What does Ti do?

[tcaudilllg]

Simply put, the function of introverted thinking comes up with new things. Not ideas -- things.

Beta Ti observes how objects move together. If applying force to one object moves another, then they can be though of as the same object. (a "compound") Alpha Ti tries to identify this object as something that is related to other objects, thus giving it an identity. Identities are constructed based on what properties an object has and which it doesn't: property 'X' is true for all objects of category 'C', not true for all objects of category 'D'. Therefore if an object has information aspect 'X' (reckoned with the EM processors) then it must be a 'C', not a 'D'. Note that all properties are information aspects: there is no appreciable difference between the two concepts, because every property can be classified (via Ti) as an information element.

Beta Ti observes that objects exist and are distinct; alpha Ti gives them identity. Notice also, if you change the Beta Ti situation by combining objects together or breaking them apart, you also change the alpha Ti situation by creating a new identity for the object. The ascription of beta Ti changes to alpha Ti changes is what we call science. I would argue, that what we call theory is the ascription of changes observed through alpha Ti alone to direct changes at the beta Ti level.

And on that notion, allow me to opine that producing subtype LIIs have more respect for theory than do accepting subtype LIIs, because they more readily translate identities into real-world phenomena. Accepting subtype LIIs prefer science, producing subtype LIIs prefer theory.

[Brilliand]

This seems to clash with the idea of Objects/Fields... under which your Beta/Alpha descriptions would be / descriptions.

[krieger]

Fe/Ti establishes what is a rational attitude on the basis of less rational reactive fundamental judgments.

Te/Fi does the opposite: it establishes right and wrong on the basis of fundamental reactive judgments about practical effects.

The Je function here is something that is very unproblematic and quickly, instinctively giving rise to a normative judgment. The Ji function instead needs to compose fundamentals to reach an answer.

[Crispy]

What's the distinction between science and theory when looking for subtype?

[tcaudilllg]

This seems to clash with the idea of Objects/Fields... under which your Beta/Alpha descriptions would be / descriptions.

It does not. Look closer.

[Creepy-male]

To be completely basic I think generally introverted means the following.... intro is a root for inward, and verted is a form of version. Introverted means inward version. So I think Ti is essentially the inward version of logic, whereas by contraste Te is essentially the outward version of logic.

Since Ti is inward, its essentially looking for the inward innate logic structure of things, the essence, the root principles, the underlying theory.

Te by contrast is essentially looking outward at the logical characteristics of things, the facts, the data, the statistics.

Understanding how these two ideas are seperate and why the reason they are seperate is because one is "inward" and the other is "outward" can be turned over and over to make accurate conclusions about the fine details of Ti and Te.

You can analogously use this introversion and extroversion concept with ethical types to learn the difference between Fi and Fe.

Fe is the mood, the vibes, the feeling in the room.

Fi is a value, something that is internalized and not just on the surface.

Further I honestly feel as if these two functions relate in a non-socionics way. They have a naturally interconnectedness. Ti is the core, Te is the surface, there is a connection between them and its gradual. What socionicists call Ti and Te is just an arbitrary division made absolute because its easier to think in that way. In reality their is an introversion/extroversion gradient. Further this gradient flows from surface to core like magma underneath the earth, are conciousness flows also, and what we perceive is actually a more dynamic process of inward and outward, flexing and moving like a contracting muscle or breathing lungs. Usually we find however that a specific preference is established towards Ti or Te, but that is a gross simplification, Te may be the dominant function for a Ti type in particular situations, similar to the way an atom can inhabit excited states for a certain amount of time, the ground state, the most stable however is likely to be analogous to what most would call a socionics type. This is because evolutionaryily its neccesary for survival to be able to utilize different psychological function in certain situations, in an emergency you can't be using Ti and analyzing the fine details of everything, you generally become more Se, you achieve something analogous to an excited state for an atom. After the emergency is dealt with, you fall back to your ground state, releasing an energy debt to your Ti analysing the situation. This is even more complex as the psyche is much like an organ and doesn't consist of one component but a myraid of components cooperating naturally together in a way that is analogous to a minature ecosystem. The psyche is like an organ with tissues and cells and organles and other components. All of this relates back to brain chemistry and evolution and possibly even to some more mystical/philosophical concept of a conciousness/spirit.

