Back to the basics of extraverted thinking

[Megan]

What (in simple terms) is ?

There are a few people here who think they have strong when others think it might be their polr or another weak function. Perhaps we need to re-look at what really is and what it is not to clarify issues a bit?

Can we also have some examples of how the polr manifests itself in INFps/ISFps?

P.S this is a general topic about so that we can share our understanding of this function, please do not turn it into a what's XYZ's type thing.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

From Rick's site:

Black (extraverted) logic
Perceives information about animate and inanimate objects' physical activity, deeds, and actions/activities. This perception provides the ability to make sense of what is going on. It defines the awareness of and ability or inability to think up ways of doing things, distinguish rational actions from irrational ones, and the ability or inability to direct others' work.

When this element is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to plan his and others' work, understand the logicalness and illogicalness of processes, and correct the work activities of other people in accordance with this understanding. And the ability to apply personally and convey to others the most rational ways of doing things.

Then from here:

Jung's function: Extraverted Thinking
Socionics function: black logic - profit - business logic
external activity of object - actions, events (what, how, where), facts, activity or work, algorithms, procedures, logic of objects’ measurable outward behavior
Positive(short range):
Advantage, benefit, profitability, technology, the facts, purchases, accumulation, the purchase, savings, putting in order, a practicality;
Negative (long range):
Uselessness, unprofitableness, use, application, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, experiment, sale, trade, actions in conditions of chaos, an ingenuity.

Te is about what works.

If you look at the information elements, Te is the external dynamics of objects. External pretty much means "big picture". Dynamics vs. Statics has been compared to a video clip vs. a photo (the photo allowing one to see more of the details and the video allowing one to see events). As for Objects vs. Fields:

Objects:
Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields:
Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject

[Megan]

Te= Understanding of Data, information, facts, pieces,

Diana, to be clear, are you saying (in reverse) that an INFp for instance would have difficulties with understanding data/information, and have difficulties fitting the pieces of the whole together by your understanding of ?
More details please.

I like the other stuff you have written on and and their connection to .

[Phaedrus]

Diana, to be clear, are you saying (in reverse) that an INFp for instance would have difficulties with understanding data/information, and have difficulties fitting the pieces of the whole together by your understanding of ?

Yes, that seems to be the view of some socionists anyway, for example Sergei Ganin. That is indeed how INFps are sometimes described. I don't know whether it is true or not, but it makes some sense from a theoretical socionic perspective. We should not ignore the fact that INFps/INFPs are said to have problems with how to "connect the dots" Ganin) or "have difficulty thinkng in conditional 'if-then' terms" (Keirsey). Similar phrases can be found in MBTT material on INFPs.

If that is an incorrect description of INFps relative strenght in these areas in comparison with other types, we should try to correct that view and understand what is wrong with it and why. If it is not an incorrect view, then we simply have to accept it as true and try to make the best of it.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Jonathan]

I'm really tired right now but here's some thoughts people can rip to shreds if they'd like.

Te= Understanding of Data, information, facts, pieces,
with Ni = projection and long-term view of where these pieces can go when put together
with Si= building, physical manipulation of these pieces, creation

The Te as data thing, and the Te as methods, what works, etc. (from Joy's post and Rick's quote) are two separate views of what Te is. Although they can go together, they're different strands and lead to different conclusions.

Personally, I don't like it when people identify Te too much with raw data, because then it becomes a perceiving function rather than a judging function. Further, if Ni is understanding or deciding how to fit the pieces together and Te is the pieces of raw data, then Ni becomes the judging function and Te is the perceiving one.

[FDG]

Something that has never been clarified:

Are if-then causation chains Te or Ti?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

Something that has never been clarified:

Are if-then causation chains Te or Ti?

if-then are abstract statements of explicit rules of relationships
i'd say Ti

[FDG]

Something that has never been clarified:

Are if-then causation chains Te or Ti?

if-then are abstract statements of explicit rules of relationships
i'd say Ti

Although look here:

If John goes to the supermarket, he will buy me chicken.

If you graduate with a 3.70 gpa, you will get the scolarship, and then you will be able to access X Y Z universities, if X university has availability.

Aren't those external dynamics?

[anndelise]

Something that has never been clarified:

Are if-then causation chains Te or Ti?

if-then are abstract statements of explicit rules of relationships
i'd say Ti

Although look here:

If John goes to the supermarket, he will buy me chicken.

