Let's go on with the PoLR series. This seems to help people with typing.
Printable View
Let's go on with the PoLR series. This seems to help people with typing.
I've been wondering about this myself, so I'm prodding this thread to see if it's alive.
Perhaps a hyperlink to a brief and foolproof definition of Ti might help. There was one definition in another thread but it sounded as if Ti is something one can jolly well do without. Which is probably not true. So, anyone...?
And where are the anecdotes of fellow Ti-PoLRers? :( All I can think of is this - that the plotlines of my stories are usually full of logical inconsistencies, esp. if I let my imagination run wild. :?
Here are two things that might be a result of Ti PoLR:
When I have two options, I have trouble judging which is best and making a choice. No matter which choice I make, I regret it and feel like I should have chosen otherwise.
I hate when someone says to me something like, "You don't know what the hell you're talking about."
I see :Ti: PoLR when people say one thing now, then something that logically contradicts it some time later, and then get upset if you say, "but what you said just contradicts what you just said five minutes before".
Expat: Perhaps that's how a Ti PoLR manifests itself. But I think it can also happen with ethical types in general; we don't always have set definitions for everything. For example I might say that I hate something and then later talk about how I love some aspects of it. Some of my T-friends might nag me for it and see it as illogical, while I see it more as "twisting and turning" a concept within the realms of my subjective experience; as if I were exploring the feelings surrounding an object rather than the thing itself (which would be logics, I suppose).
Arrrgh. Nitpickers. :lol: Expat, I think I know what you mean. When someone points out such stuff I'm usually frustrated because I think it means that they haven't paid attention to the general drift of what I've said, to the big picture, to the general idea. To me, that's what counts.
Strange, but such comments usually aren't totally hurtful. They're frustrating, and they derail me to some extent, because I half realize that the other person is probably right (they sound so convinced), and often I'm embarassed, either because I was totally oblivious to what turns out to be a glaring mistake, or because I still can't see what all the fuss is about... BUT it isn't the absolute worst thing someone could say. It's disagreeable, but it doesn't have me sit on a bridge clutching a bottle of vodka.
What does bug me is when someone doesn't take me seriously, or patronizes me, or regards me as a charity case... and that could be connected to a Ti PoLR, if Ti really is connected to a healthy sense of "I'm right and you all suck". Still, nowadays I can deal with that too.
What is still stranger is this: if all of the above really is part of a Ti PoLR, then I'm learning to develop my Ti. Is that possible? I'm old, so perhaps it is. :? Or does it come from living in an ISTj country?
Right, here the description of :Ti: from the Stratievskaya ESFp description, which I have edited slightly --
It is difficult for the ESFp to be objective as it is in a captivity of the ethical installations, the sympathies and antipaty.
His acts can contradict common sense even because more often they reflect its emotional attitude to an event.
Sometimes in the ESFp's behaviour the logic importance of his acts, it is as though displaced. e. He acts illogically, being based on any primitive logic stereotypes only because " so it is accepted to act ". And, being guided by the logic stereotypes, he often acts to the detriment of the ethical principles: for example, destroys the developed good relations with the relatives only because reacts how it is accepted logically, on the general concepts instead of how he feels ethically: we shall tell, abuses for that, for what is necessary (in the standard, stereotypic understanding) to abuse, praises for that, for what it is necessary to praise.
Sometimes it is expressed in a habit to use superficial logic (and ethical) stereotypes to operate according to these slogans and to utter them in occasion of and without an occasion: " pity humiliates the person ", " are afraid? Means respect ", " is jealous? Means loves ", " where has laid, there and sleep ", " the woman should not show the initiative ", etc.
Sometimes it is logically displaced intonations and accents in speech. Sometimes it eticheski a unjustified mimicry.
Sometimes it is the displaced or unstable interests to the perceived information. For example: listening to explanations, the ESFp often distracts from the main idea, it any absolutely minor moments or insignificant particulars suddenly start to interest. Imperceptibly for himself, he leaves aside from the basic theme or distracts questions of the minor importance. Or questions which at all have no the attitude to a discussed subject.
One more characteristic for representatives of this type feature: ability in occasion of and without an occasion to distract from the set theme on conversations on. (the Bright example? Pushkin lyrical digressions in "Evgenii Onegine".)
To be engaged in classification of concepts or knowledge, to result them in harmonous system? For ESFp boring and unpleasant work. It is difficult for him to concentrate on the logic analysis of any phenomenon, it is difficult to concentrate for consecutive understanding of logic conclusions, it is difficult most to state something consistently: he can begin an explanation directly with the middle and to continue it, constantly coming back to initial and intermediate stages. Thus, in ESFp's statement, the some people even simple explanations are represented rather confused.
Superficiality of representations about many phenomena does not confuse him? He considers it natural (" All of us studied gradually in something and somehow ") the Main thing that the discussed subject was though otdalenno, but a sign, it is impossible to make impression of full incompetence.
He is very cautious in the statements, concerning legal or technical parties of business, does not risk to seem biassed or incompetent
Does not like to study the instruction and a rule? To him it is boring. (the Representative of this type can repeatedly burn through the electrodevice, including it, not having familiarized with the instruction the case of "unsuccessful" cleaning of memory of a computer after which there were erased all programs incorporated in it Is known) And how his personal experience was sad, all the same it is difficult to ESFP to change himself, and it often is necessary not on the instruction in which seldom and a little that understands, and on success, luck and on the intuition in spite of the fact that it often enough brings it.
Experience of another's mistakes too not always makes uponhim sufficient impression: ESFp can confer and consult as much as necessary, but finally will act in own way, counter to all advice and common sense. ESFp is distinguished with a special talent constantly " to fill shishki " on the same place. Deeply to suffer, muchitsja and to ask all and everyone why it is every time occurs to him, and he needs to get rid of what lacks in himself that these misfortunes at last have stopped the enormous patience and endurance Are required (the qualities, inherent to its dual INTp) to accustom ESFp to analyze experience of the last mistakes, t. e. Just what ESFp, , contrary to desire of associates, to do resolutely refuses (both do not ask, and do not persuade!) he acted and acts only as he will like, and differently he cannot simply be oneself.
For ESFp the serious problem is represented with necessity carefully to think over the acts, to behave circumspectly and judiciously. Remarks he does not transfer the Requirement to illogicalities of own actions to be consecutive in actions deduces it from itself(himself). For it is characteristic to act cleverly and logically only until it from it do not demand, while with it respect and with it are considered. But it is necessary to bring to a focus to its illogicalities as all its actions at once cease to be supervised logically and get character of chaotic, panic vanity.
ESFp's charges in an illogicality only aggravate its problems. ESFp very painfully transfers any criticism to the address and as requirements to themselves at it happen overestimated enough, it is difficult for him to recognize at presence of all advantages such lack, as not irreproachable logic. ESFp in general would like to be the person without faults. (and who would not like it?) Therefore ESFp very much experiences, when to his mental faculties someone has a low opinion. It is very difficult for him to dare to not be the cleverest (though this best, that it can make for itself(himself)).
