In Defense of Introverted Logic

[Logos]

Introduction to the Problem
It seems that perhaps one of the largest divides in the social community of this forum seems to have developed along the “Merry/Serious Line.” Several times Merry boarders have indicated that they perceive an anti-Ti/Fe bias on this forum, while several Serious boarders suggested that they do not see this bias, but instead they believe that the reverse is the case. So clearly what is happening is the almost natural belief that their functions are not being valued or appreciated in light of the valued functions held by others. This result most likely springs from the attempt of individuals to further define their identity in relation to these known categories by maximizing the qualities with which they value and minimizing the corresponding (i.e. by no means opposing) qualities that allow for a more distinctive means of distinguishing the valued functions. In a number of ways the title of this essay of sorts is a misnomer namely in that Introverted Thinking (or really any function for that matter) really needs defending. Instead this topic will be primarily about trying to convey a sense of understanding regarding Ti and its utility to the Te/Fi-valuing Quadras through Ti's relation and similarities with Te and Fi.

This thread has been in my mind for some time now, but now that things have settled down a bit and my life has returned to the prior status quo of routine, I now have a bit more of an ability to be in a more comfortable setting to write this topic while given time to dwell upon it. To give credit where credit is due, this thread is largely written to address this divide, but it was inspired by two threads in particular (whose actual title’s and thread starters escape my mind): 1) Herzy’s thread clarifying Extraverted Sensing (which helped me appreciate, understand, and see the value in Se), and 2) that one thread on Fi (which I remember primarily Expat and Diana explaining the benefits of Fi). While I still do not necessarily value either Fi or Se when compared with Alpha functions, I know this is the case primarily in relation to my self, but I still came to appreciate the role that my Super-Id functions played in my own nature, the nature of others, and even in my dual.

Disclaimer
I will say upfront that I am an LII (INTj) in my current understanding of Socionics with ILE (ENTp) being the most popularly fielded second option as to my type by others. As such, my analysis of Ti will invariably have an Alpha Ne/Si component that would not necessarily be a part of a Beta ST analysis of Ti. In addition, my look at Ti will be that of one who uses Ti as a primary function and less as a creative function. And as such there will be a natural bias towards Ti/Fe and that my analysis by nature will have a very Ti-approach in language and style to it. This is one of the inescapable problems with something of this nature; if a Te/Fi-dominant were to write on Ti, it would be predictably jaded in its relationship and value in relation with Te/Fi. But a simple awareness of this problem should alleviate to some extent this bias. Also, I would like to establish here that I am not trying to advocate Ti/Fe as a superior set of functions over Te/Fi, mainly because in no way do I want to diminish the importance or role of my theoretically strong, but unconscious, function of Te or the corresponding role of Fi in my Fe-seeking. And furthermore, my understanding of Ti in comparison with Te/Fi will probably be flawed to some extent, so I am already expecting a good deal of “clarifications” provided to me by these people.

Since the Te/Fi Quadras are the target audience, my response will be primarily not to address how great Ti is to Ti/Fe Quadras (we already have two forums to do that), so of course Ti/Fe-valuing members are not banned from reading, posting, basking, or circle-jerking in this thread, and as always additional contributions are welcome.

An Approach to Understanding Introverted Thinking
Since this topic aims to explain and analyze Introverted Thinking for the Te/Fi Quadras, Ti will be analyzed primarily in its relation to these functions, which is perhaps the only approach that can be taken, as no function exists entirely to itself in a vacuum but only in its distinct relations with other functions. The range of functions looked at will derived from some simple self-evident propositions about the nature of Introverted Thinking:

1) Ti is an Introverted Rational function: The other Introverted Rational function (Ji if you will) apart from Introverted Logic is Introverted Ethics. So Fi will be seen to act in a similar manner as Ti.
2) Ti is a Logical function: Ti cannot act fully without Te and Te cannot act fully without the use of Ti as both are used to analyze external objects.
3) Ti is always paired with an Extraverted Irrational function: This basic proposition is more of a matter-of-fact of Socionics in that a Rational function is always paired with an Irrational function and that an Introverted function is always paired with an Extroverted function. Therefore, Ti will always operate either primarily or creatively in conjunction with either Extroverted Sensing or Extroverted Intuition.