Thats the complicated version, but my ideas aren't exactly mainstream socionics.

[tcaudilllg]

To be completely basic I think generally introverted means the following.... intro is a root for inward, and verted is a form of version. Introverted means inward version. So I think Ti is essentially the inward version of logic, whereas by contraste Te is essentially the outward version of logic.

Since Ti is inward, its essentially looking for the inward innate logic structure of things, the essence, the root principles, the underlying theory.

Te by contrast is essentially looking outward at the logical characteristics of things, the facts, the data, the statistics.

Understanding how these two ideas are seperate and why the reason they are seperate is because one is "inward" and the other is "outward" can be turned over and over to make accurate conclusions about the fine details of Ti and Te.

You can analogously use this introversion and extroversion concept with ethical types to learn the difference between Fi and Fe.

Fe is the mood, the vibes, the feeling in the room.

Fi is a value, something that is internalized and not just on the surface.

Further I honestly feel as if these two functions relate in a non-socionics way. They have a naturally interconnectedness. Ti is the core, Te is the surface, there is a connection between them and its gradual. What socionicists call Ti and Te is just an arbitrary division made absolute because its easier to think in that way. In reality their is an introversion/extroversion gradient. Further this gradient flows from surface to core like magma underneath the earth, are conciousness flows also, and what we perceive is actually a more dynamic process of inward and outward, flexing and moving like a contracting muscle or breathing lungs. Usually we find however that a specific preference is established towards Ti or Te, but that is a gross simplification, Te may be the dominant function for a Ti type in particular situations, similar to the way an atom can inhabit excited states for a certain amount of time, the ground state, the most stable however is likely to be analogous to what most would call a socionics type.

No, see model B. Boukalov (and Hitta) have already been there.

Of course a Ti dominant will rely on Te from time to time. Why wouldn't he? It's strong enough.

[Joy]

The Ji function instead needs to compose fundamentals to reach an answer.

Yeah. Basically it's less about events and actions and more about systems and structures.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[tcaudilllg]

Identities, distances... these are absolutely external statics of fields, things which relate objects to each other. Object identities and separation only matter when speaking about groups of objects, not individuals.

[Creepy-male]

...

Basically, I understand your point and its a fair one. Sure I can break down the word, but that doesn't mean its true. I feel that the intro/extro thing is true because its something I derived out after having a knowledge of the functions establish, contrary to deriving it out before having knowledge of the functions. It was discovered through induction and not derivation. Since I discovered it through induction, I use it as a simple element to remember, so that I can derive out the meaning of the functions from a simpler principle.

The same way a physicist will discover an equation characterizes the behavior of something they observe in a labratory, then they utilize that equation to have a simpler mechanism to explain a much greater thing. like how maxwells equations, only 4 equations, can characterize all electromagnetic phenomenom.

Anyways I feel like its hard to develop the correct sense of what I mean by inner and outer. Its not just a simple concept. Consider, Fi considers this room in relation to other rooms, especially familiar ones, that could be considered more "outwards" in a way, couldn't it?. That is not outwards because out and in don't apply in a real-world spatial sense, but in an abstract sense to the idea of feeling. The space you are moving out and in from isn't a real world space, its an abstract space of feeling. Introverted Feeling, is the internal version of feeling and not the feeling you have inside of places. Its internal feeling because it seeks to look for the core or inner part of ones feelings. Which are values, which are underlying reasons for why people have emotional reactions on the surfact to things. An Fi considers the room in relation to others because they are searching for that core value that remains independant from their immediate circumstances. An Fe by contrast is focused on the immediate circumstances.

[Creepy-male]

No, see model B. Boukalov (and Hitta) have already been there.

Of course a Ti dominant will rely on Te from time to time. Why wouldn't he? It's strong enough.

sure but I think theres more to my point than that, but I won't hold it against you if your not particularly interested in what I am talking about right now.

[Galen]

Here's the short of it from what I can tell: Ti valuers make sense of the outer world by creating connections/links between already accepted facts. The Ti valuer will analyze a piece of information not yet accepted or rejected by comparing said information bit to what it has already accepted. The person's own mind is the information filter, as opposed to Te where the information isn't directly and actively examined.