It is necessary to notice, that it is easier to ESFp to be consecutive and logical in the acts after he has understood opportunities of a situation (sequence of work of function). For ESFp to act reasonably? He means to act reasonably, t. e. Providently, far-sighted. The osnovatelnee it will be informed on aspect " intuition of opportunities ", the easier to it to act logically produmanno.
In a word, that in ESFp's acts was less contradictions and vanity, it is necessary to put it in the certain psychological mode in which he will receive the sufficient information on intuition of opportunities, support on intuition of time and, that is very important, absence of criticism on aspect of logic of parities. That is Iwhy INTp's psychological support is necessary for ESFp. His skill to show prospect of a situation in such form that they have not frightened ESFp and have not cast into a panic, to show a possible stock of time, to distract it from vanity and to create to it conditions for the detailed logic analysis. INTp is able to find the most simple and cogitable forms an explanation. It is very methodical in the explanations, is able to illustrate their successful examples. Is able to bring the interlocutor to the necessary logic conclusion, giving to it to be pleased to own opening.
Having contradictions pointed out doesn't really bother me either. I agree that it just makes me feel like someone isn't paying attention to the whole train of thought and is focusing on a few details. It's annoying and a bit frustrating but it feels like nit-picking and doesn't really bother me.
I did not mean small nitpicking contradictions during a long conversation, I meant major logical contradictions in the main point of the conversation, but right now I can't think of any concrete examples.
And here the description of :Ti: PoLR for ENFp. The last paragraph describes how it works in the duality with ISTp.
The ENFp loses interest in any subject, when only his curiosity is even superficially satisfied. And to excite this interest or somehow to deepen it it is already impossible: this theme, in opinion ENFp, is studied by him also it already enough is not going to come back to him as on light is so a lot of new and not studied. (ENFp very much are afraid to miss any new opportunities. Therefore do not dare "to jam" that for them already " the passed stage ".)
Unique way to keep interest ENFp this all time "to warm up" his curiosity: to fire up imagination, to intrigue, encourage, constantly to hold back something. In a word, " to hold on a hook " (that, actually, and does his dual ISTp).
ENFp is very inconsistent in the acts and reasonings. And personally he does not consider it as fault? To him so it is convenient, therefore he and acts, but to him it is inconvenient, when so others act, ENFp it is difficult, sometimes it is impossible to collect the thoughts. His attention is constant rassredotachivaetsja. Listening to explanations, easily seizes the general, frequently only superficial sense. Sometimes at ENFp there is an insuperable interest to the analysis of insignificant particulars (and these particulars seem to him supersignificant and necessary for deep and momentary understanding of an essence). Owing to which he withdraws an explanation aside, and sometimes in general breaks it, asking untimely or inappropriate questions and thus persistently demanding the answer to them. And statement of a question sometimes happens so absurd and ridiculous, that explaining at all always knows, how to it to react.
Intuitively comprehending sense of many logic concepts and categories, ENFp often has about them superficial enough representation. Therefore sometimes puts himself in awkward position, stating obviously absurd things most self-assured (?) tone. And "not trivial" point of view ENFp is capable to stump even the most skilled and qualified teacher; as for representatives of this type ability, to conceive debate during the most improper time is very characteristic.
Often tests difficulty in an explanation of any elementary concepts. But even more is at a loss to explain the complex phenomenon simple means. (here an example of how the representative of this type explained to the four-year-old child the nature of a thunder and a lightning:
"The cloud floats, we shall admit, with a sign "plus", and towards to it another? With a sign "minus", and then they collide, and the thunder and a lightning turn out. ") sometimes ENFp begins the explanation too in detail and in details, but subsequently he loses in it interest and continues to explain already more obobshchenno. Often he confuses in own explanations, is nervous and takes offence at the hardly dumnuju an audience.
And nevertheless representatives of this type very much like " all to explain ". For example, having got in inconvenient position, often speak: " I now shall explain all to you! " Also start to explain under the order. " Under the order "? It means from apart. That is: first any collateral and insignificant circumstances are in detail described (" my niece of the husband of the second cousin the colleague "), further to these collateral "circumstances" is given the "intuitive" characteristic (" in every respect the loser "). Attempt to bring ENFp to the essence of a statement it is usual in what does not result? He only is irritated, is nervous, asks to to express " under the order ", and all there begins all over again.
It is always interesting to listen to ENFp, any object explaining a site. ENFp usually describes an arrangement of all nearest objects and concerning them focuss: " On the right, in hundred meters you will see shoe shop, but there do not turn off turn on the left... " ENFp can draw also a map, but it will be too detailed and too confused.
Very much are afraid of something to mix, but it more often and occurs. And they are confused in those things which seem to them easy enough for understanding and storing.
ENFp painfully perceive any accusation of illogicality and inconsistency. Take offence, when criticize their mental faculties. Many of them with pleasure work in an intellectual field. Take a great interest in philosophy and not away porassuzhdat on the abstract themes. Often express in the form of sayings. Some of representatives of this type like to write down the sayings in a writing-book, to quote to their associates and to publish in the newspaper.
They like to state the reasonings with the most significant kind: " If the woman wishes to seem interesting, she should be unpredictable and not clear. " ENFp like to make impression the statements, and they with it very much are helped by their usual self-confident tone. Often at their reasonings there is the exaggerated (false) significance, capable to give "importance" to the most trivial and primitive statements on sense: " In a life of each woman there is something such about what it cannot tell to any to man ".
False significance at representatives of this type is present not only at intonations, but also in a look? In a "promising" sight and in a "mysterious" smile. But in that "illogicality" of emotions expressed by them also is shown, that neither the sight, nor a smile do not reflect their true intentions, and in general by no means with them are not connected. ENFp superb observes and analyzes another's emotions, but only not own. He can is as much as necessary frank and prizyvno to look at representatives of the opposite sex, but thus to not give at all to himself the report in the behaviour (ethics of emotions are realized at it subconsciously). Therefore for it there will be sincere and full unexpectedness a charge that the behaviour it gives an occasion for jealousy.
Only ISTp, his dual, is perceived with behaviour ENFp adequately. He sees any going or "unintentional" hint and perceives in that value in what it moves. Any illogicality in behaviour of ENFp ISTp does not observe? Sees only thin and beautiful ethical game. Even then, when ENFp with a charming spontaneity tries to explain any knowledges, ISTp it only touches. Peculiar ENFp the confused manner of a statement pleasantly weakens it and calms: it perfectly understands, what logic aspect of information ENFp ? It only the minor plan of attitudes, the main thing ethical aspect which behind all costs to these. Therefore the logic mess of ENFp the ISTp perceives as some kind of registration of its ethical game.
Thanks for posting that, Expat. I'm not like that, though. Not the way it says here. Probably because I've grown up in an ISTj country, with an ISFj Mum and an ISTp brother, in an ESTp class (aren't all teenagers ESTp?). You spend the first decade of your life being the dreamy, weird kid; the next decade you're the misfit who's constantly making stupid mistakes no one else seems to make; and during the third decade you're slooooowly improving to the point of being considered "almost normal". I'm in my fourth decade now, so I'm at the "astonishingly normal considering what a weird kid she used to be" stage.