So the range of functions involved in this thread will be primarily Ti (primarily), Te and Fi (analogically as similarly working functions), Se and Ne (secondarily as conjoined aspects), and Fe. But fully explaining Introverted Thinking’s relationship with Extraverted Feeling may not be as useful in this thread as by its very nature of organization, Ti-valuing is always paired with Fe-valuing, and therefore neither function is valued wholly in a Te/Fi Quadra. So talking about the interrelation of Ti & Fe may not be as much of a productive exercise in a thread primarily about Ti if the corresponding function of Fe is not as valued in the Te/Fi Quadras, as to do so would require an expansion of the subject matter of the topic to greater include Extraverted Feeling/Ethics. There cannot help but be overlap between these sub-topics, but I will attempt to do my best to keep them distinct.

A Basic Introduction to Introverted Thinking/Logic
While there are numerous resources on descriptions for Introverted Thinking and what it is, rarely do they go into how it is used, and thus its practical application becomes unclear. So just to be able to have some of the same material to work with or at least have available, I will just include a series of different short bits regarding Ti from primarily Rick’s various website and the Wikisocion as a starting point that will be put in the foreground here and then can of in the background while expanded upon in the following sections, because again the emphasis of this thread is not to make tautological assertions of what Ti is, but rather upon Ti’s understood relationship with other functions.

Introverted Logic (Socionics.us): logical relationships between objects: systems of rules and categories, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgments

Some Themes of Ti (Wikisocion): analysis, law, hierarchy, measurement, classification, understanding, order, right, distance, system, structure, formal logic.

States of Mind of Ti (Wikisocion):clarity and exactitude of thought, a sense of order and regularity in different levels of structure; a sense of building a complete system from individual parts

Introverted Logic (Wikisocion): Introverted logic is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate and apply classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity, symmetry, and even beauty. It is like common sense, in that it builds on one's expectations of reality, through a somewhat personal (though explicable) understanding of general truths and how they are manifested.

[Logos]

Introverted Thinking and Extroverted Thinking/Introverted Feeling
In regards to Introverted Thinking and Introverted Feeling, while I could simply just tell you that one is the External Static of Fields and the other is the Internal Static of Fields, such a vague and meaningless description is not really useful in understanding the functions comparatively. And while I certainly appreciate such a reductionist description, merely providing these descriptions will inevitably involve a greater requirement of description of both the function as well as the reductionism itself. So instead I will kind of walk through their similarities of common relations. As rational introverted functions, Ti and Fi operate in an extremely similar manner, but in quite different fields. Furthermore it is practically impossible to talk about the similarity between Ti and Fi without mentioning or bringing in Fe and Te. But for the first part, my emphasis will be on the relationship between Ti and Fi, and then gradually go into Ti and Te.

Both Ti and Fi are static functions, which essentially seeks to establish and attain an unchanging structure of distinct relations between their respective subjects. For Fi the structure pertains primarily to interpersonal relationships between people in which they seek to form, gauge, and maintain static relations in the midst of dynamic emotion states (i.e. Extroverted Ethics). In contrast, the structure of Ti pertains to creating, gauging, and analyzing the unchanging relationship of objects that exists in the midst of dynamic algorithmic change in their external environment (i.e. Extroverted Logic). As both deals primarily with the static structure and relationships that exists between various aspects of a dynamic reality, it therefore cannot be helped that dominants in either function would pick-up a weak (or limited) conscious understanding of the other while trying to obtain (or use) their dominant functions. This secondary “absorption” of focus would be why a person with a leading Ti function would have Fi as a role function and vice versa. This also helps to explain why generally leading Ti philosophers (Kant, Spinoza, Descartes) attempt to address ethical systems and have them derive primarily from Ti, which results in a clear Fi role function. The same could probably be observed in leading Fi philosophers (namely Confucious and Marcus Aurelius). But when either Ti or Fi is in the creative spot, the other function becomes something of an understood and downplayed blind spot that perhaps interferes with their ability to creatively use their main creative function.