I can't say much else about it due to non-valuing reasons, but this is the jist of what I can understand of Ti.

[Beautiful sky]

Here's the short of it from what I can tell: Ti valuers make sense of the outer world by creating connections/links between already accepted facts. The Ti valuer will analyze a piece of information not yet accepted or rejected by comparing said information bit to what it has already accepted. The person's own mind is the information filter, as opposed to Te where the information isn't directly and actively examined.

That sounds like Te

Te derives connections laws, from objective reality

Extraverted logic is also called Processual or Practical Logic.

It estimates everything in terms of efficiency: not abstract analysis, but "how to make it work?", and not systems, but methods. They are energetic, active, and mobile. As scientists, they are strong in improvement of methods, but often they choose a business career. However, people who work together with them, often blame these types of being "too dry, cold-hearted", even in spite of their high emotionality. In general, this type of thinking may be called “algorithmic”.

Energy, drive; men of these types often look like “machos”. However, these men more look aggressive than they really are; and women of this type are especially caring for the comfort and well-being of their families. They are ardent fighters for quality; when something is made too quickly, they begin to look for defects and usually find them. They are always in hurry, always feel "lack of time” and feel offended when other people criticize their tempo.



EXTRAVERTED INTELLECTUAL CONCEPTION
Extraverted Intellectual Conception compares
new information to the sets of objective rules and
understandings. The major method of such comparison is
intellectual evaluation of objective facts. It constantly
collects objective evidences and derives rules and laws
from the evidences collected. Every conclusion is inferred
from a set of objective facts collected from the reality and
is used for a practical purpose directed outward, back to
the reality. Extraverted Intellectual type has an
intellectual formula for everything. It approaches any
phenomena from the standpoint of a universal set of rules
derived from experience. Such type sees momentarily
every aspect of a problem and is able to factor them in
properly to come to a solution. The problem is – not
everything can be categorized. People can’t operate like
machines. Not everybody is a perfect thinking machine
like Extraverted Intellectual type. Not everybody uses
objective reasoning as a universal gauge. Sometimes
people want to do silly things just for the sake of it.

[Beautiful sky]

INTROVERTED INTELLECTUAL CONCEPTION
Introverted Intellectual Conception prefers to
collect information from inside and to compare it to the
sets of subjective rules and understandings. The major
method of such comparison is Intellectual evaluation of
subjective facts. These rules and understandings don’t need
to be substantiated by any objective data. In fact, if
objective data contradict with the ideas of Introverted
Intellectual Conception , they are either ignored or
twisted to fit the idea. If following the reality is the main
objective of Extraverted Intellectual Conception ,
Introverted Intellectual Conception follows the inner
geometry of the ideas it develops. This type of thinking
may become very complex, abstract and symbolic and
alienate from the reality. In extremes, Introverted
Intellectual Conception becomes absolutely
incomprehensible, closed in, lacking any touch with the
reality.

[Beautiful sky]

This is why discojoe has a hard time with people who use subjective evaluation of facts as opposed to objective

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[discojoe]

This is why discojoe has a hard time with people who use subjective evaluation of facts as opposed to objective

Heh, yeah actually. I think you're right. I do tend to focus quite a bit on Te.

[Brilliand]

That sounds like Te

Te derives connections laws, from objective reality

Extraverted logic is also called Processual or Practical Logic.

It estimates everything in terms of efficiency: not abstract analysis, but "how to make it work?", and not systems, but methods. They are energetic, active, and mobile. As scientists, they are strong in improvement of methods, but often they choose a business career. However, people who work together with them, often blame these types of being "too dry, cold-hearted", even in spite of their high emotionality.

Looks like you're talking about base.

In general, this type of thinking may be called “algorithmic”.

"Algorithmic" is ILI, LSE, SEI, and EIE (from Gulenko's "Forms of Thinking").

Energy, drive; men of these types often look like “machos”. However, these men more look aggressive than they really are; and women of this type are especially caring for the comfort and well-being of their families. They are ardent fighters for quality; when something is made too quickly, they begin to look for defects and usually find them. They are always in hurry, always feel "lack of time” and feel offended when other people criticize their tempo.

This is from an LSE description, isn't it?

[Beautiful sky]

Looks like you're talking about base.