So, THEORY: (some?) weak functions are strengthened automatically (?) if you grow up in an environment that has this as a strong(er) function. True/false? I'd say in Germany you don't get far without Ti. With a not-quite-so-bad Te one can bluff one's way along, though.
Examples? For instance, can we say that someone who has lack of appreciation in academics, theoretical subjects and even books in general to be weak in Ti? On the other hand, I have an ESFj friend who is very interested in Psychology to the extent that she buys extra college textbooks (no kidding!) to read even though they are not part of the curriculum. She is not particular about grades and she enjoys reading them for the sake of learning new things. Can I consider this an example of a Ti-seeking behavior?
I love books, and I love reading new things. There's even a stereotype that ENFps are "professional students" because we keep getting interested in new subject after new subject, wanting to learn about them. It is not true that people with Ti PoLRs are not interested in learning or books by a long shot.
It is about internal types of logic. When I see that, and I see it often right here in this forum, it makes my hair stand on end. When people say they KNOW something and it HAS to be true because it is logically obvious, that bugs me. If it's logically obvious, then IMO it's out there somewhere and you can see and touch it, so you shouldn't need to rely on internal logic anyway.
As for schooling, it depends on the subject. I loved learning about history, language, literature, etc. I hated studying about anything math-related. Particularly geometry. This is probably a Ti PoLR thing. I also really hate rules and regulations. I also always have this need to prove that the rule isn't fair/right/the best choice, and that might be a Ti PoLR thing.
lack of appreciation (for?) academics, theoretical subjects, and even books in general..... sounds a lot like a simplified SFQuote:
Originally Posted by eunice
(simplified meaning not actively pursuing dual-seeking nor hidden agenda)
(however, there are other ways that ds and ha can show themselves...soo...take it for whatever little it's worth)
ti polr manifest in a few ways, some of which are
* having difficulties accepting connections unless perceiving those connections themself
* disliking having to spell out the connections they do see, often preferring instead to let others see it for themselves
* sometimes a pointing of "the connection is there... it's there, why can't you see it???" without the ability to state what exactly it is that they are seeing
* sometimes making seemingly contradictory statements or holding seemingly contradictory beliefs
From what I can tell it means you are extremely critical to the reliability of information sources, and consequently vulnerable to others' expectations towards you to 'make do' with less than perfectly reliable information. It means wanting to have everything spelled out in detail.
Delta NF sets the stage for the 'perfectionist/idealist' quadra atmosphere. Alpha and beta skip steps to an understanding of matters, which basically means 'cheating' the intellectual game for personal benefit or long range considerations. In an intellectual context, Fi is all about rejecting such pragmatic jumps and trying to get at what the subject is about at it's core. Overwhelming as the whole truth is, this attitude mostly brings a sense of disappointment in ones capabilities to make sense of things, which the Te mindless-data-ordering function compliments perfectly. Together they bring about that 'perfection' which Ti/Fe deems to be unattainable. (although likewise Ti/Fe gives a deep personal understanding, which Fi/Te in turn does not believe in in the same particular sense)
From what I've been able to determine, Ti PoLR's exist on both the master and slave levels.
(to understand this better, imagine Ne as pinned between Ti and Fi, capable of progressing in either direction. left is to coding the intuition into a piece of knowledge that helps you inspire Fe based people, but is still unripe for building real 'tools' from, while right is to acknowledging the lacking quantifyable knowledge in the insight, and appealing to the Te-wielding part of society to fill you in on the details)
I'm not sure if what I'll be describing is Ti PoLR or anything important.
But IRL, when I ask a question, I dislike it when people don't explain it in detail, like elaborating or giving examples of what they're saying.
And it frustrates me when people just say, "blablabla, that's it, I don't know how to explain".
I'm sometimes like that, but I don't like it when people do that. It's incomplete and drives me crazy. Even worse if what they're saying sounds like "this is what I think, therefore this is logical".
Having a Ti PoLR = not interested in reading? I think that's very untrue, 'cause I love reading, almost anything that captures my interest for that moment. And if I don't get bored of it quickly enough, I'd stay on it for a long time.
Theories attract me, any new and out of the ordinary. I don't think I have a lack of appreciation of those things.
I think this makes sense. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
I don't know much about the whole PoLR or even what it stands for, but I can say that I definitely don't like being left in the dark over details. Everything must be told to me completely, otherwise I will start speculating as to exactly what it is that they are saying, and I will come up with multiple answers. Therefore I need more detail to narrow the options down to 1.
For example, if someone says "The scissors are in the drawer near the sink..." I'll usually ask which drawer exactly, rather than go rummaging through 4 or 5 drawers looking for it.
I am exactly the same way.Quote:
Originally Posted by KSpin
PoLR is actually very easy to understand. It is the conflict between two modes of thinking that one can exercise but that are not compatible between them. Since they are not compatible, no matter which one you use, the other will always contain invalid information.
That's why PoLR hits are so painful: we can understand right away our mistakes, but we are helpless at fixing them because that would cause a mistake in the creative function.
So basically Ti is like having an internal sense of logic and common sense, and taking for granted that something should be easily understood without going into details?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
I have never thought that there would be others who would be bothered by such issues. If those with Ti PoLR hadn't told me how they felt, I wouldn't have noticed it. I posted blog entries of my ENFj friend a while back, and I was surprised that it got negative reactions, presumably due to strong :Ti:-seeking. I was like reading his entries again thinking, "what had he written to get such a strong reaction?" :? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
An example of a Ti polr hit I involuntarily gave to an ENFp friend lately.
We were discussing about holidays.
He said about 3 minutes apart the following sentences:
"Rimini is mundane"
"Jesolo is like Rimini"
"Jesolo is only for families"
And I told him "You said Jesolo is like Rimini and Rimini is mundane and Jesolo is for families, but cities that are for families are not mundane, so there is a logical contradiction here"
now see, i might have noticed that in someone else (not necessarily in myself!!)Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
i might have said something like "so you think Rimni is only for families?" or "so you think mundane is only for families?"
or made some kind of narrative for/against Rimni being for families or something for/against munande being for families
these questions/stories would come seemingly out of the blue to the other person...
but for the life of me, i would not have been able to actually state it in one sentence
(or if i did finally get around to stating those connections, it would only have been after trying some...more roundabout, less direct..approach...like the questions/narratives above) (not intentionally being roundabout on it...just that it takes a lot of time/energy to figure out how to be more direct about it...and being EP my first thoughts are likely to pop out)
I said this about SEE's in another thread:
I'm generally good at finding and sorting through a bunch of information from various sources, getting a feel for the subject/concept, which sources are most reliable, and which information makes the most sense. I find that SEE's (and a couple of people who are either SEE or IEE) tend to ask me to do this for them more than any other type. I find out what they're trying to accomplish with the information, then find whatever information would be useful to them. If I give them a lot of information, I generally summarize the information and give them an example or analogy.Quote:
They also use me as a resource for information. If there's something they want to know about, they ask me because they know that even if I don't know anything about it, I'll dig up a bunch of information, sort through it and find what's useful and most likely accurate, and then organize it for them in a manner which makes sense to them.
Is this how ILI's fulfill their hidden agenda while covering for their PoLR?