One of the common critiques of Ti though is that it is credited for being stubborn or unyielding in their reluctance to change their systems of thought and relations, which is something of an unfair criticism and perhaps not entirely accurate. In regards to Fi a similar sort of weakness inherent is also present in that it can be perhaps stubborn or unyielding in their ethical principles in the face of clearly changing and dynamic emotional states that are being either ignored or not addressed, simply because that is neither the purpose or goal of Fi to do so. This also conversely means that the strengths inherent in Fi are also present in Ti, but again, just with a different emphasis and focus or aspect of reality being manipulated and examined. My understanding of Fi is that seems to view the dynamics of Fe as being somehow limited by the fact that it is forever temporal by its nature of being dynamic and ever changing. So the focus is instead placed upon the emotion bonds that exist between people (and by extension objects). A similar functioning and idea can be seen behind the usage of Ti in that it sees Te as being somewhat limited by its temporal nature, but instead seeks a somewhat transcendent view of external objects through an understanding of its structure.

[Logos]

Introverted Thinking and Extroverted Thinking/Introverted Feeling (Cont...)
Expat used a memorable (and now somewhat popular) analogy regarding the nature of Ti and Te pertaining to a bookshelf. In this analogy the basic idea is that the books in this bookshelf that are being exchanged and kept represent Te and that Ti is the structure or order of the books on the shelves. This is actually an accurate analogy, and I am somehow puzzled as to how one would walk away seeing either function as being more valuable than the other in this case as both are perhaps required and useful in this rather every place analogical setting of a library of sorts. In order to be able to actually find these books efficiently, organization (lets say a catalogue and arrangement by either some category like genre, author, title, or perhaps frequency of use) of some sorts is a useful tool. And this should be a good analogy to transition more into the talk of the interplay between Ti and Te.

Now I will regress a bit to an earlier critique of Ti as being slow to “progress,” inflexible, and in unyieldingly stubborn in comparison with the dynamic Te. And while this is somewhat true, it is also a bit inaccurate in other regards. The reason why this is inaccurate is that when this critique is given of Ti, it is given with the assumption that a constant dynamic focus should be the goal or focus, which is ironically an expectation not given (generally by Te-dominants at least) in regards to Fi. (Of course, again to provide balance, a similar critique of this nature could be said of Ti/Fe.) A Ti-dominant will naturally be faster to adapt in Ti matters than a Te-dominant and vice versa, in that a Te-dominant will be faster to adapt in Te matters than a Ti-dominant. But perhaps the real and understood question is whether a Ti-dominant is faster in adapting to Ti matters than a Te-dominant in Te matters? While no measurable rate of change will be observed, this is probably the case, but that is to be expected and if it was not the case then the functions would lose some semblance of their meaning as one would not expect Te to seek or be focused on static matters and Ti on dynamic ones.

And perhaps though one of the greatest misunderstandings that I see in Socionics is that the everyday language used in it does not always adequately express the idea behind it so greater explanation is needed as a means of reinforcing a certain idea in the language itself. What I have in mind in this case is the idea of what it means to value a function. Does Introverted Thinking value Extroverted Thinking? And does Introverted Feeling value Extroverted Feeling? Socionics generally says that they do not or that they are unvalued. I do not believe that this is actually the case at all, but rather it is not a matter of valuing but focus. So does Ti value Te? Yes it does; in fact, it almost has to in order to function. And does Te value Ti? Of course it does. And now I will get into why that is the case. It is a simple question really: why would Fi/Ti not value Fe/Te when they spend their efforts in attempting to organize and structure it? So instead we see that Fi/Ti does indeed value Fe/Te since this attempt to organize and structure it can also be seen as a method of attempting to preserve it. And this is the key idea. Fe and Te are constantly changing and there is perhaps nothing that either Fi or Ti can do respectively to change that reality. But what they can do, and becomes their central focus, is to attempt to define and determine the unchanging aspects of these realities as a means of preserving it. Fi and Ti-dominants have strong Fe and Te, respectively, but their focus shifts to its preservation and maintenance. Again to go back to the bookshelf analogy, books will inevitably come and go (Fe/Te), and while this may excite some (again Fe/Te), this is troublesome for others (Fi/Ti), who instead become preoccupied with determining the relationship between these books such that it becomes easier to access and maintain a resemblance to order when there is a known structure or organization to them (Fi/Ti).

Another common criticism of Ti is that it is somehow detached from reality, which is presumably represented in the form of Te. But if Ti is strongly attached to Te, how can its reality be detached? For if we were to take some presumptions of this language used regarding Ti, then Ti-dominants would have a strong conscious detachment from the reality, while this would thereby mean that Te-dominants would have a strong unconscious detachment from reality (making them blind about their own detachment, which is a conclusion that is undesirable for both parties involved). While Ti can perhaps get carried away in what appear to be arbitrary categories/hierarchies or seeks to find a relationship that may not appear to be present, that does not necessarily mean that Ti is detached from reality, well at least no more than Fi is with Fe. But I suppose that it is possible that Te can very well become lost or detached in their reality of determining and establishing “what works,” but this issue does not seem to get raised as much (at least from my Ti-centric perspective) as with Ti.