If you graduate with a 3.70 gpa, you will get the scolarship, and then you will be able to access X Y Z universities, if X university has availability.

Aren't those external dynamics?

dynamics would be something that say......keeps going or is cyclic.
john going to the supermarket, are you saying that every time john goes to the supermarket he buys you chicken?
or is it a one shot deal?
graduation from high school (or equivalent) usually only happens once

in summary, the examples you gave are static relationships, imo

Ni and Si deal with continuous relationships and interdependencies;
Fi and Ti deal with discrete relationships and interdependencies.

[FDG]

"
fdg scrive:
ops
kisanji scrive:
hehehe
fdg scrive:
Ok so a dynamic if then chain would be...
fdg scrive:
if i kick a ball the ball moves
fdg scrive:
right
kisanji scrive:
still starting from a static point
fdg scrive:
damn, but
fdg scrive:
that happens every time
kisanji scrive:
true
kisanji scrive:
that might be a gray area i'm unable to answer
fdg scrive:
Ahh ok np
kisanji scrive:
the thing is....it's T and S that are explicit functions
fdg scrive:
The Te Ti st is bound to remain messy imho if we try to look at it from the point of view of people that have BOTH Te and Ti as strong
kisanji scrive:
Te is defining the object/concept/person/whatever
kisanji scrive:
Ti is defining the relationship and interdependencies
fdg scrive:
But wouldn't defining the object be also Se
kisanji scrive:
so even if Ni or Si noticed a continuous relationship, the process of defining it would be Ti
kisanji scrive:
yes, Se, if one is using the senses to define it instead of say...math
kisanji scrive:
a mathematical graphing formula would be an example of Ti'd Ni/Si info
fdg scrive:
Ohhh I understand now
fdg scrive:
external dynamics vs external statics
fdg scrive:
uhm
fdg scrive:
Could you make an example
fdg scrive:
If you can
kisanji scrive:
an example of external dynamics vs external statics?
kisanji scrive:
or of a mathematical graphing formula?
kisanji scrive:
i really suck at coming up with examples...hehe
fdg scrive:
Oh external dynamics vs extenrla statics
fdg scrive:
I can give you some
fdg scrive:
and you classify them
kisanji scrive:
(that is asking me to define something)...it's easier for me to just point something out
kisanji scrive:
ok, that i can try doing
fdg scrive:
Car:
fdg scrive:
external statics
fdg scrive:
Red color
fdg scrive:
shape of the car
fdg scrive:
brightness of the lights
kisanji scrive:
hmmm, brightness.....that one is a hard one
fdg scrive:
eheheh
fdg scrive:
it could be Si
kisanji scrive:
i think so
kisanji scrive:
engine as it's running would be a dynamic i think
fdg scrive:
Yes exactly
fdg scrive:
Like
fdg scrive:
this car can reach 120 mph
fdg scrive:
that is Te
fdg scrive:
(imh)
kisanji scrive:
let's see..(thinking out loud)...
kisanji scrive:
it's not relating/comparing two concepts/objects, so it's not Xe
kisanji scrive:
opps, not Xi
kisanji scrive:
making it an Xe
kisanji scrive:
it's not utilizing the senses so it's not Se
kisanji scrive:
it's not utilizing involvement at all....it's abstract...so it's not Se nor Fe
kisanji scrive:
that leaves us with...Ne and Te as possiblities
kisanji scrive:
and since it's defined...yes, Te
fdg scrive:
Ooook, I got a better picture now
kisanji scrive:
should we past this conversation into that thread?
fdg scrive:
Good idea
kisanji scrive:
you wanna do it or me?
fdg scrive:
Do you have chat logs on trillian?
kisanji scrive:
i can save it to file ...is that what you mean?
kisanji scrive:
or just copy paste
fdg scrive:
I'll copy paste myself
kisanji scrive:
"

[Not A Communist Shill]

Personally, I don't like it when people identify Te too much with raw data, because then it becomes a perceiving function rather than a judging function. Further, if Ni is understanding or deciding how to fit the pieces together and Te is the pieces of raw data, then Ni becomes the judging function and Te is the perceiving one.

Te looks at the environmental context of an object in the current moment (i.e. now) - e.g. the spatial position of an object in relation to other objects - in order to determine the relevance of objects.

