On Ti

[jason_m]

After spending time studying a number of personality theories, I have a better sense of what Ti both is and isn't - and I've come to the realization that, in socionics, Ti is often confused with Te ('ll talk more about this later). With respect to the first point, I spent a lot of time researching MBTI, cognitive processes and other theories. Some of these theories talk a lot about "Ti." I have the sense that Ti in socionics is not about being neat, organized or regimented, but essentially being a "systems thinker." What this means is that Ti egos understand long chains of reasoning better than other types. This translates into an understanding of computer systems, mathematical systems, even philosophical logic. Ti-egos understand the principles and logic behind most any conceptual system, and they can either design such systems or apply these systems to the real world; this is connected with socionics notions of Ti egos as the builders of models, formulas, and blueprints, and is also correlated with the notion of Ti egos as those who understand the structure of any system or idea. When this gets taken too far is when this notion of interpreting the structure or logic of an idea becomes translated into notions of being a "structured individual" who likes organizing closets and rooms; Ti cannot be removed from some of its abstract roots, and, when it is, it becomes closer to the list-making, status-checking nature of its Te counterparts, who are good at organizing what is laid out before them, but do not have a deep understanding of the logic behind such organization. In fact, I've seen both descriptions of clear Ti egos and real life Ti egos who are far from organized.

In any event, these are my findings. I would like to hear anyone's input, insofar as it is constructive.

[anndelise]

Surely systems thinking falls under dynamic rather than static.
Te requires the dynamic field/relational elements of Ni and Si,
Just as Ti requires the relatively consistent object elements of Ne and Se.

[silke]

... What this means is that Ti egos understand long chains of reasoning better than other types. This translates into an understanding of computer systems, mathematical systems, even philosophical logic. ...

I think you are confusing Ti with intelligence.

[ashlesha]

i don't know about his description of ti but i think there are plenty of really intelligent people who couldn't give a shit less about computer and mathematical systems.

[krieger]

i don't know about his description of ti but i think there are plenty of really intelligent people who couldn't give a shit less about computer and mathematical systems.

not to mention legions of non-Ti types that are obsessive over them.

[jason_m]

Surely systems thinking falls under dynamic rather than static.
Te requires the dynamic field/relational elements of Ni and Si,
Just as Ti requires the relatively consistent object elements of Ne and Se.

And how is static/dynamic fundamental to the functions and not more on the outside of function definitions?

[jason_m]

not to mention legions of non-Ti types that are obsessive over them.

For the same reasons? And couldn't a criticism that "other types value 'it' as well" apply to any function definition?

[Creepy-]

I have the sense that Ti in socionics is not about being neat, organized or regimented, but essentially being a "systems thinker."

So basically the equivalent of MBTI Ni? Fascinating.

What this means is that Ti egos understand long chains of reasoning better than other types. This translates into an understanding of computer systems, mathematical systems, even philosophical logic.

It seems to me like this can equally apply to Ni and/or Te (can't really say much for the others because I don't have much perspective on them), but in different ways.

...it becomes closer to the list-making, status-checking nature of its Te counterparts, who are good at organizing what is laid out before them, but do not have a deep understanding of the logic behind such organization.

You may be taking a bit too much from MBTI for this one...

[jason_m]

So basically the equivalent of MBTI Ni? Fascinating.

It seems to me like this can equally apply to Ni and/or Te (can't really say much for the others because I don't have much perspective on them), but in different ways.

You may be taking a bit too much from MBTI for this one...

So EVERYTHING in the MBTI is wrong by default?

[Creepy-]

So EVERYTHING in the MBTI is wrong by default?

When this gets taken too far is when this notion of interpreting the structure or logic of an idea becomes translated into notions of being a "structured individual" who likes organizing closets and rooms...

You decried the silly generalizations that often get made about Ti and rationals in general and then made the same silly claims about Te.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Ti-egos understand the principles and logic behind most any conceptual system, and they can either design such systems or apply these systems to the real world; this is connected with socionics notions of Ti egos as the builders of models, formulas, and blueprints, and is also correlated with the notion of Ti egos as those who understand the structure of any system or idea.