In a slight aside of sorts (but still related to the interrelation of Ti and Te), Joy once said that behavior is strictly within the realms of Te as behavior is seen as the action of agents or objects. While to an extent this may appear to be true, my problem with this assertion is that from my Ti-dominant view (along with a strong interest in political and zoological behavior), I am perhaps puzzled as to how can behavior be strictly Te when any assertion made about the relationship that exists between the agents (and data) within a system would by nature either fall within the realm of Ti or Fi (depending upon the nature of the assertion)? Behavior would thereby only be in the realm of Te to the extent of the observable actions being performed, and not necessarily by relationship or rationale behind the behavior.

I will get around to Introverted Logic's relationship with Extroverted Sensing and Intuition eventually, but I need a break, so I will post all that I have thus far.

[Jonathan]

What I have in mind in this case is the idea of what it means to value a function. Does Introverted Thinking value Extroverted Thinking? And does Introverted Feeling value Extroverted Feeling? Socionics generally says that they do not or that they are unvalued. I do not believe that this is actually the case at all, but rather it is not a matter of valuing but focus.

Hope you don't mind my butting in here, but I think this is a very good point. I would add that it isn't Socionics that says functions are valued or unvalued with nothing in between, but rather the particular version of Socionics prevalent on this forum. I think a more accurate term than "valued" would be "directly critical to one's mission" whereas a more accurate term for "unvalued" would be "indirectly relevant."

By the way, as to criticisms of Ti and claims that it's too rigid, etc., I think that the criticisms are mainly of individual posts, rather than of Ti itself.

[Rick]

Bravo, Logos. Very clearly written and a treasure trove of Ti expressions for wikisocion I'm looking forward to the continuation.

[consentingadult]

16. EMOTIONAL INHIBITION (EI)

The excessive inhibition of spontaneous action, feeling, or communication -- usually to avoid disapproval by others, feelings of shame, or losing control of one's impulses. The most common areas of inhibition involve: (a) inhibition of anger & aggression; (b) inhibition of positive impulses (e.g., joy, affection, sexual excitement, play); (c) difficulty expressing vulnerability or communicating freely about one's feelings, needs, etc.; or (d) excessive emphasis on rationality while disregarding emotions.

Source: http://www.schematherapy.com/id73.htm

[FDG]

Awesome, Logos. At least some objectivity in this sea of madness.

[Blaze]

+10 great job on this. now....will you attempt Ne/Se/Ni/Si?

[reyn_til_runa]

a little unclear about why Ti would necessarily have issue with "books coming and going." if books come and go (operative words, "and go," which suggest some sort of exchange, but consistency of form as well) then can't they, on some level, be seen more as replaceable objects, functioning by means of a "least common demoninator" type relation to each other? i would think a broader relationship between objects can be maintained/preserved even though there are changes in the objects themselves -- their characteristics over time, for one thing, are always changing, yet their sum value most likely remains "books" because it is being defined that way from the start. let's say there is a book which, one day, gets turned on its side and then starts functioning as a book end. clearly, it is still a book, but now also a bookend. does Ti have issues with these types of changes in purpose, configuration, and so on? it seems that there is no way around ever-expanding relations between things, and that once a basic static relationship is able to be determined (and objects defined for their essential characteristics), this would naturally be maintained, save for total destruction of the objects and no possible replacements.

would you consider the determination of these broader relationships between objects which vary in specifics but remain unchanged in "potential purpose served" Ti?

i guess another way to ask this question might be: is Ti more concerned with permutations than combinations?

[munenori2]

I say this with all seriousness. I think this is the best thread I've ever read in my brief time here. Cogent, informative, it's like you took a step back and saw the world for what it is.

Wowzers, Logos!

[UDP]

Props for putting forth all this effort, Logos.

[Logos]

Hope you don't mind my butting in here, but I think this is a very good point. I would add that it isn't Socionics that says functions are valued or unvalued with nothing in between, but rather the particular version of Socionics prevalent on this forum. I think a more accurate term than "valued" would be "directly critical to one's mission" whereas a more accurate term for "unvalued" would be "indirectly relevant."