Se is similar, but focuses on the details of the actual objects themselves, without assesing their value. Se sees objects in high detail, but with less of a focus on the relevance of the object to its surrounding environment.

So Te is about useful information about objects in their environment (because it knows how the objects operate together), while Se isn't information, it's simply unprocessed data (i.e. objects without context or relevance). (That's in their extreme forms of course).

If there was a photograph of two statues, the Se type would describe the fact there was two statues and then list the features of the statues in great detail. A Te type would possibly give a brief overview of each statue + its spatial context e.g. 'the bronze statue is to the left of the copper statue' as well as give environmental details e.g. where the statues are.

[FDG]

Personally, I don't like it when people identify Te too much with raw data, because then it becomes a perceiving function rather than a judging function. Further, if Ni is understanding or deciding how to fit the pieces together and Te is the pieces of raw data, then Ni becomes the judging function and Te is the perceiving one.

Te looks at the environmental context of an object in the current moment (i.e. now) - e.g. the spatial position of an object in relation to other objects - in order to determine the relevance of objects.

This is Ti - really, it's the definition of Ti. You are comparing distances, distances are relationships, relationships are the domain of introverted functions, you are dealing with well-definied stuff so it's Thinking, therefore it is Ti.

[anndelise]

Te looks at the environmental context of an object in the current moment (i.e. now) - e.g. the spatial position of an object in relation to other objects - in order to determine the relevance of objects.

Se is similar, but focuses on the details of the actual objects themselves, without assesing their value. Se sees objects in high detail, but with less of a focus on the relevance of the object to its surrounding environment.

So Te is about useful information about objects in their environment (because it knows how the objects operate together), while Se isn't information, it's simply unprocessed data (i.e. objects without context or relevance). (That's in their extreme forms of course).

If there was a photograph of two statues, the Se type would describe the fact there was two statues and then list the features of the statues in great detail. A Te type would possibly give a brief overview of each statue + its spatial context e.g. 'the bronze statue is to the left of the copper statue' as well as give environmental details e.g. where the statues are.

any time you are comparing two objects, or focusing on how one object relates to another object, you are Xi-ing. why? because in the process of comparing, you have to mention both objects. In the process of relating objects, you have to mention both objects.
This fits in with the definition of 'field'.

[Creepy-bg]

is anybody else totally lost in these discussions? It's been what, 2 years? and this sort of thing still sounds like "Blablablabla.. blabla blababla? blabla ! blaaaaaa.... blablabla bla " to me

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think Ti operates in the current moment though - it operates over time. Also, a Ti type manipulates their internal environment, whereas a Te types' external environment is already determined. I think a Ti type sees pieces of information as being in a web and determines their positions by relevance - they assess these positions through mental experiments (i.e. they think ) - this happens internally, and over a period of time. A Te obviously can't manipulate the exteranl world in the moment of evaluation in the same way.

(IMO).

[anndelise]

I don't think Ti operates in the current moment though - it operates over time. Also, a Ti type manipulates their internal environment, whereas a Te types' external environment is already determined. I think a Ti type sees pieces of information as being in a web and determines their positions by relevance - they assess these positions through mental experiments (i.e. they think ) - this happens internally, and over a period of time. A Te obviously can't manipulate the exteranl world in the moment of evaluation in the same way.

(IMO).

Ti is a static function
Te is a dynamic function

which is more likely to operate in the current moment (now)? a static function or a dynamic function?

[Not A Communist Shill]

any time you are comparing two objects, or focusing on how one object relates to another object, you are Xi-ing. why? because in the process of comparing, you have to mention both objects. In the process of relating objects, you have to mention both objects.
This fits in with the definition of 'field'.

I think Te types focus on the environment the objects are in, rather than object X is bigger than object Y. It's more like 'this statue is in the environs of this other statue', rather than 'this statue is physically different to this other statue'.

[anndelise]

any time you are comparing two objects, or focusing on how one object relates to another object, you are Xi-ing. why? because in the process of comparing, you have to mention both objects. In the process of relating objects, you have to mention both objects.
This fits in with the definition of 'field'.