I do think that Ti-egos probably are related to the ideas of "systems" though not necessarily intellectual abstract systems that are designed. It's more that Ti-egos think in terms of systems, and so they might be more predisposed to understanding other designed systems because they're used to dealing with that way of understanding things. That is, they're used to thinking of things as a system, and so when they learn about new things they think of it in the same way, which works well for things which are indeed systems. However, it doesn't necessarily translate to being good at understanding systems, just being used to thinking in a certain way. Then the actual intelligence necessary to understand, say, computer programming or philosophical theory comes in. Perhaps what I've said is just an overly nit-picky thing.

When this gets taken too far is when this notion of interpreting the structure or logic of an idea becomes translated into notions of being a "structured individual" who likes organizing closets and rooms; Ti cannot be removed from some of its abstract roots, and, when it is, it becomes closer to the list-making, status-checking nature of its Te counterparts, who are good at organizing what is laid out before them, but do not have a deep understanding of the logic behind such organization. In fact, I've seen both descriptions of clear Ti egos and real life Ti egos who are far from organized.

I'm assuming that here you're not trying to define Te, but just trying to make the distinction between the things which are attributed to Ti that you think are actually more Te. Otherwise, I'm not sure I entirely agree with the definition. I'm not sure that there's any type that - from information element analysis - can be categorically described as neat or organised. I imagine Te-egos are organised in the sense that they realise that neatness or organisation may be important to achieve something effectively/efficiently. But not necessarily neatness for neatness sake. And, similarly, mightn't Ti-egos think that they ought to keep things rather neat for the sake of others with whom they live? (I'm thinking that duty may also be part of Ti in the sense that the Ti-ego builds up an understanding of the society in which they live, and according to that system they then believe that each member is expected to act in certain ways for the healthy sustenance of that system i.e. it is their duty). However, since this thread is about Ti I won't waste time talking about your definition of Te unless it's used to contrast to Ti.

[Azure Flame]

I'll agree with the OP. Ti is much like a flowchart in my mind. Every single possible if-then statement is recorded and stored in my brain and I have an amazing memory for it. My plans for the future can be written in C++ format if I wanted. (if I get this job, I will stay for 6 months. Else I will find a new job && work on my real estate liscence simultaneously). That sorta stuff.

When I was younger, interacting with women was a huge fucking flowchart because I had no emotional intelligence (its debatable if I still do). I would make a complete flowchart in my mind so I could control the interaction and know exactly how she was going to react so I wouldn't get my feelings hurt.

For example, I would plan an entire interaction in my mind, "I'm going to say "hi, how are you?" her possible responses will be: nothing, something non-commital, and something engaging. If she says nothing, I will try again and stop pursuing if she doesn't. If she says somethig non-committal I'll leave. If she says something engaging, I will start these topics of conversation with her: X, Y, Z."

Yeah I'm a creep. Anyway it never worked, but that's Ti for ya.

[Spiro]

I'll agree with the OP. Ti is much like a flowchart in my mind. Every single possible if-then statement is recorded and stored in my brain and I have an amazing memory for it. My plans for the future can be written in C++ format if I wanted. (if I get this job, I will stay for 6 months. Else I will find a new job && work on my real estate liscence simultaneously). That sorta stuff.

This may burst your bubble, but you don't need an amazing memory, much less Ti, to think up and remember the statement "If I don't get this job, I'll find a new one." That's about as amazing as a person that brags about being able to figure out and remember the sum of 2 + 2. You don't even need an average memory to do something like that. Shoot, you could probably do it with no memory and just keep rediscovering it over and over again using nothing more than basic common sense.

[ClownsandEntropy]

I'll agree with the OP. Ti is much like a flowchart in my mind. Every single possible if-then statement is recorded and stored in my brain and I have an amazing memory for it. My plans for the future can be written in C++ format if I wanted. (if I get this job, I will stay for 6 months. Else I will find a new job && work on my real estate liscence simultaneously). That sorta stuff.