By the way, as to criticisms of Ti and claims that it's too rigid, etc., I think that the criticisms are mainly of individual posts, rather than of Ti itself.

I definitely agree here as a difference in goals between types seems to be a point almost lost in self-centric reflections of intertype relations.

+10 great job on this. now....will you attempt Ne/Se/Ni/Si?

Probably to some extent. I think that my next bit that I will write (at some undetermined time) will be on Ti + Ne/Se. My hope is that by going through Ti's relationship with these other functions that the necessity to write solely about Ti in itself will be diminished until we arrive at its final base parts that remain essential to Ti's own defined identity. Ni and Si, I suppose, will be mentioned inevitably when talking about Ne/Se, but as neither of these functions are shall we say proximate or adjacent functions they are not entirely relevant and would therefore not be the central point of discussion.

a little unclear about why Ti would necessarily have issue with "books coming and going." if books come and go (operative words, "and go," which suggest some sort of exchange, but consistency of form as well) then can't they, on some level, be seen more as replaceable objects, functioning by means of a "least common demoninator" type relation to each other? i would think a broader relationship between objects can be maintained/preserved even though there are changes in the objects themselves -- their characteristics over time, for one thing, are always changing, yet their sum value most likely remains "books" because it is being defined that way from the start. let's say there is a book which, one day, gets turned on its side and then starts functioning as a book end. clearly, it is still a book, but now also a bookend. does Ti have issues with these types of changes in purpose, configuration, and so on? it seems that there is no way around ever-expanding relations between things, and that once a basic static relationship is able to be determined (and objects defined for their essential characteristics), this would naturally be maintained, save for total destruction of the objects and no possible replacements.

would you consider the determination of these broader relationships between objects which vary in specifics but remain unchanged in "potential purpose served" Ti?

i guess another way to ask this question might be: is Ti more concerned with permutations than combinations?

jxrtes answered quite satisfactorily. But part of what you write seems to entail and not so much , which is again one of the reasons why I plan on expanding upon these differences later.

[Exodus]

Too long. Is this really necessary?

[Logos]

Too long. Is this really necessary?

It is no more necessary than your posts or contributions.

[MysticSonic]

Shit Logos, you've written everything I've wanted to write about Ti for last 4 years.

[Ms. Kensington]

I think i would look at the book/bookend situation a little more statically. I would see the bookshelf as having two systems, one by subject and one by use. I wouldn't say that every book is either a book or a bookend. I would limit those two uses to the specific case (te).

I would say that the interest here is in combinations.

[Logos]

a little unclear about why Ti would necessarily have issue with "books coming and going." if books come and go (operative words, "and go," which suggest some sort of exchange, but consistency of form as well) then can't they, on some level, be seen more as replaceable objects, functioning by means of a "least common demoninator" type relation to each other? i would think a broader relationship between objects can be maintained/preserved even though there are changes in the objects themselves -- their characteristics over time, for one thing, are always changing, yet their sum value most likely remains "books" because it is being defined that way from the start. let's say there is a book which, one day, gets turned on its side and then starts functioning as a book end. clearly, it is still a book, but now also a bookend. does Ti have issues with these types of changes in purpose, configuration, and so on? it seems that there is no way around ever-expanding relations between things, and that once a basic static relationship is able to be determined (and objects defined for their essential characteristics), this would naturally be maintained, save for total destruction of the objects and no possible replacements.

would you consider the determination of these broader relationships between objects which vary in specifics but remain unchanged in "potential purpose served" Ti?

i guess another way to ask this question might be: is Ti more concerned with permutations than combinations?

I would like to revisit this a bit. It seems that you are taking this analogy a bit too literally and far. But imagine someone who has taken effort to organize and rearrange the books on the shelf, only to discover that to their disappointment that someone has already come and messed up their organization through a constant alteration to the texts present (whether they be present but elsewhere, removed entirely from the bookshelf, or there are other books not accounted for). As Ti is concerned with the accessibility of the books through their order and organization, this reshuffling is what makes the reality of "books coming and going" so discomforting for some. While the person in question may be able to try and stop this "perpetrator," the reality of the situation is that they are unable to stop them as this exchange is constant. But there are actually a few ways which Ti would perhaps respond: 1) create a structure for which the organization should follow or 2) try and determine the preexisting structure through which this exchange seems to be taking.