I think Te types focus on the environment the objects are in, rather than object X is bigger than object Y. It's more like 'this statue is in the environs of this other statue', rather than 'this statue is physically different to this other statue'.

now, see if you can reword it in such a way that you are not having to mention anything other than the one statue you are talking about

[Not A Communist Shill]

I don't think Ti operates in the current moment though - it operates over time. Also, a Ti type manipulates their internal environment, whereas a Te types' external environment is already determined. I think a Ti type sees pieces of information as being in a web and determines their positions by relevance - they assess these positions through mental experiments (i.e. they think ) - this happens internally, and over a period of time. A Te obviously can't manipulate the exteranl world in the moment of evaluation in the same way.

(IMO).

Ti is a static function
Te is a dynamic function

which is more likely to operate in the current moment (now)? a static function or a dynamic function?

Dynamic types see their external environment as changing over a period of time, static types see external objects as being a snapshot in the current moment, ready for them to manipulate. (methinks - it's painful to think this hard ).

Because Static types have spent a long time analysing things, they have already decided what to do with objects in the current moment - so Ti operates over a long period of time when analysing external objects (but not the external environment), whereas Te types (or rather their secondary function) evaluate changes in the external environment over time, so they are good at assessing the spatial relevance of objects in the current moment. Statics types are masters of their internal environment (they can manipulate it), but not their external environment.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Not A Communist Shill]

any time you are comparing two objects, or focusing on how one object relates to another object, you are Xi-ing. why? because in the process of comparing, you have to mention both objects. In the process of relating objects, you have to mention both objects.
This fits in with the definition of 'field'.

I think Te types focus on the environment the objects are in, rather than object X is bigger than object Y. It's more like 'this statue is in the environs of this other statue', rather than 'this statue is physically different to this other statue'.

now, see if you can reword it in such a way that you are not having to mention anything other than the one statue you are talking about

I'm not sure this a good example, but: imagine a chess board with pieces on it - you could give each a piece a grid number without referring to any other piece - Te types see the whole chess board in detail, seeing the pieces only in their relative environmental positions. A Se type would see the physical details of the pieces in great detail, but not so much the chess board - e.g. the environment the objects appear in.

[anndelise]

kisanji scrive:
Te is defining the object/concept/person/whatever
kisanji scrive:
Ti is defining the relationship and interdependencies

So Ti HA would be wanting understanding of how pieces relate to each other. -- which could also help explain Te polr, not wanting too many things defined because it makes it harder to understand how they all relate? Does that sound right?

this sounds good, and could easily be one manifestatin of Te polr
see below for another possible manifestation

fdg scrive:
But wouldn't defining the object be also Se
kisanji scrive:
so even if Ni or Si noticed a continuous relationship, the process of defining it would be Ti

Looking at Ni as a path (a continuation) someone with Ni leading and Ti hidden agenda would be looking for defining how things relate to each other along the projected path? Se dual-seeking and Fe creative, how would those fit in.

imo, Se dual-seeking helps in defining the Fe creative. They are both functions of involvement, but the Se helps to get the Fe to focus on the objects that are real. (much easier to have someone who's a natural at Se to help out with this) This may suggest another Te polr manifestation. If the Se is helping to get the Fe to focus on the objects that are real, how annoying would it be to have someone come along and suggest/mention objects that aren't real but are instead abstractions?

but another way of looking at it could be that the accepting Ni subconsciously senses the real world objects (Se) and adapts/adjusts to them by using Fe. Like, instead of actually seeing the objects in the path, gets more of a sense that something is in the way. To ask them to define that something that is in the way takes up time that could be better spent just moving around it. I mean, why stop along the path to define the damned thing when one could just side-step it? (this also suggests how Te polr might manifest)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

now, see if you can reword it in such a way that you are not having to mention anything other than the one statue you are talking about

I'm not sure this a good example, but: imagine a chess board with pieces on it - you could give each a piece a grid number without referring to any other piece - Te types see the whole chess board in detail, seeing the pieces only in their relative environmental positions. A Se type would see the physical details of the pieces in great detail, but not so much the chess board - e.g. the environment the objects appear in.

yeah, my thoughts afterwards were that the only way to do my challenge would be to use a grid of some sort.
but that it'd be too easy to mistake the grid as being Te...when instead the grid would be Ni/Si (continuous relationships)
so again, the object is Te...but where the object is located would be Ni/Si

So when you (subterranean) describe Te, you're including Ni/Si with the description
(nothing wrong with that, as long as it's kept in mind that you are comparing {Ti} to {Te w/ Ni/Si})

[Not A Communist Shill]

Hmm, yeah - but it's difficult to describe an environment without any objects to define that environment - even if you said a statue was 1m away from the edge of an environment, the edge is an object of sorts .