It's interesting you say that, because even though I'm Ti-dominant I don't think I have that kind of if-then algorithmic kind of pattern to how I think. Neither conversations nor my life in general are really planned out like that, and I don't think I could put it together like that. I would sometimes make rules like "if I talk to someone X many times and they reply with what I consider an uninterested response, then I won't bother pursuing a relationship." But even then, I usually broke those rules equally as often. Moreover, you'd think that you, having the same cognitive style as myself, would think similarly when it comes to these things.

[Radio]

When I was younger, interacting with women was a huge fucking flowchart because I had no emotional intelligence (its debatable if I still do). I would make a complete flowchart in my mind so I could control the interaction and know exactly how she was going to react so I wouldn't get my feelings hurt.

For example, I would plan an entire interaction in my mind, "I'm going to say "hi, how are you?" her possible responses will be: nothing, something non-commital, and something engaging. If she says nothing, I will try again and stop pursuing if she doesn't. If she says somethig non-committal I'll leave. If she says something engaging, I will start these topics of conversation with her: X, Y, Z."

here's something that's going to blow your mind

~*EVERY SOCIALLY-AWKWARD/FAIRLY INEXPERIENCED/ANXIETY-RIDDEN PERSON IS LIKE THIS IRRESPECTIVE OF TYPE*~

really fucking amazing isn't it

[Azure Flame]

here's something that's going to blow your mind

~*EVERY SOCIALLY-AWKWARD/FAIRLY INEXPERIENCED/ANXIETY-RIDDEN PERSON IS LIKE THIS IRRESPECTIVE OF TYPE*~

really fucking amazing isn't it

what's with the cursing and bold caps? chill out

@Spiro yeah I can remember many many more things than "if I don't get this job I'll do that." I can remember probably like... 50 things. If I program C++ I can remember entire pages of code in my mind so long as I keep at it every day. Unless Te users can do the same thing I'd like to hear them talk about it.

Ya'll are just jealous and I think you should cry about it.

[Azure Flame]

It's interesting you say that, because even though I'm Ti-dominant I don't think I have that kind of if-then algorithmic kind of pattern to how I think. Neither conversations nor my life in general are really planned out like that, and I don't think I could put it together like that. I would sometimes make rules like "if I talk to someone X many times and they reply with what I consider an uninterested response, then I won't bother pursuing a relationship." But even then, I usually broke those rules equally as often. Moreover, you'd think that you, having the same cognitive style as myself, would think similarly when it comes to these things.

I break "the rules" all the time. Its like I'm constantly compiling a new program but feel no need to follow it. I also wonder if it has somethign to do with extroversion because I feel fairly confident that I can personally alter the flow of conversation with most people. My LII brother doesn't do it either. I should go ask my LSI friends. My ILE ex used to complain that it felt like we were constantly playing chess against one another. I don't know if she thought the same way but there was a battle for control none the less. It could also be an enneagram thing (my brother is a 5 like you).

This thinking was partly why I thought I was Te ego a while back.

My other interpretation of Ti is like a floating mountain of logic in the sky that only certain people know how to get to, which is why it can look like we're a buncha cultists/lunatics, and its very hard to debate against. We have mountains of facts at our disposal to defend our points, yet it doesn't matter how much logic we have, its still a fucking floating mountain and no one really knows how we got there, haha.

[Azure Flame]

@Ashton... it was 3 years ago. I could be talking about java for all I know. I was an IT major for a little while so I took C, C++, Java, Machine code, etc. Data dumped most of it shortly after graduation and they all sorta blend together now.

And what do you mean "knowing me"? Ha. Maybe you're not giving subjective logic any credit and assume everything I say is whack?

ps: Do you think my questions are all loaded statements? cuz they're not, its just no one ever seems to want to answer them, probably cuz they think they are.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Dominant Ti =/= Creative Te. These two seem to get misaligned easily.

[Azure Flame]

@Jadae2point0... who you talking to and what is the context in which you speak?