[Exodus]

It is no more necessary than your posts or contributions.

Let me be more clear. What is the purpose of this post? It sounds like it's mostly an attempt to defend Ti from some imagined criticism or stereotype.

[Logos]

Let me be more clear. What is the purpose of this post? It sounds like it's mostly an attempt to defend Ti from some imagined criticism or stereotype.

Did you not bother to read the Introduction to the Problem?

[Exodus]

Did you not bother to read the Introduction to the Problem?

I read it, but do you think that this will really solve the problem? All of the information is out there already (and it even comes out in arguments caused by the quadra value differences), and I don't see how repeating it will help to change anybody's warped perspective.

[Logos]

I read it, but do you think that this will really solve the problem? All of the information is out there already (and it even comes out in arguments caused by the quadra value differences), and I don't see how repeating it will help to change anybody's warped perspective.

In which case it was indeed unnecessary, a waste of time, a stupid exercise of intellectual masturbation, and just a futile attempt to make me feel better about my contribution to the community's understanding of Socionics.

[Exodus]

Why must you take criticism so personally?

[Logos]

Why must you take criticism so personally?

Mainly because I am a shallow individual, but I usually do when I cannot figure out how the criticism was legitimate to begin with. Too long? That was it? But then you question the necessity of this thread? If people learn from it or gain a greater understanding of the functions, why would it not be necessary or legitimate? You believe that this is a defense of Ti against some kind of "imaginary criticism or stereotype," but the response from other INTjs seems to suggest that this original criticism may in fact not be imaginary, but something else which has been observed as a problem existing within this community. Will this thread solve the problem? No, but then again neither will doing nothing about the problem at hand. And this thread was not constructed as the definitive solution to the problem but merely as a gradual step in the right direction in a long drawn-out process. Yes the resources are available regarding Ti are there and present, which I note in the brief introduction Ti, but that is not the point. This again was not supposed to be a tautological explanation as to how Ti is defined, but an analogical means for those of Fi/Te Quadras to be able to understand Ti through its similarities and distinctions of their personal functions of which they presumably have a greater understanding of their mechanics.

[reyn_til_runa]

I would like to revisit this a bit. It seems that you are taking this analogy a bit too literally and far. But imagine someone who has taken effort to organize and rearrange the books on the shelf, only to discover that to their disappointment that someone has already come and messed up their organization through a constant alteration to the texts present (whether they be present but elsewhere, removed entirely from the bookshelf, or there are other books not accounted for). As Ti is concerned with the accessibility of the books through their order and organization, this reshuffling is what makes the reality of "books coming and going" so discomforting for some. While the person in question may be able to try and stop this "perpetrator," the reality of the situation is that they are unable to stop them as this exchange is constant. But there are actually a few ways which Ti would perhaps respond: 1) create a structure for which the organization should follow or 2) try and determine the preexisting structure through which this exchange seems to be taking.

my guess would have been that Ti wasn't so concerned with accessibility of the books as long as it knew that the books existed, in order. i also can't seem to grasp your intended meaning of this problem with the "books coming and going."

if you are trying to categorize the books, it seems you should always have room for changes to the content of the categories (within a predetermined reason). this is because the outer limits of the categories are being expanded, as well as refined, by the ongoing process of forming and tweeking them. certain objects stream in, and others stream out. edges are shaped accordingly.

a set 4 of books can start as ABCD and end as ABCF and bear the same relation to each other. in other words, they can still fall into the same overarching category. if we define the relevant relationship between the two sets of books as "they are books with more than 200 pages," we have more room for exchange than if we say "the books are related because they are sci fi books with more than 200 and fewer than 300 pages." there is a greater number of "books with more than 200 pages" than there are "sci fi books with more than 200 and less than 300 pages," YET there is still equal probability that, at any given moment, one or the other will come up.

as the lines between things will always be drawn (and redrawn) differently, areas are seen to either coincide / break apart / morph into something else. the visual that's coming to mind is watching cells divide.

i see more of a continuum over which intersections happen without changing the general flow.

now tell me where i am misguided, or why i just cant seem to get the static thing.

[Logos]

EDIT: You know what? I just give up trying to explain this analogy. It is just an analogy Expat created that is being taken way too seriously and completely seems to miss the point of the analogy making further attempts to explain it just utterly futile.