Actually, the more I think about this, the less applicable to ISTp/ENFp duality I realize it is.
How would this necessarily be different from an IxTj being asked?
The way the information is presented.
Im not sure if a summary or example is a distinguishing factor between how Ti and Te leading types give information, but I do know that an SEE wants reliable information on call. I also notice that if my ENTj dad gives my ESFp sister information she'll get annoyed. It has to be that the giver of information is at her beck and call; I could see an INTp fitting that description more than an ENTj.
My boss is ENTj and she is amazing at explaining stuff... it's truly a talent, i think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
Ya know, I'm glad you brought this up because a lot of the :Te: i've seen is not sufficient enough for me. this is not the case with the ILIs on the forum.
I feel like I need to know more about this. I'm sure I do it enough times and hardly notice it. I find Ti PoLR in my case usually means saying something that I feel to be right and may even be correct, but logically makes little sense or has little backing. It's kind of annoying too because sometimes I feel it's an interesting idea or point, but because of my Ti PoLR I cannot explain it sufficiently in concrete terms so it is immediately discredited. At least that's how Ti PoLR appears from my point of view. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.
I don't know if it is as easy as that, PoLRs vary in strength, life experiences and such.
ESFps I've known have no structure to their work environment, esp as supervisors (in the non socionic sense). I want to give them structure (probably socionic related).
ENFps have wild ideas that change without a structure.
Males tend to be more logical and either want to or want help to create a system that works.
Good people skills, which also are important.
I'm pretty sure we need to pay attention to difference between Absolute vs Relative weaknees of a function.
Well this is Te if it's Te vs Ti, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyst Trevor
What's Te if it's Te vs Ti, Words?Quote:
Originally Posted by WordsWell this is Te if it's Te vs Ti, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyst Trevor
It's just a sentence, but hey, you're quoting facts like it's all that's important. Ti types tend to explain what it actually is rather than just the names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyst TrevorWhat's Te if it's Te vs Ti, Words?Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
Te - the information
Ti - the explanation of what it means, perhaps backed up with the names.
Ti is good at explaining things.
Easily disputed as it's just a sentence by you, but that sentence was Te.
Lost the will to debate it BTW :)
Thing is, with this forum, it's full of rather intelligent people, so I'm sure a lot of normal observations don't apply to these internet posts.
Ti is a comparison function; it you look at what you wrote and what you're writing to eliminate contradictions, than you're doing Ti because the end result is that what you said and are about to say match, so you're not being contradictory. You also notice this in others and what they write or say. By eliminating variables or information, they make systems.
When you're Ti PoLR, you can often make contradictory statements, realize that you've done so but ignore in fixing it because you don't want to appear that way to others. Anyone pointing out your contradictory statements is using Ti and offering up information to you through that function and causing you to either feel like they are helping you in strengthening that function, or pressuring your PoLR over time.
rantedy rant rant wheeeeeeee
Absolutely yes. I don't even really care for "the rule" to begin with, because no single rule I've come across has ever really encompassed everything it tries to do, no matter how hard people try to bend it. What really pisses me off is when people try to assert how their own self-made "rules" actually work in the real world, then when I point out the discrepancies between how the world works and what their rule stipulates they weasel their way out of it. People can become so painfully attached to the rules that they create about the world, and it's like they can't bear to give them up and instead have to force data into it, straining their spider web so hard until it rips apart although the person never knows that it's broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by octopuslove
What else annoys me about Ti valuers is that they like to build their own world in their head from the ground up, affixing their own basic starting points and situations to create an argument. This works fine so long as the system stays inside the individual's head, but when you try to apply it to the real world, there's always some way in which it doesn't quite fit. The issue then becomes that they don't even see how it doesn't fit: they just go along with the bias they have for their own head.
That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated. I've always been under the impression that the outer world is really just a giant playground of chaos where each infinitesimally small little part does what it does, and these small parts compound into larger parts and everything just grows out of an extrinsically unstructured environment. An ENFp friend of mine one said "truth is temporary," which I think is a good summary of everything here.
No. Ti does not have a monopoly on explanation of meaning, if I read that correctly. To me, what you are attributing to Ti is how NTs understand how things work over time, given their T and N functions. Both T functions are concerned with how things work and can be equally adept at explaining why.Quote:
Originally Posted by WordsIt's just a sentence, but hey, you're quoting facts like it's all that's important. Ti types tend to explain what it actually is rather than just the names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Analyst Trevor
Te - the information
Ti - the explanation of what it means, perhaps backed up with the names.
Ti is good at explaining things.
Easily disputed as it's just a sentence by you, but that sentence was Te.
Lost the will to debate it BTW :)
Thing is, with this forum, it's full of rather intelligent people, so I'm sure a lot of normal observations don't apply to these internet posts.
Well that's well explained....Quote:
Originally Posted by SkepticNo. Ti does not have a monopoly on explanation of meaning, if I read that correctly. To me, what you are attributing to Ti is how NTs understand how things work over time, given their T and N functions. Both T functions are concerned with how things work and can be equally adept at explaining why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
This is one of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics, but it's not your fault. Even the big name Socionists tend to disagree on the types of lots of famous people by flipping Ti and Te around relative to other Socionists. Jung made the distinction sound so simple, but then Socionics kind of messed it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
Te is not raw data. It's interesting though when Joy switched from self-typing as LIE to SLE...Although I didn't follow that transition, I suspect it's related to recognizing that being good at taking in the raw data around you and responding to it is Se, not Te.
Te is a rational function; to make it about perceiving data doesn't make any sense. You can define it as such, but then you have a sort of crummy system, in my opinion.
I think a better definition to use (and let's be realistic: We're simply deciding to use definitions for things; there is nothing intrinsic...it's a matter of choice) for Te is that it's the dynamic and extraverted aspect of thinking.
That is, Ti and Te are basically the same thing, but Ti is static (about a fixed timeless reality) and more concerned with the extent of systems and how everything relates, whereas Te is dynamic (about a progression, such a series of steps, ways to accomplish something, for example) and tends to relate more immediately to the specific external objects under discussion.
There are, interestingly, a number of people whom other's have typed LIE who seem to be good explaining things. When Expat was on the forum, people used think he was good at explaining things. A lot of Socionists think Richard Feynman is LIE (although the MBTI folk usually type him as ENTP). He was great at explaining things.
And a lot of the people on the forum who are typed by others as LII may have great ideas and make interesting statements, but I wouldn't say that they excel above others at explaining things.
No, actually most people are confused by Ti vs. Te, but it's not surprising and one can't really blame them.
When I ask my IEE roomate "why" sort of questions it seems to stall her and throw her into confusion. I like to understand how things work and she apparently doesn't think much of this. I've noticed that asking IEEs to provide their reasoning has a similar effect.
Fi has it's own set of "rules" or "values" which it subjugates the world to. This is not just a Ti conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts, and Ti as skirting round facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanThis is one of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics, but it's not your fault. Even the big name Socionists tend to disagree on the types of lots of famous people by flipping Ti and Te around relative to other Socionists. Jung made the distinction sound so simple, but then Socionics kind of messed it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
Te is not raw data. Everything thinks it is. It's interesting though when Joy switched from self-typing as LIE to SLE...Although I didn't follow that transition, I suspect it's related to recognizing that being good at taking in the raw data around you and responding to it is Se, not Te.