"Algorithmic" is ILI, LSE, SEI, and EIE (from Gulenko's "Forms of Thinking").



This is from an LSE description, isn't it?

No...Algorithmic is especially Te brain...information overloading types...
Sorry...Per Diana

I once differentiated Te and Ti by calling Te "information collecting" and Ti "information sifting" and that works, even for the balanced well-rounded Te types - they have great stores of knowledge they've collected, and they want to share it, subconsicously looking for Fi-type judging and sorting of the info.

[Creepy-male]

I once differentiated Te and Ti by calling Te "information collecting" and Ti "information sifting"

Actually you know, thats one thing you've said that I actually feel has some worth.

[Aiss]

Here's the short of it from what I can tell: Ti valuers make sense of the outer world by creating connections/links between already accepted facts. The Ti valuer will analyze a piece of information not yet accepted or rejected by comparing said information bit to what it has already accepted. The person's own mind is the information filter, as opposed to Te where the information isn't directly and actively examined.

I can't say much else about it due to non-valuing reasons, but this is the jist of what I can understand of Ti.

I would say this more or less describes field/object dichotomy. Field (introverted) functions make connections which are inseparable from subject's point of view, hence field = introverted = subjective. Object (extroverted) functions do examine information, but looking at individual object, which theoretically should seem the same to different subjects - that's what people want to discuss, attempting to eliminate individual biases through synthesis of differing viewpoints (of course within the same culture etc. there's a lot of common biases still, and perception itself is biased on a more physical level), making these functions focused on the outside world perspective, object = extraverted = objective. This means information related to valued extroverted elements is argued more willingly, whereas information related to valued introverted elements is exchanged on terms of "agree to disagree". Opposing quadras clash on this point.

No...Algorithmic is especially Te brain...information overloading types...
Sorry...Per Diana

I once differentiated Te and Ti by calling Te "information collecting" and Ti "information sifting" and that works, even for the balanced well-rounded Te types - they have great stores of knowledge they've collected, and they want to share it, subconsicously looking for Fi-type judging and sorting of the info.

I disagree. I'd say Te is "information sifting" and Ti is "information generalizing", so to speak. Where Te sifts through lots of information to find interesting pieces, Ti focuses on connections, classifying it *and* using it to form a framework (training a classifier, in a way). Ti uses the information, in other words. It keeps the result of classification - judgment - rather than the information itself (I'm not speaking of memory as such here). Again, that's analogical for other field/object functions.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Aiss]

Subjective/objective information is related to Internal/External, as far as I know (Ni, Ne, Fi, Fe). Object/Field does not depend on the viewer (Si, Se, Ti, Te). And it's a fact that Ti types are the most driven by the imperativeness of the reality, it's the total opposite. Whether this reality is perceived correctly or not, this doesn't change things, in general Ti types tend to be wrong when they isolate information from the larger environment, not because of being subjective - this habit comes right from the necessity accuracy, as one can guess.
(this also answer thePirate's question of why two objective logical types may have divergent opinions, it all depends on the information one has at hand, not the way one processes information).

First of all, to clarify something: you're totally wrong in saying that Ti information is subjective information, this is the main point I'm trying to make, which extends to Objects/Fields. There's no such thing, Ti is defined as objective information in Socionics, so either there's a problem with your understanding in this case - which is my opinion at a glance - or with the Socionics definitions themselves.
---

One of my previous examples was the distance in space between two objects. "Distance" is field information and it's an objective one, it doesn't depend on the viewer's decision. The same are other properties on a single object, for example "position", which is the relation between the object and a reference point, the origin.

[for the sake of completeness, this type of information is Fields and Static, both "distance" and "position" properties of an object/pair of objects are Ti, while the "origin" (reference point) is Fi, Internal (subjective) chosen by the thinker]

I disagree with a lot of what you say here, but I see your point about internality/externality - it so happens that Gamma values internal fields and external objects, so I might be potentially confusing what's related to either of these two dichotomies. This might also result from our differing understandings of the terms, but for me implicit/explicit doesn't mean subjective/objective.