[reyn_til_runa]

But why would they want to simply know that the books existed, in order?

maybe you are right. it would be necessary to know the essential characteristics of the books before knowing the relationships between them, which i think may have been one of your first points (re: the necessary link between static and dynamic functions).

Because you are taking Expat's analogy WAY too literally and far.

ok, but i don't see why you wouldn't take it literally. the elements of the analogy are meant to be symbolic, but represent actual objects and trends.

[Logos]

ok, but i don't see why you wouldn't take it literally. the elements of the analogy are meant to be symbolic, but represent actual objects and trends.

Simple, because while you are right in the sense that the analogy represent actual objects and trends, it does so in a very general and not specific manner. In fact, I would imagine that many analogies of this nature would probably fail if they were taken to their literal conclusions of comparison. If I said that my friend was quiet as a cat, through this analogical simile I am comparing his qualities of his quiet nature with the similar and general qualities of a cat. But the comparison would fail if you were to then question whether or not a cat was truly quiet. "I do not understand, does your friend then purr like a cat would? Not all cats are quiet, because some cats hiss quite loudly. Why would your friend be quiet as a cat; does he have padded feet?"

[munenori2]

lol, so is about what works (in categorizing/relating disparate objects) within an intelligible system?

Sorry to try to reduce things to so simple a level, but maybe it will be a good test of whether I'm understanding the analogy/dead-horse-pinata at all. @ beer.

[Exodus]

a little unclear about why Ti would necessarily have issue with "books coming and going." if books come and go (operative words, "and go," which suggest some sort of exchange, but consistency of form as well) then can't they, on some level, be seen more as replaceable objects, functioning by means of a "least common demoninator" type relation to each other?

I think this is the best interpretation of the book metaphor (although the rest of what you're saying is totally based in dynamic Ni). Ti only cares about the order and classification of the books - which doesn't depend on any particular book being there or not. Ti would recognize whether a book was out of order, but what Te does is find the actual book and put it in the slot. Hence extroversion/introversion.

@jxrtes: Static elements have no concept of continuous change. The idea of a "snapshot" implicitly assumes a dynamic viewpoint, situating Ti in a flow of time which, to Ti, doesn't exist.

I like the point that the organization of the books increases their accessibility - a connection between Ti and Te.

The actual spatial ordering of the books would be Ti + Se, whereas the quality chosen to determine the order (e.g. the topic) would be Ti + Ne. In a sense, then, Ti can translate/mediate between Ne and Se.

Where is the original introduction of this metaphor, anyhow? I can't emphasize enough how awesome it is. I'm developing a new theory of the information elements, and it has lots of connections to this.

[Exodus]

Simple, because while you are right in the sense that the analogy represent actual objects and trends, it does so in a very general and not specific manner. In fact, I would imagine that many analogies of this nature would probably fail if they were taken to their literal conclusions of comparison. If I said that my friend was quiet as a cat, through this analogical simile I am comparing his qualities of his quiet nature with the similar and general qualities of a cat. But the comparison would fail if you were to then question whether or not a cat was truly quiet. "I do not understand, does your friend then purr like a cat would? Not all cats are quiet, because some cats hiss quite loudly. Why would your friend be quiet as a cat; does he have padded feet?"

The reason this analogy (or should I say meta-analogy : ) fails is that information elements (that is, the categories defined by them) really do define the general structure of reality, whereas the concept of a cat is specific.

[Logos]

I think this is the best interpretation of the book metaphor (although the rest of what you're saying is totally based in dynamic Ni). Ti only cares about the order and classification of the books - which doesn't depend on any particular book being there or not. Ti would recognize whether a book was out of order, but what Te does is find the actual book and put it in the slot. Hence extroversion/introversion.

@jxrtes: Static elements have no concept of continuous change. The idea of a "snapshot" implicitly assumes a dynamic viewpoint, situating Ti in a flow of time which, to Ti, doesn't exist.

I like the point that the organization of the books increases their accessibility - a connection between Ti and Te.

The actual spatial ordering of the books would be Ti + Se, whereas the quality chosen to determine the order (e.g. the subject) would be Ti + Ne. In a sense, then, Ti can translate/mediate between Ne and Se.

Where is the original introduction of this metaphor, anyhow? I can't emphasize enough how awesome it is. I'm developing a new theory of the information elements, and it has lots of connections to this.