Te is a rational function; to make it about perceiving data doesn't make any sense. You can define it as such, but then you have a sort of crummy system, in my opinion.
I think a better definition to use (and let's be realistic: We're simply deciding to use definitions for things; there is nothing intrinsic...it's a matter of choice) for Te is that is the dynamic and extraverted aspect of thinking.
That is, Ti and Te are basically the same thing, but Ti is static (about a fixed timeless reality) and more concerned with the extent of systems and how everything relates, whereas Te is dynamic (about a progression, such a series of steps, ways to accomplish something, for example) and tends to relate more immediately to the specific external objects under discussion.
There are, interestingly, a number of people whom other's have typed LIE who seem to be good explaining things. When Expat was on the forum, people used think he was good at explaining things. A lot of Socionists think Richard Feynman is LIE (although the MBTI folk usually type him as ENTP). He was great at explaining things.
And a lot of the people on the forum who are typed by others as LII may have great ideas and make interesting statements, but I wouldn't say that they excel above others at explaining things.
No, actually most people are confused by Ti vs. Te, but it's not surprising and one can't really blame them.
Ones to know, ones to understand. I stand by my post, it works for me, cheers.
And I don't use the forum members for my typing purposes, I covered the why in my second last post (which isn't exhaustive).
Do you want justification or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by WordsWell that's well explained....Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic
Intuition; process, change from one state to another. With Ne, objective connection of thoughts, ideas, etc. With Ni, subjective connection of a stream of thoughts or ideas that lead to one another. With either, it is always a change from one to another; N is firmly based in this change in states and paired with T it can understand how states change logically. Te can be employed to achieve something, but independently it understands only that a series of logical steps are necessary for the objective realization of any goal; the irrational process, or the affect of a change in time, is the domain of N.
But I suppose you're more interested in why Te is also concerned with how things work? TBH Your post is far too general to give any specific rebuttal; Ti is concerned with 'explaining things'? This is difficult for me to interpret, especially since under that subsequent model of Te, the Te ego is a machine that cannot make anything of the facts.
I suppose my phrasing was also misleading, though, so I will clarify; Te has different concerns than Ti regarding how things work, but they are equal in that arena. For example, Te is primarily a function concerned with outer demonstration of logical validity; if a model can be shown to be applicable or valid in the outer world, Te is satisfied. It will no doubt accompany this demonstration of outer validity with a logical argument based in how the thing works under a set of real circumstances. In this manner it would be extremely adept at explaining how something works; the best example is found in classical physics, in the areas where we have energy inputs and assured energy outputs that can be proved through measurement and testing.
Ti is conversely concerned with inner logical validity, but that's a whole different topic and going into that would mean actually contributing to this thread and not policing it :biggrin:. But, to contribute minimally, I will say that if you want to talk about Ti POLR we must first speak of Fi, because it is the use of Fi that actively devalues Ti.
@Jonathan I think you're spot on in everything Te related, but your Ti description of 'how things relate' sounds N based to me, could you clarify?
Really? Where does he say this? I'd be curious on the quote. It's clear from the Jung essay that I read that he thinks of extraverted thinking as a form of thinking, not as raw facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
In fact, he seems to associate facts with extraverted sensing:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jung
I was just using forum members as a convenient example. My argument that Te <> facts does not rely on the typing of any forum members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
Anyhow, I didn't mean to make this into a personal issue; it's just a have a pet peeve with this thing people keep bringing up that "Te = facts." So I guess I automatically come out strongly when people say that. Nothing personal.
Te is facts; Se is only sense perception which is then conditioned by a judging function; a sense perception perceives objects as they are and the more attractive an object the more sense perception will want to acquire it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanReally? Where does he say this? I'd be curious on the quote. It's clear from the Jung essay that I read that he thinks of extraverted thinking as a form of thinking, not as raw facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
In fact, he seems to associate facts with extraverted sensing:
I was just using forum members as a convenient example. My argument that Te <> facts does not rely on the typing of any forum members.Quote:
Originally Posted by Words
Anyhow, I didn't mean to make this into a personal issue; it's just a have a pet peeve with this thing people keep bringing up that "Te = facts." So I guess I automatically come out strongly when people say that. Nothing personal.
Well of course, but the nature of the rules in question are very different. The "rules" that I find myself creating/noticing about the world are much more based intrinsically, having a more implicit and less tangible staticness and order rather than the order being, uhm, I guess more tangible. The difference here would be perceived externality vs perceived internality, if that makes any sense. Like, the kind of consistency I associate with Fi can't be measured in any real tangible way. It can only be felt, or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntalFi has it's own set of "rules" or "values" which it subjugates the world to. This is not just a Ti conception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
They are both subjective and they both try to fill in holes where information is incomplete. I remember my sister asking my LSI brother-in-law who was the president of the US at a certain time, which is a fact, but since he didn't really know, he didn't say "I don't know" instead he assumed, and was wrong.
Yeah pretty much, I think Ti PoLR's are very reluctant to speak and act in absolutes about things without sufficient sources to verify their points, and even than there's a feeling of reluctance towards classification as it counteracts with their more chaotic way of thinking (and in SEE's case, living).Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
They're, along with Fi bases to a point, extremely bothered when someone nit-picks at their illogical "errors" and "flaws", especially about things they regard as lacking significance to what they might be trying to accomplish.
They tend to regard arguments that are not based firmly in concrete reality with suspicion, I think. And they hate it when you cut up their arguments. They think it's cheating or something. I think they tend to ask "how do you know that" a lot.
They don't like absolutes, yeah, or at least, it's an explicit/implicit thing. They don't like explicit absolutes. Implicit absolutes are less absolute-y. They follow a rule, but the rule, being implicit, looks more like it conforms to each situation individually, when in reality it is internally consistent, just on a micro-level; it follows rules invisible to the naked eye.
The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.
Ti likes straight lines, and mature Ti-valuers will accept a line with a few slope changes as necessary. But Fi-valuers hate straight lines. They like curves.
What else about Ti-polr? They have trouble with theoretical entities where you have to think about it as a series of lines that change their slope. They don't like sets of rules (If x, y or z? z. If z, a or b? b) used to organize information.
Ever seen those charts where it has a set of outcomes at the bottom, and a series of boxes and each box has a choice where you can go like left or right, and the various choices lead you to different boxes? I'm not making sense, but they're hard to describe. Anyway, Ti is like those things, very binary thinking, very clean, very explicit. And Ti-polrs can't stand it, and can't stand systems that are organized that way.
Also, they probably can't stand this post? Why? Because it was built using top-down thinking. It was made using lines of reasoning like "Since Ti has characteristic X, it will manifest in thought pattern Y. Since Ti-polrs don't like Ti, they will dislike thought pattern Y." That's a poor example. But throughout this post, I reached all of my conclusions not by generalizing from my experience, but by taking general principles and working out where their conclusions "must" lead. Ti-polrs don't like that kind of thinking.