[Creepy-pokeball]

I am talking to everyone, honk33

[strangeling]

After spending time studying a number of personality theories, I have a better sense of what Ti both is and isn't - and I've come to the realization that, in socionics, Ti is often confused with Te ('ll talk more about this later). With respect to the first point, I spent a lot of time researching MBTI, cognitive processes and other theories. Some of these theories talk a lot about "Ti." I have the sense that Ti in socionics is not about being neat, organized or regimented, but essentially being a "systems thinker." What this means is that Ti egos understand long chains of reasoning better than other types. This translates into an understanding of computer systems, mathematical systems, even philosophical logic. Ti-egos understand the principles and logic behind most any conceptual system, and they can either design such systems or apply these systems to the real world; this is connected with socionics notions of Ti egos as the builders of models, formulas, and blueprints, and is also correlated with the notion of Ti egos as those who understand the structure of any system or idea. When this gets taken too far is when this notion of interpreting the structure or logic of an idea becomes translated into notions of being a "structured individual" who likes organizing closets and rooms; Ti cannot be removed from some of its abstract roots, and, when it is, it becomes closer to the list-making, status-checking nature of its Te counterparts, who are good at organizing what is laid out before them, but do not have a deep understanding of the logic behind such organization. In fact, I've seen both descriptions of clear Ti egos and real life Ti egos who are far from organized.

In any event, these are my findings. I would like to hear anyone's input, insofar as it is constructive.

I think it's that rationals perform better when their lives are regimented in some way because it suits their aims. Ti egos that want to implement their systems are going to require some form of consistency for that, whereas irrationals do not require it whatsoever for their aims. I guess that's kind of a tautological response, but it's sort of implicit.

If you want to suggest that a system builder that doesn't implement their systems wouldn't require being a "structured individual", I could see that. But is that healthy? I also think rationals who are Ni/Se valuing will be less structured than Ne/Si valuers.

I think some reinin dichotomies can confuse this as well, mainly being carefree/farsighted and tactical/strategic.
For instance, SLEs are farsighted types that see value in preparing for things in advance, whereas ESIs are carefree and probably feel emphasis on preparing is a waste, since things might rarely turn out how they expect or want.
Tactical rationals also probably come off as less structured than strategic rationals, since the focus is on contact sensing and inert intuition, whereas the opposite is true for strategic rationals.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Dominant Ti =/= Creative Te. These two seem to get misaligned easily.

Do you think we're confusing the two in our descriptions? (I just don't understand what/who you think is misaligning things and in what way they are doing that).

[ClownsandEntropy]

I think it's that rationals perform better when their lives are regimented in some way because it suits their aims. Ti egos that want to implement their systems are going to require some form of consistency for that, whereas irrationals do not require it whatsoever for their aims. I guess that's kind of a tautological response, but it's sort of implicit.

If you want to suggest that a system builder that doesn't implement their systems wouldn't require being a "structured individual", I could see that. But is that healthy? I also think rationals who are Ni/Se valuing will be less structured than Ne/Si valuers.

What do you mean by implementing systems? I mean, I think that Ti-egos, to an extent, view the world like a system and the Ti-dominants might prefer to have some structure to their life in the sense that things happen in a more predictable way, because then they can predict it and work it into their personal system. But actually implementing it onto the world is a touch different. In my mind I'm imagining someone trying to implement a sequence of how things ought to be done (say, around the workplace) but that's probably too narrow in my thinking.

If we're defining a "structured individual" as one who "likes organizing closets and rooms," then I don't think that Ti-dominants (i.e. rationals with Ti-ego) necessarily are structured individuals because they deal with more abstract systems about the world rather than, "books belong on the bookshelves because that's how my system works." Again, this is my mind only being able to imagine implemented-workplace-sequence-systems.

[Beautiful sky]

What do you mean by implementing systems? I mean, I think that Ti-egos, to an extent, view the world like a system and the Ti-dominants might prefer to have some structure to their life in the sense that things happen in a more predictable way, because then they can predict it and work it into their personal system. But actually implementing it onto the world is a touch different. In my mind I'm imagining someone trying to implement a sequence of how things ought to be done (say, around the workplace) but that's probably too narrow in my thinking.