A use of the Search function reveals that the original introduction of this metaphor was apparently lost in the Great Gamma Wipe, but is alluded to in "a recent question: Ti vs. Te" (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ight=bookshelf) by Joy and its creator Expat. It was then modified slightly by me in this thread to try and give a more balanced account of how Ti operates (namely by trying to find the "why") in this "Bookshelf System."

[Exodus]

Ah, thanks.

[Logos]

In the original series of posts on this thread, the bookshelf analogy is really only given attention twice:

Expat used a memorable (and now somewhat popular) analogy regarding the nature of Ti and Te pertaining to a bookshelf. In this analogy the basic idea is that the books in this bookshelf that are being exchanged and kept represent Te and that Ti is the structure or order of the books on the shelves. This is actually an accurate analogy, and I am somehow puzzled as to how one would walk away seeing either function as being more valuable than the other in this case as both are perhaps required and useful in this rather every place analogical setting of a library of sorts. In order to be able to actually find these books efficiently, organization (lets say a catalogue and arrangement by either some category like genre, author, title, or perhaps frequency of use) of some sorts is a useful tool. And this should be a good analogy to transition more into the talk of the interplay between Ti and Te.

Fe and Te are constantly changing and there is perhaps nothing that either Fi or Ti can do respectively to change that reality. But what they can do, and becomes their central focus, is to attempt to define and determine the unchanging aspects of these realities as a means of preserving it. Fi and Ti-dominants have strong Fe and Te, respectively, but their focus shifts to its preservation and maintenance. Again to go back to the bookshelf analogy, books will inevitably come and go (Fe/Te), and while this may excite some (again Fe/Te), this is troublesome for others (Fi/Ti), who instead become preoccupied with determining the relationship between these books such that it becomes easier to access and maintain a resemblance to order when there is a known structure or organization to them (Fi/Ti).

What Reyn had issues with was the latter part, and specifically the part in bold, and questioned why Ti would be concerned or find the coming and going of books to be troublesome. While Ti does seek to create organization no matter what the books in question are, it does not create organization for its own sake, but with an awareness of this dynamic change of the books (Te). As Ti exists as the relationship that exists between external objects, it cannot exist without an awareness of the activity of external objects (and vice versa). But one of the problems is that she seemed to be inserting a sense of Ni (especially blocked with Te) into what was supposed to be strictly an analogical explanation of Te and Ti within the basic confines of a functioning bookshelf without the additional information elements or functionality which may be entailed in a bookshelf. In short, it seemed as if she was adding needless complexity to the analogy. Of course it cannot be denied that I probably was a mutual misunderstanding as to what Reyn and I were trying to get at or have clarified from the other.

[Exodus]

Yes, I see what you mean. reyn is pretty hopelessly immersed in Ni - the bolded part was like the only one that had anything remotely to do with Ni.

[Expat]

I have no problem with the present version of the bookshelf metaphor if you guys agree with it; it's probably an improvement on my original version.

But my original version was somewhat different, since rather than address Ti and Te in isolation, it addressed the Ti and Te preferences. Also, Ti was related not only to the structure, but also to the content of the books themselves:

Te>Ti: preference is given to replacing the books, even if the new books "disrupt" a bit their previous organization and, yes, ther previous content (example: including in the bookshelf a volume of Keynesian economics theory that "conflicts" with the otherwise post-Keynesian content of the relevant area of the bookshelf - perhaps to be removed from the bookshelf again, soon enough)

Ti>Te: more "conservative" in replacing the books, due to its disrupting the structure of the organization, and consistency in content, of the books.

This places a more dynamic emphasis on Te>Ti and a more static emphasis on Ti>Te, but it doesn't go as far as totally isolate Ti from Te, as THA did.

I'm not saying that my original metaphor is better; actually I think they complement each other.

[Ms. Kensington]

its hard for me to view the way that a Ti person works with this metaphor, it always has been. I am inclined to go in the way of reyn's questions. I think it's because I'm not sure how Te is working in the metaphor. I would have to have a comparable contrast to the Ti. It seems like you do have to say, "te is focused more on which books are removed" or whatever. But it seems that the point of the metaphor would be somewhat lost (though not completely) because you would have to explain it or divide it further.

I also think it might have to do with emphasizing someone's attachment to earlier categories, which i just don't think is that simple. I suppose it is basically accurate.... i just think there might be an even more accurate representation. Sorry i dont have one yet.