As I said earlier, I interpret subjective as "individual" and objective as "unified" information. For example you can grasp "individual" understanding of an IE in the context of your type; but to achieve more objective, "unified" one, you need a compilation of many people's of different types' understandings of it - so when we have people with NeFi and NeTi blocks, either of these can have subjective understanding of Ne, but objective one can only be reached in cooperation. (Note that's not "ultimately" objective in an absolutists, free from physical and mental constraints, way - merely about as objective as a person can be under the circumstances)

One example of visible difference is Ni and Ne. Ni has hard time explaining its ideas and prefers not to share them, Ne is often associated (somehow accurately) with brainstorming. One creates a private understanding, the other discusses possibilities to achieve a perspective of overall potential. Both are internal, concerned with what could be or what could have been, rather than what is - but they approach it differently. Ni focuses on intuitive connections which are highly individual, Ne on intuitive perception of qualities which, while as all perception individual, is subject to discussion. Extroverted information from other people is worth more - is considered to be of value - while introverted one is no more than an inspiration. Everyone's input is individual, but for Ne it's easier to make it their own, whereas Ni finds it harder to share. Hence Ne types tend to eagerly discuss concepts, even scarce ones, while Ni types prefer to look for information and form understanding quietly, which sometimes surprises people when they stumble upon it and results in "I never thought you even knew about that issue!" reaction. Not saying Ne-egos always share, but they tend to do so much more, pursue their interests openly, don't mind others developing their ideas further.

Consider this: is it more acceptable for you to use others' views of possibilities/potential - something you, heaven forbid, missed - or others' reasoning, taking it as your own? That's basically how I see bodies/fields in case of Ne/Ti. Ne is internal, Ti is external, yet I suspect you'd appreciate Ne input more. If you see it differently, let's clear it up now.

The point I'm trying to make is that since extroverted elements deal with, more or less, "pieces of information" (bodies), introverted with "understanding" (fields), one is more easily shared and discussed (aiming for objectivity), whereas the other is individual by nature (resulting in subjectivity). Both can be implicit (internal) or explicit (external). Again, what I'm saying: information about things can be shared, understanding can be glimpsed, but not assimilated. It's similar to issues teachers have - they can give their students knowledge, while they can only try to help them understand it.

This is clearer when instead of comparing, let's say, Ti to Fi, we compare Ti/Fe to Fi/Te. Note that, while for most purpose Ti and Fi are two flavours of one, Fi and Fe are so for others - visible especially when PoLR hit results in HA reaction. That's the beauty of socionics. When we're dealing with theoretical understanding, Ti vs Fi works, Ti forms connection explicitly and Fi implicitly. But when we move to practical matters - i.e. interpersonal relations, which require implicit interpretation specifically - we end up with Fe vs Fi.

It appears to me that the association between the "obj*" root in "objects" and "objectivity" make you feel that you're on the correct path. But it's not, because "objectivity" has a different meaning (the human perspective) than the notion of "object".
(put a harness on your Ni, Aiss )

And let me remind you people of one thing: the correct naming of this dichotomy is Bodies/Fields. Let's use these terms instead and not make this confusion anymore, would you agree?

As a matter of fact, I noticed this detail only after seeing what I typed, and I didn't like it one bit - I tend to care about style, which includes avoiding repetitions unless on purpose, but it's so much harder in English. I'm switching to bodies/fields as of now.

No, the opposite quadra values don't clash on Extroverted/Introverted alone. They clash on Merry/Serious and Judicious/Decisive. If you prefer not to name these dichotomies, they clash on both Extroversion and Externality. The Identical has the same functions as someone, but it doesn't clash, it clashes when this information is of the opposing Externality (and also position in the block, this becomes more complex).

You are right that Extroverted information examine individual objects, just objectivity is not one of its implication, objectivity/subjectivity are applicable in the same manner on both bodies and fields.

I don't mean so much "clash on values" (which is another issue) as in communication. See Ne/Ni example above for that. I realize that it makes far more sense in theory to compare Ne to Se etc., and that's what I often do, but these two deal with different information. If left to themselves, that would be the end of it, but in life we're often forced to deal with particular information whether we like it or not - if information is best suited to be dealt with by Se, you can use Si or Ne for it, depending which aspect (explicity or extraversion) is more significant. Implicit irrational information - potentiality, ideas - are viewed in different ways between judicious and decisive types. In fact, it makes sense to me that it would be the root of this dichotomy - in judicious quadras, it's the implicit aspects that are discussed, whereas decisive ones discuss explicit information.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Carl Gustav Jung called Ti a subjective function. I still find his descriptions of Ti to be among the best in all of Jungian typology. Through my efforts of finding my type, it was always the one thing I never doubted I identified with.