If we're defining a "structured individual" as one who "likes organizing closets and rooms," then I don't think that Ti-dominants (i.e. rationals with Ti-ego) necessarily are structured individuals because they deal with more abstract systems about the world rather than, "books belong on the bookshelves because that's how my system works." Again, this is my mind only being able to imagine implemented-workplace-sequence-systems.

Yeah, my Ti or Fi needs to have predictability too.

[Creepy-pokeball]

Do you think we're confusing the two in our descriptions? (I just don't understand what/who you think is misaligning things and in what way they are doing that).

I think it happens a lot across the board both in text and in implicit communication. I was not directing the commentary at anyone specifically. I just thought it was worth noting for this topic since its a repeating occruence.

[strangeling]

What do you mean by implementing systems? I mean, I think that Ti-egos, to an extent, view the world like a system and the Ti-dominants might prefer to have some structure to their life in the sense that things happen in a more predictable way, because then they can predict it and work it into their personal system. But actually implementing it onto the world is a touch different. In my mind I'm imagining someone trying to implement a sequence of how things ought to be done (say, around the workplace) but that's probably too narrow in my thinking.

If we're defining a "structured individual" as one who "likes organizing closets and rooms," then I don't think that Ti-dominants (i.e. rationals with Ti-ego) necessarily are structured individuals because they deal with more abstract systems about the world rather than, "books belong on the bookshelves because that's how my system works." Again, this is my mind only being able to imagine implemented-workplace-sequence-systems.

Well, let's say a Ti ego creates the idea of a political dichotomy, say democrat and republican. They now both created that dichotomy and see it as relevant to reality or real in some way. To fulfill that idea, it would have to be used to organize, structure, or understand reality in some way. Sometimes this might just mean 'accepting' the idea in relating the world conceptually.
And I think Fe supplements this well because it can encourage and support the notion; it puts more personal and persuasive weight behind it, thereby encouraging it.

I think statistics is interesting because it can be used to predict, but at the same time by following the prediction, it aims to affect the outcome. Cause, let's say momentarily that 80% of the time x happens and 20% of the time y happens; I then invest in x happening because I believe it will, but now I'm then somewhat encouraging it to happen also.
I think this is another way that Fe relates to Ti because someone might say cheer and root for a team to get others to do the same by holding onto some idea why that team is superior or should win (and it will help motivate the team as well); or they might even try to convince someone on a personable level that the prediction will hold true. Well that's the best way I've got at understanding this so far.

I just want to make a personal note about Quadra differences. Often someone gets typed Alpha (often LII) because they are analytic, even when there is no Fe behind it (or at least the kind I described above). I think people can mistake someone who uses a lot of Ti for presumptuously valuing it, but it's not that simple and the end result then probably won't be all that insightful.

[krieger]

i tend to think of typical Ti fields as areas in which well-defined structure is characteristically lacking so that you have to make an effort to find or produce it. if the structural and causal aspects of a topic are too easy to unearth you may as well use less than perfectly strong version of the function to deal with it.

[Ryan]

Well, let's say a Ti ego creates the idea of a political dichotomy, say democrat and republican. They now both created that dichotomy and see it as relevant to reality or real in some way. To fulfill that idea, it would have to be used to organize, structure, or understand reality in some way. Sometimes this might just mean 'accepting' the idea in relating the world conceptually.
And I think Fe supplements this well because it can encourage and support the notion; it puts more personal and persuasive weight behind it, thereby encouraging it.

I think statistics is interesting because it can be used to predict, but at the same time by following the prediction, it aims to affect the outcome. Cause, let's say momentarily that 80% of the time x happens and 20% of the time y happens; I then invest in x happening because I believe it will, but now I'm then somewhat encouraging it to happen also.
I think this is another way that Fe relates to Ti because someone might say cheer and root for a team to get others to do the same by holding onto some idea why that team is superior or should win (and it will help motivate the team as well); or they might even try to convince someone on a personable level that the prediction will hold true. Well that's the best way I've got at understanding this so far.