EDIT:
@Marie,
Deep. Ti wants coherence of the total system; each piece, "significant" or not, needs to fit with the whole, especially since Fe considers every aspect of communication, even the subtle and implicit ones, as part of the communication (good fit between Ti and Fe there). But Fi doesn't require coherence of the total system, and it naturally weights things with different significance or weight, which is a good fit with Te, which, as it appears, prefers to have thing in discrete sections (which can therefore obviously have unequal weight). This is also a good example of two ways of thinking (Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi), both of which completely make sense and are justified, but which are mutually exclusive.
Also, Ti = "as it appears" for that which has been experienced by not "justified" through deduction. Te = "theoretically" for that which has not been "proven" by experience.
Ti is a highly idealistic function, by the way. (Which is part of why Alpha Ti includes Ni id.) Just read Plato for a good example of Ti over Te: what we experience is totally irrelevant (devaluing Te and Se) 'cause it's constantly changing. What's important is unchanging knowledge arrived at via deduction. It's about what you can trust.
Ti = straight lines; Fi = curves; Te = arrows; Fe = hints (or, in someone else's metaphor--I can't remember who--either you highlight the path or you highlight everything around it. Either way you see the path; either way you see the things around it, but it's about what you focus on, what's positive; what's negative).
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by dolphinThis seems like it explains the "Fi is a bitch" thing I get from Alphas/Betas.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverchris9
It's because we can't process your curves as anything but really fucked-up lines. It's not that curves are bad. It's just that they're not lines, fucked-up or not. So trying to understand them as lines will just result in misunderstanding and frustration.
I'm sure. Lines are not very curvy, and if the line doesn't fit you because you've got curves, the line doesn't give a shit, which leaves you uncomfortable and constricted. On the other hand, if you've got a humongous hunk of dough, it's a lot easier to stamp it all out into equally sized linear figures (squares), and if you miss some because you didn't have a complicated enough shape, well... oh well!Quote:
The analogy works for this purpose. I'd say I feel the line is leaving out some information.
It must be frustrating when the lines won't admit that they can't fit life's curves. I don't understand how Ti works with Ni.
I thought about this a lot last night, and I kinda came to conclude that not only does Fi not have lines like Ti does, but Fi doesn't even have a shape of its own. As an internal IE, the form of an Fi structure can't be explicitly known, but it can be hinted at depending on the information it's dealing with. In a strictly literal sense, the only thing absolute about Fi is impossible to know because its shape is constantly determined by the data it's taking in.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverchris9
(Massive Ne/Si dump coming up, sorry in advance)
Say we have a rubber band. For the sake of comparison, let's say that this rubber band has no true shape of its own. Sure it has a couple specifics to it, like the material or whatever, but it's such a malleable entity that you can't really say that it's of one specific shape. If you lay this rubber band on a table, then you take a finger or a foreign object and push the rubber band on one side, you change its current shape. You can pull it, twist it, tie it in a knot, and its curves will be different depending on each physical iteration. But the rubber band doesn't change at its core every time something new is introduced, since the material doesn't inherently change.
I've come to see Fi as something akin to this rubber band in that it has no shape other than the shapes that everything else makes of it. Depending on what external phenomenon/data are present in the Fi mindset, the "shape" that the framework takes changes to fit the existence of the new points. This is what seems so inconsistent about Fi to Ti valuers because it's a malleable system that can't be directly looked at, which means it has no measurable consistency other than to the individual who experiences it.
This is the kind of "squishiness" that I associate with internal IEs in general. Ne/Ni/Fe/Fi data/structures don't really have shapes of their own, and they can only be determined by the external data/structures that they deal with.
If we think about Fe information as having the same sort of "squishiness," then it makes sense that Fe datum can be fitted into external, lined-out Ti frameworks depending on how malleable each datum really is. It seems to me that points of data for Fe/Ti valuers have no inherent shape to them, kinda like a chunk of Silly Putty that can be shaped around at a whim. Since a lot of (all?) Fe data as it exists by itself without an extrinsic classification doesn't have a strict form, it can be shaped and molded (within its perceived limits) to fit the external classification system of one's own choosing.
In a sense, Ti gives staticness to Fe by fixing it with a form, and Te gives dynamics to Fi by constantly changing its form. I haven't thought more about this point, something I just came up with and like the sound of it. May expand on it later.
I would love to hear from other people what they think of this analogy/description.
The way I see Te vs Ti wrt to explaining things:
Both Te and Ti egos like explaining things (in particular Te/Ti doms), but in different ways with different emphasis. A Ti-type's explanation has historically been difficult for me to understand and usually does not address key issues I am waiting to hear about. I do a lot better with Te-types' explanations.
Uhm, naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon
I find that Ti-POLRs are unable to conceptualize properly.
Instead of creating a rule that accounts for variations that may be encompassed by the concept/rule, Fi-valuers create an "inferior" rule
and instead constructs a lot of exceptions when the rule doesn't apply "because the reality is always different"...
Well in reality they just suck at understanding and creating rules/concepts that includes all necessary information.
People say of Ti-egos that their explanations are long and full of useless information. Sorry but if you would care to understand its importance in relation to the conceptualized form you would be able to use rules as proper rules and not just abstract statements.
Then Te types come and act like assholes until the Fi type bitches about it, without constructing any kind of Ti framework.
lol so are Ti egos then, because I find exceptions to their rules all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by plotter
Ti = a president Te = a TV Fi = an apple Fe = an apricotQuote:
Originally Posted by silverchris9
I like this game, I think the way you use words that only have personal metaphoric meaning is really cool :D
it's hard to clarify the difference between 'the rule' and all the rules in a :Ti: sense. to me, the former is some kind of implicit form (pretty sure Ni influences this) that governs every manifestation of the latter. it's like, you could look at every linguistic rule of the sentences here, then abstract them into an algebraic form whose premises would give a shadow of 'the rule.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
I get how Ti-polrs can find these exceptions, because EPs view experience as compiled moments, with the Te sequence never being complete, so the behavior is more of a necessity than a weakness/strength.
could you give an example of one of these rules being formed?Quote:
Well of course, but the nature of the rules in question are very different. The "rules" that I find myself creating/noticing about the world are much more based intrinsically, having a more implicit and less tangible staticness and order rather than the order being, uhm, I guess more tangible. The difference here would be perceived externality vs perceived internality, if that makes any sense. Like, the kind of consistency I associate with Fi can't be measured in any real tangible way. It can only be felt, or something.