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[anndelise]

Hmm, yeah - but it's difficult to describe an environment without any objects to define that environment - even if you said a statue was 1m away from the edge of an environment, the edge is an object of sorts .

"a statue was 1m away from the edge" is a defined relationship... and static
you're still Ti-ing :wink:

"a statue was near the edge" is less defined, but it's still more defined than
"a statue was somewhere in the vicinity of the edge", which is also more defined than
"there is a statue and an edge"

[Creepy-bg]

"the statue was unfinished"

I have no idea what this discussion is about...

[anndelise]

"the statue was unfinished"

I have no idea what this discussion is about...

"unfinished" is not well-defined (at all..hehe) so this doesn't apply to Ti nor Te nor this thread :wink:
(who needs drugs when you've got me around?..except to maybe block me out and maintain sanity...heheh)

[Not A Communist Shill]

Well, at the extreme, dynamic types would focus on how the environment changes over time, while static types would focus on objects in the current moment. A dynamic type would stand on a mountain top and 'see' how the landscape has change over time as they looked beloe them. A static type has little concern of the environmental context objects are in - they manipulate objects in the current moment to do what they want them to do instead. A dynamic type would wait for the right moment before interacting with objects - when they are all in the correct position + conditions are right (in the surrounding environment).

By environment, I mean the place where things happen - e.g. you need oxygen (an environmental condition) in order to burn something, and the thing you are burning is at a particular location. Dynamic types focus on where or when things happen (e.g. time is an environmental variable), Static types focus on the object which they are manipulating\perceiving. So, the environment of an object is important, and the objects are important too - it's just different types have different focuses + priorities.

The physical properties of the statue in the present moment would be Se. Ni would be the opposite of that - it would refer to the time + location of the statue (more abstract + invisible things). Si is probably more to do with hidden physical properties of things, e.g. the warmth of a fire, or in the statue example, the impression the statue makes in your face when you walk into it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Hmm, yeah - but it's difficult to describe an environment without any objects to define that environment - even if you said a statue was 1m away from the edge of an environment, the edge is an object of sorts .

"a statue was 1m away from the edge" is a defined relationship... and static
you're still Ti-ing :wink:

"a statue was near the edge is less defined", but it's still more defined than
"a statue was somewhere in the vicinity of the edge", which is also more defined than
"there is a statue and an edge"

Dammit - I really hope I haven't confused anyone - I'm not really sure myself. If you say a chess piece is at A1, and another is at B2, while having an overview of the whole chess board, you must have a vague sense of the relationships between the pieces distance wise, though? I think you're right - a static type would have a better understanding of relationships between things (they are 1m apart...), while a dynamic type would be more vague.

[anndelise]

Well, at the extreme, dynamic types would focus on how the environment changes over time, while static types would focus on objects in the current moment. A dynamic type would stand on a mountain top and 'see' how the landscape has change over time as they looked beloe them. A static type has little concern of the environmental context objects are in - they manipulate objects in the current moment to do what they want them to do instead. A dynamic type would wait for the right moment before interacting with objects - when they are all in the correct position + conditions are right (in the surrounding environment).

By environment, I mean the place where things happen - e.g. you need oxygen (an environmental condition) in order to burn something, and the thing you are burning is at a particular location. Dynamic types focus on where or when things happen (e.g. time is an environmental variable), Static types focus on the object which they are manipulating\perceiving. So, the environment of an object is important, and the objects are important too - it's just different types have different focuses + priorities.

a lot of this is similar to what i've been saying
something about it though seems slightly off
it's too hard for me to go through each connection one by one to figure out where that offness is coming from
so i'll just leave it at this

[Not A Communist Shill]

I've probably exaggerated in some places and missed out vital parts in some of those analogies - I'm not too good on making things consistent .

E.g. I used oxygen as an environmental condition because it is all over the place + invisible, and so seemingly has no fixed position, whereas the combusting object would be the site of the event in the environment. But oxygen is an object too - it's kind of like trying to explain the concept of time to children without using objects. Also, if I talk about a mountainous terrain as being an environment, then talk about objects in that environment, the mountain is an object too, just larger + more inert to change. So, I guess the definition of environment is something large which is inert to change, but isn't something . (It's a bit like describing but without words ).