I just want to make a personal note about Quadra differences. Often someone gets typed Alpha (often LII) because they are analytic, even when there is no Fe behind it (or at least the kind I described above). I think people can mistake someone who uses a lot of Ti for presumptuously valuing it, but it's not that simple and the end result then probably won't be all that insightful.

Have you read any socionics descriptions? List the ones you're pulling this information from.

[ClownsandEntropy]

i tend to think of typical Ti fields as areas in which well-defined structure is characteristically lacking so that you have to make an effort to find or produce it. if the structural and causal aspects of a topic are too easy to unearth you may as well use less than perfectly strong version of the function to deal with it.

Or, say, fields which require processes which demand a good understanding of a defined structure and manipulation of it.

Well, let's say a Ti ego creates the idea of a political dichotomy, say democrat and republican. They now both created that dichotomy and see it as relevant to reality or real in some way. To fulfill that idea, it would have to be used to organize, structure, or understand reality in some way. Sometimes this might just mean 'accepting' the idea in relating the world conceptually.

Ah, so when you say "I think it's that rationals perform better when their lives are regimented in some way," you're referring to the outside world being organised in some way which means that things can be, say, separated into democrats and republicans, and that you don't have politicians constantly changing or things moving in a way which makes it harder to predict.

And I think Fe supplements this well because it can encourage and support the notion; it puts more personal and persuasive weight behind it, thereby encouraging it.

I like Fe because Fe-egos are fun. *Shrugs*.

[ClownsandEntropy]

Have you read any socionics descriptions? List the ones you're pulling this information from.

In any event, these are my findings. I would like to hear anyone's input, insofar as it is constructive.

Probably not from descriptions. (But then again I could be wrong, anywho it seems to add some legitimacy to the process if we can discuss it on its own merits as Jason_m-theory).

[Radio]

i found Ryan's ******y avatar in its entirety



dun dun DUNNN

[Ryan]

Probably not from descriptions. (But then again I could be wrong, anywho it seems to add some legitimacy to the process if we can discuss it on its own merits as Jason_m-theory).

I'm asking because most of what has been written in this thrread seems to be more in the realm of Ni. Maybe some Ne as well. According to the descriptions I've read. Politics for instance is not a logical subject, a lot of ethics on the other hand goes into that, so I find the idea that Ti is more relevant that any ethical function in that regard quite odd. Not that I think it's purely ethical. Hence I believe irrational functions such as Ni are probably more relevant in this case. I understand what jason is saying, and I'm probably lacking a huge amount of knowledge when it comes to MBTI to make a good case, but the things I've read here I associate mostly with socionics Ni. LIIs brand of Ni, in some cases, but Ni nonetheless.

[InvisibleJim]

As I raised in another thread, I think that if you really want to understand Ti, look at INFp and ISFp. Why do I think so? Because they are Te super-ego; an effectively rejecting position.

They are often types which dislike holding onto 'statistics', consistent framing and fufilling processes. They do enjoy picking apart logic and applying it as long it is 'bespoke' and not a chore. I would say this is most representative of what Ti is seen to be: the application of logical novelty.

http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...hical_Introtim

Other types, particularly those with Ti or Te in their ego block will flip to their id when challenged and thus appear to display traits you could easily confuse with their quasi-identical. To put it another way, people do display capability through their id.

[InvisibleJim]

If this was directed at myself; Perhaps you should edit all of the type descriptions since we both referenced the same reputable source

There are a lot of disparate descriptions around and they probably require reconciliation.

[Absurd]

[ClownsandEntropy]

Nah, it's directed towards the OP and a few self-satisfied ego-strokers in this thread.

Fair cop.

I'll have a read, but before I do so- is Jung's introverted thinking (essentially) the same as Socionics ? As in, hasn't Socionics taken Jung's definition and adjusted it slightly when putting it into Socionics theory?

[ArchonAlarion]

Fair cop.

I'll have a read, but before I do so- is Jung's introverted thinking (essentially) the same as Socionics ? As in, hasn't Socionics taken Jung's definition and adjusted it slightly when putting it into Socionics theory?