How Pinocchio gets the idea that he is an objective thinker is also beyond me. There is so much unjustified material in each of his posts you would have to ignore 99% of them not to see it.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Ti and Te were determined by Socionics much later. But if you have some evidence proving that Jung discovered them, I can't wait for it.

To ignore the fact that the socionics functions are directly copied from Jung amounts to sticking ones head in the sand. Just that you can get away with such stupidity doesn't make it right.

This is off-topic. I saw Ti described as objective information in all Socionics sources, it is not my idea or something. Again, evidence please, then we may discuss.

Out of curiosity, where are you sources? There is at least one resource that lists Ti as a subjectivist function (the Reinin descriptions), so this is far from a unanimous claim in socionics.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

- There's no evidence that Reinin used other terms for this dichotomy than Merry/Serious. That's a later addition by I-don't-know-who, including the descriptions.

What on earth gives you the idea that Merry/Serious is any more real a label for it than Subjectivist/Objectivist is? They have both been around in every incarnation of the descriptions including the Russian original. Your claim that the latter is edited in by a third party is itself a baseless one without evidence.

Then read the Wikisocion descriptions of Logical types, you can find exactly the label you need, "objective".

Your wikisocion quote is far more vulnerable to editorial bias than the Reinin description is. Wikisocion was made by hobbyists from this very forum, which don't have a clean track record where reliability is concerned.

- Then, subjectivism is not applicable to Introversion, because Fe, "Subjectivist" is an Extroverted one. Doesn't make sense what you say.

I just so happen never to have said anything about objectivity being linked to extrovert/introvert. All I claim is that Ti is subjectivist.

- Then, I'm not talking about whatever names people use to call this type of information, but "logic" and "logical" are directly connected to objectivity. The same with the descriptions of the functions and information elements. I don't have the time to dispute with you an obvious fact, maybe some quotes refresh your memory:

In philosophy, it is well documented that there exist two common conceptions of what it means to think logically: rationalism and empiricism. The former predicates logic upon intuition and morality, whereas the latter predicates morality and ideas upon the logical account of sense experience (evidence). The former relates to Ti, the latter to Te. Since in the former paradigm, logic does not have primacy, there is no primacy of objectivity either. This is how Ti is logical but not objective. There is no contradiction between the two.

[Brilliand]

Feeling (along with Intuition) is subjective, Introversion (by which I mean Xi) is subjective... Pinocchio, I think you had a better word for what I'm thinking of. Wasn't Static the other "weak" one? I guess Subjective isn't the best word, and I considered commenting on that, but I couldn't think of a better one at the time.

Ideally, "Subjective" should mean specifically Feeling, since that's a common (possibly the most common) usage of the word in English. In that sense "Subjectivist" the dichotomy could mean that the EJ valued function is Feeling, though that's a poor thing to connect to the function.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Yes, rationalism vs empiricism can be considered essentially Ti vs Te, but you're wrong saying that rationalism is based on subjective sources - intuition and morality - while it's exactly the opposite.

Read some criticisms of rationalism. A lot of people, including writers of wikipedia, want to make rationalism seem like the epitome of objectivity. To see what it is really about you have to consult its opponents.

[krieger]

Ti uses a rather deductive one, not dealing recursively with the premises, but to what can be certain:

Here is the problem: you can't deduce without first inducing. By claiming you can deduce from axioms, you leave out of consideration where those axioms come from. Most of the time they are established on intuitive or dogmatic grounds; hence subjective.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Computer Loser]

Hi, I was wondering how Ti manifests in conversations/social interactions?

Can someone list some concrete examples? (maybe in the form of dialogue)

All this theory hurts my limited mind lol

[ArchonAlarion]

Ti and Te were determined by Socionics much later. But if you have some evidence proving that Jung discovered them, I can't wait for it .

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


2. The Introverted Thinking Type

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his [p. 485] extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to [p. 486]

disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, head-strong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the [p. 488] better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his anti-social prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.

With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.

The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request