So, in their extremes:
Environment\field = infinite + inert
Object = local + volatile

[anndelise]

So, in their extremes:
Environment\field = infinite + inert
Object = local + volatile

um..i dunno about that...
you can have continuous fields (Ni; Si) or discrete fields (Ti; Fi)
you can have continuous objects (Ne; Se) or discrete objects (Te; Fe)
i don't kow how infinite/local and inert/volatile fit in with this

"it's kind of like trying to explain the concept of time to children without using objects. "
time is changes that occur relative to something else, so yes, in order to explain the concept of time, you have to use objects.
Time is an abstract concept (as opposed to requiring involvement);
Time requires the use of fields (changes that occur relative to an object);
Time is generally considered continuous (as opposed to discrete);
Ni has been defined as abstract continuous fields
this is why Ni and Time are attributed to each other.
(but Ni isn't limited to focusing on time, time is just one example of Ni)
But break up that time into discrete changes that occurred relevant to something else, and you've moving into the realm of Ti/Fi.
Try to define those discrete changes and you've moved into Ti.

so really...anytime we try to define Ni using worded examples, we're pretty much forced into Ti-ing it.

[snp7901]

[anndelise]

i only skimmed so maybe someone already brought this up... but what if dynamic data is presented in static form? say someone has already measured and quantified some temporal variables and puts them in a time series. this time series can be looked at statically with graphs, statistically analysis: time is abstractly represented across space here. then fitting a model to that data seems to be a static exercise, even though the model might imply temporal predictions and strategies.

if that exercise is static, then can't static thinking deal with very big trends sometimes, rather than just formal-logic "details?" joy's comments prompted this post of mine, when she associated Te with the "big picture." that doesn't seem to add up. i'm not suggesting Te+Ni doesn't ever deal with the big picture. but given something like the above i don't think the ways we can approach the big picture are exclusively dynamic. additionally couldn't Te sometimes deal with small details like the "algorithms" of everyday administration and routine?

or maybe joy and i are just using "big picture" in different contexts: the big picture of our individual temporal lives does seem to be by definition more dynamic, but my point was that isn’t the only way of seeing the big picture of the organization you are living in.

I'm not sure if this will answer the middle first question or not (or maybe just add to confusion)
a static type is capable of building up a concept/object by combining discrete relationships (fields)
a static type is capable of breaking down a concept/object by pulling out discrete relationships (fields)
a dynamic type is capable of building up a...(i don't know what term should be here...system?) by combining discrete concepts/objects
a dynamic type is capable of breaking down a (system?) by pulling out discrete concepts/objects

so really, both static and dynamic can claim to see the "big picture"
it just depends on what you mean by "big picture"... the big concept or the big (system?)

[Ms. Kensington]

So, in their extremes:
Environment\field = infinite + inert
Object = local + volatile

um..i dunno about that...
you can have continuous fields (Ni; Si) or discrete fields (Ti; Fi)
you can have continuous objects (Ne; Se) or discrete objects (Te; Fe)
i don't kow how infinite/local and inert/volatile fit in with this

"it's kind of like trying to explain the concept of time to children without using objects. "
time is changes that occur relative to something else, so yes, in order to explain the concept of time, you have to use objects.
Time is an abstract concept (as opposed to requiring involvement);
Time requires the use of fields (changes that occur relative to an object);
Time is generally considered continuous (as opposed to discrete);
Ni has been defined as abstract continuous fields
this is why Ni and Time are attributed to each other.
(but Ni isn't limited to focusing on time, time is just one example of Ni)
But break up that time into discrete changes that occurred relevant to something else, and you've moving into the realm of Ti/Fi.
Try to define those discrete changes and you've moved into Ti.

so really...anytime we try to define Ni using worded examples, we're pretty much forced into Ti-ing it.

"time is changes in the environment in relation to something else". Does anyone want to talk more about this? When I think of time I think of something continuous yes,, and I don't think about objects. You get a feel for the meaning through examples, which don't have to explicitly define the concept. What would this -ing be?

As a side note, an INFj told me about a test she was given in which to describe time and she said she wrote a page and and her xSTj friend gave the same answer as I did: "a measurement" (more or less words), even though I know it is an explanation that makes life easier. Could we have an Ni person describe it? The quintessential way I think about Ni people explaining things is with implicating examples. The way Fi concepts like loyalty could be described with examples of events where someone was loyal. Or love, or a non-scientific explanation of wind.