like I alluded to above, I think Ni gives Ti a more standalone form. alpha NTs are very contextual with their systems, they acknowledge the rule, but are more focused on the proportion between different aspects of the moving picture of involved dynamics. Ni and Ti are tracking involved objects, nodes of vibration that imply something about each other and must be removed from their given context to be properly defined. the governing system is platonic, because the validity of its rules doesn't hinge on what object manifests at this or that time; merely that their interactions possess absolute symmetry. 'you follow the script whether you understand it or not.'Quote:
Originally Posted by silverchris9
Well, Socionics itself works as a Ti system formation (whenever I say "rules" in this context I really just mean a system constructed out of thought that's meant to be a representation of the world in some way). Both Aleksei, and here Skeptic I suppose, are alluding to the idea that Socionics as a construct is made before anything is actually fitted into it, and phenomena that are observed as being part of this classification somehow are placed in after the fact. This later classification eventually builds to the idea that all this talk of Fe and Ti and everything only has meaning on a personal level, where the meaning is dependent on whatever system you're using. So they (seemingly artificially) create their own definitions for things, then place the observed phenomena into those definitions afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
Bringing this back to the Ti PoLR talk, this whole process of system > phenomena/noumena seems wholly backwards to me. My preferred means of thinking about Socionics, or anything else I guess, is for the observed phenomena themselves to take center stage, and have any means of externally classifying or systematizing the phenomena come after the data has been (sufficiently) gathered. What does happen, though, is that as more data comes to me, my mind will create a sort of gestalted "feeling" that comes as a consolidation of all the various data points in question. I'd hypothesize that the nature of the internal IEs as being more "noumenal" than "phenomenal" would result in the F function information being interpreted as feelings (information not received through/pertaining to the physical senses.)
By how things relate, I just meant the validity within a structure when viewed statically. I didn't mean viewing possible connections between different things, which I agree has an N flavor. I think your view of Te and Ti makes a lot more sense than a lot of the other views I'm hearing on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skeptic
...although the idea people have come up with Fi as curved relative to straight-line Ti is interesting. I think actually that idea can apply to Fe relative to Te as well.
All this talk about :Ti: being anything about "the rules" is sickening (although I guess LSI's would prefer it to "laws").
Fully differentiated Filatova :Ti:-PoLR Quotes: (May decide to revamp the other PoLR threads in the future)
IEE
Weak in administrative functions such as organization of work schedules, writing instructions, reports and the like.
Have trouble restraining themselves to certain boundaries.
Does not accept anything predetermined.
Difficulty in logical analysis.
Cannot sit and meticulously do what is necessary, instead preferring to bounce a multitude of ideas off those around them.
Inability to analyze things deeply
Pay attention to the many minute details while failing to grasp the big picture
SEE
Difficulty with logic
Not easy to decide what is needed and what can be sacrificed in a given system.
Reluctant to accept objective basic laws.
Cannot give themselves a reasonable explanation for their impulsive actions.
Completely sure of themselves even if doing a job that is completely unsuitable for them.
If told it is better for them to work on something else, they will either not understand, not hear, or not believe it.
Would this be a good example of Te?Quote:
Originally Posted by VoisI think Te and Se are both about "facts," in a way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa33
Te: external dynamics of objects
Se: external statics of objects
they are just different kinds of facts. For example:
Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).
Now, for on topic discussion...
I know a guy who is (I'm 99.999% positive) SEE. He hates labels (like preppy, emo, etc), categories, and he flipped shit when I explained to him what socionics was, thinking that by describing someone with a type, you are putting them in a box that limits their personality, etc. etc.
I see where he's coming from with all this, but I don't think he understands that labels exist to describe, not box you in (though they can do that if taken too seriously).
EDIT: he also throws around the words "in which" and "therefore" in his sentences when he talks about politics, and doesn't seem to understand that there are only certain places where those words belong (structure of sentence = Ti, no?).
The Way in which he describes my actions and what they could mean indicates Te: external dynamics of objects
My boyfriend observed a very interesting thing in me while reading my online posts. He said, "honey, it seems as though that when you write, you do so from the place of authority; you drop your introvert's mask and the screen is like a buffer and a safety zone for you; I am the safety zone for you behind the screen because I have the ability to find the words to say what I want and sound how I want."
you people don't honestly think it's IxTjs that go around calling people nerd, emo, jock, etc, do you.
... :indifferent:
If you're implying that Te has more in common with Se than it does with other IM elements (because they're both "external...objects"), or equating "external...objects" with facts, I think that's a bit misleading. External/internal is really just a convenient grouping of ST vs. NF so that Augusta could uniquely define each IM element via three dichotomies. Abstract vs. involved (NT vs. SF) would work just as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
These are basically the same kinds of information. The only differences are that one uses units of measurement, and one happens to be describing something that's moving. That has nothing to do with dynamic in the Socionics sense. We could also remove the units of measurement: "That car is going fast!" That doesn't make it Te or dynamic either, anymore than noticing "It just stopped" causes a transition from dynamic to static IM elements. This is getting silly, but it bears pointing out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
I agree with this. I don't think I agree with your way of looking at it all the way (mainly in that I think the IM elements have to do with some sort of patterns or aspects of reality, which could have relevance in computer science, not just biology, and that I think our brains are probably more alike than different, and thus capable of simulating the experiences of others if we really try), but this far I agree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
i associate J functions with facts... Je is about epistemically unprobematic facts whereas Ji is about epistemically challenging facts (i.e. questions or theses that require mental effort to be answered)... the epistemic challenge is what invites a person to make a shortcut to an answer through "subjective" reasoning.
however, in another sense the following holds:
Accepting: epistemic challenge is not confronted
Creating: epistemic challenge is confronted
when the challenge and the confrontation don't coincide, the function is Diffuse, i.e. an agent of arbitrarity and chaos.
i'd say it's more like:Quote:
Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).
Se: the car
Te: is moving at 100 km/hour
the P function signifies the entity that the fact is expressed of.
I conceptualize it differently with neither Ji element being more explicit or implicit. For me there is symmetry inherent to the model and Ti and Fi accomplish essentially same task. I call Fi "personal" and Ti "impersonal" rather than static or more explicit. May be because Ti is impersonal it gives you this sort of colder, more rigid, static-like feeling? While Fi being personal seems more squishy and formless? I don't think of Ti as static because whatever a Ti-valuer considers true will evolve with life experience. The internal worldview that Ti builds is constantly being structured and restructured (at least for all healthy Ti types).Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
I've had more issues in classes taught by Te professors. I always had a feeling that they won't re-adjust the course material to fit the understanding of their students. They would tell you what you need to know but not really concern with helping to shape your understanding of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon
I don't think this forming a model then trying to fit observables into it has anything to do with Ti in itself. If you read through Aleksei's thread you'll see several Beta posters arguing with him that this approach is wrong, though Beta is Ti-valuing too. The gestalted "feeling" I can relate to as well. When everything is coherent and making sense it actually makes the Ti-user feel good, but I think if anything this feeling might have to do with the reward system of the brain and is probably not related to the jungian F functions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
Yes, I don't like this description too and find it can be highly misleading as the word "rules" has other connotations. Next thing you know it is equated to "laws" to then prescribe Ti-egos some sort of administrative/legalistic flair which has nothing to do with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by octopuslove
This is the right track, Vois! However, here's my opinion:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vois
Se: This is a car. This is red. This is movement.
Te: The car is moving at 100 km/hour. This car is red.
The idea is that Static is analytic and Dynamic is synthetic, not necessarily movement, but a temporary fact (something that does not make part of the idea, it depends on time). Read Kant's distinction between analytic/synthetic and you get the idea, both Aushra and DarkAngelFireWolf69 (at least) recognized this distinction in Static/Dynamic, in case you need some official backup.
