, since the INFj's criteria are based on a potentials as perceived by the INFj, they can "jump" from one static state to another with less trauma than for the ISFj, for whom reality should be more fixed.

Best definition. Thanks for simplifying it ☺️