From a recent post I made:

... It is true that Socionics has greatly expanded on Jung's concepts and derived new concepts that seemed to logically follow from the gaps left in Psychological Types. However, some go further and suggest that Socionics is really conceptually distinct, and that the Jungian references were purely inspirational and now irrelevant. There is no truly convincing way that I can disprove that view, but suffice to say I strongly disagree.

Jung's concepts are mostly original (extraverted/introverted, rational/irrational, functions, dominant, auxiliary, inferior etc.) and heavily dependent on his psycho-analytic paradigm/background. To use these concepts, one either takes the paradigm as a package deal, or pries a word from its context and in doing so loses the meaning. It is not always the case that concepts are so context dependent, but because Jung was opening a new realm of unconscious psychology the concepts are not independent enough to stand on their own. They cannot be plugged in and out of other theories whilst keeping their original meaning in the process. Many Socionics enthusiasts constantly reference the Jungian paradigm through the use of his terms, and yet disregard the contextual relation between the terms and the paradigm. Even when people substitute new words or phrases in place of the Jungian ones, aspects of the Jungian meanings cling to the new concepts, as if some relation to Jung must be maintained or it can no longer be considered Socionics. Thus, I am of the opinion that Jung is relevant Socionics. Further I see Socionics as limited to derivatives and refinements of Psychological Types, rather than being capable of selecting a portion of the book's concepts at whim.

In my experience, the Jungian context is essential; divergent conceptualizations and framing tends to fall apart or become unconvincing. The general functional descriptions in Socionics seem highly correlated to Jung's definitions anyways.

So, to answer your question, "perhaps", but I haven't been convinced that new definitions approach Jung's insight or are valid otherwise. Some elaborations here and there are definite improvements, but not enough to warrant ignorance of Psychological Types.

[Creepy-]

I am not so sure I understand Ti. I will give my idea of the functions. All functions have dimensions. I think standard is one dimensional Ti. Thinking, planning, calculating, learning to speak, knowing different languages,obeying common laws. Ego and Superid Ti is research, exploring some phenomena, connecting different data and diverse theories into one system. The strongest is four dimensional, on INTj, ISTj and ISTp, INTp. It should be something like creating world view, new understanding. And there are higher contents. Four each function: S;N,T,F . That's why I made my first posting. To motivate members find out how different levels of functions look like and how to help others to gain higher abilities of their types. Also this Gulenko's subtype idea has a weak side. All dimensions can get only some amount of information. ESTp can't be Fi dominant for a long time, it has only one dimensional Fi, but four dimensional Se and three dimensional Ti. Those functions are always in and Fi is repressed, with Ne also.

What do others think?

[Beautiful sky]

Ti, judges things around them not by feelings - ethics, morals, but by intellectual formulas, thought. Example: My TiSe boss has and builds lists of things to do in a given situation. The computer breaks down (external fact comes in); in his mind, he has already circulated and built the plan of action which he strives to convey to me irregardles of other things associated with the computer breaking down: the command of action is,

Did you check the connections
Then I want you to turn the computer on and off
I want you to see if it comes back up
if it doesn't I want you to call Dell
I want you to get a senior tech on the line

did you get this?

You must follow things to his logic, him being Beta ST and quite controlling as well as very offensive and a stickler about his approach to the problems. He's created a system and he has these systems for everything. Everything. I kid you not. These systems can be long, requiring a lot of energy expansion in the form of rather than which would be just to maybe take one step, turn the computer on and off and if it works take no more action, because the problem looks solved (the lazy man's approach).

Don't think Ti is completely efficient either, it will make system after system, some are hits others are misses, depending upon luck and external workings of their mental thought construct. Take my filing system, before I started at the office, there were 10 filing cabinets everywhere, categorized by some kind of time and calendar system which created a lot of visual stuff, you could see everything, which is important to a highly sensory type like him, but the system did not work because it created redundant space usage and hence it was not holistic made the place messy, hard to move around in, inefficient use of resources. This was a cumulation of one system after another, "open a filing cabinet for just my mail" Mail system goes here. "I need to see something for just my paperwork, maybe something on the wall."