"The car is red" - it's Dynamic, synthetic. It is a phenomenon, that color is neither inherent nor mandatory in the car, it is so in the moment of observation. A different thing is when you say "this is the red cross" - that's identification again, Static and Se: the color makes part of the concept of the subject, you can't have the red cross in blue. To exemplify you further:
- time 0, a red car: Se: the red car; Te: the car is red;
- time 1, the car is repainted: Se: not the red car; Te: the car is not red.
See the difference? Te deals with the changes, not with the identity with the objects, therefore the car may remain the same, but Se does deal with the identity based on specific properties, if they change, the identity is not the same anymore, it can't work in time.
---
I once used an example (perhaps express slightly differently): two horses, a poor skinny one that won all contests so far against normal horses, and a strong and healty steed that you know nothing about. Which one is gonna win the contest?
- Se: the steed, the strength is in itself, it is impossible for that jade to win since it is weak by construction;
- Te: the jade, it always won, facts speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how they look, there's no such thing as strong and weak, but how they perform (facts), thing that you can't tell in advance.
The rule may be correct, but it is tied up with assumptions that require a lot of work to extinguish. Notably, most of these assumptions are untested Ti postulates offered by weak Ti people. Strong Ti people are driven to eliminate these assumptions, in part due to a sense or responsibility and in part, due to a sense of personal guilt for not knowing better. To be sure, the stronger your function, the more guilt you feel over its misuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galenrantedy rant rant wheeeeeeee
Absolutely yes. I don't even really care for "the rule" to begin with, because no single rule I've come across has ever really encompassed everything it tries to do, no matter how hard people try to bend it. What really pisses me off is when people try to assert how their own self-made "rules" actually work in the real world, then when I point out the discrepancies between how the world works and what their rule stipulates they weasel their way out of it. People can become so painfully attached to the rules that they create about the world, and it's like they can't bear to give them up and instead have to force data into it, straining their spider web so hard until it rips apart although the person never knows that it's broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by octopuslove
What else annoys me about Ti valuers is that they like to build their own world in their head from the ground up, affixing their own basic starting points and situations to create an argument. This works fine so long as the system stays inside the individual's head, but when you try to apply it to the real world, there's always some way in which it doesn't quite fit. The issue then becomes that they don't even see how it doesn't fit: they just go along with the bias they have for their own head.
That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated. I've always been under the impression that the outer world is really just a giant playground of chaos where each infinitesimally small little part does what it does, and these small parts compound into larger parts and everything just grows out of an extrinsically unstructured environment. An ENFp friend of mine one said "truth is temporary," which I think is a good summary of everything here.
I see what you mean, but I think this is more related to alpha :Ti:. Beta :Ti: on the whole seems to work a bit more holistically, in the sense that separate systems can be merged if their premises are symmetrical; whereas alpha :Ti: is more fixated on the content in these systems (abstract statics are weird kinds of boundaries).Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
I definitely agree about the F function thing, because most of my conclusions stem from apperception and momentary impressions; it's just the core premises of my ideas that keep things aligned.Quote:
Bringing this back to the Ti PoLR talk, this whole process of system > phenomena/noumena seems wholly backwards to me. My preferred means of thinking about Socionics, or anything else I guess, is for the observed phenomena themselves to take center stage, and have any means of externally classifying or systematizing the phenomena come after the data has been (sufficiently) gathered. What does happen, though, is that as more data comes to me, my mind will create a sort of gestalted "feeling" that comes as a consolidation of all the various data points in question. I'd hypothesize that the nature of the internal IEs as being more "noumenal" than "phenomenal" would result in the F function information being interpreted as feelings (information not received through/pertaining to the physical senses.)
yeah, I figured this could yield conflicting views. see, when I think of "the rule" or whatever, it isn't something that exists out there; it's inherent to the laws of thought, the design and intent of any system; and the fluid expression of said system defines "the rule" to me. I don't think external structures should be imposed, that's a contradiction anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by octopuslove
overall, I've found this attitude prominent in beta groups, as far as social rules go. it's tacit, like the personal/moral boundaries of delta, and governed by the energy field of each person; so you either 'get' what to do or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
Get off my case and stop namedropping me. Just stop dude.
Actually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by plotter
I guess not. Where have you head that?Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon
I think we have the same idea in mind, just with different vocabulary. What occurs to me now is that "static" may not refer to the staticness of the system in general, considering how formless/malleable Fi is, but rather that it provides staticness to the corresponding Je functions by grounding them with meaning/context. Otherwise I'm kinda starting to lose grip on "static" or "dynamic" having any real meaning other than in a temperament scheme.Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
Could be, I imagine it'd be more of an Alpha Ti deal. With both of their object functions being internal (Ne and Fe, malleable, squishy, etc blah blah), it seems like they'd have little difficulty turning things into just variables and working with external frameworks (Si and Ti both reinforcing each other as external IEs). Or something. Betas would be grounded in more explicitly observable points of data/holistic contexts a la strrrngs description.Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
What I'm noticing here is that the coherency of a system and the good feeling are separate entities from how you described it. The status of the system causes a feeling, which isn't so much a gestalt as it is a reaction, unless I'm misunderstanding something. For Fi, or at least for me, the system and the feeling are the same thing. Points of data are taken in, and at the same time they shape the noumenal structure in whatever way. Then if you ignore the points of data and instead just take note of the structure's resulting shape, that shape would be the sort of "gestalt" feeling I'm referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
As a more concrete example, I've done a bit of metacognitive analysis and came up with some interesting points. I find that whenever I stare off into space, when I'm not actively trying to process or deal with information, my eyes will subconsciously move themselves so that the information received from my entire field of vision "feels" the best. By this I mean that my eyes/brain will scan my environment for fields of colors, shapes, discernible objects, etc. Then, still at the subconscious level, it seems my brain takes all of the things in that field of vision and somehow synthesizes it all down to a "feeling," an actual emotion that I can understand.
Admittedly, "rules" was a terrible choice of word for what I was trying to explain, lol. I'll just drop that part of the argument until I can explain it better, if ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
I don't know about explanations; but my LSI stepdad can talk forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnonActually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by plotter
see, this is what I'm still trying to differentiate, because I relate very strongly to everything concerning gestalt feelings, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
it might even have something to do with aristocratic quadras, given that the external field complements the internal; one could only justify a feeling of congruence via an extrinsic spectrum.
from a beta pov, I often find myself reading over something and referencing the different aspects of my subjective system as it manifests its own; symmetry in the measurement then seals the boundaries for an entire process to streamline, usually in images or metaphors, as a confirmation of the structure's premises, etc.
what you're describing seems a bit more objectively located, and through a natural evolution, brought to a state of inner rest, the implicit boundaries of said process finding resonance.
odd, this is what I find myself doing a lot. it's some kind of peripheral monitoring of sound and form, 'not looking in order to see things moving,' and the lateral motion recalibrates the borders of my perception. internal elements are what they are, I guess lol.Quote:
As a more concrete example, I've done a bit of metacognitive analysis and came up with some interesting points. I find that whenever I stare off into space, when I'm not actively trying to process or deal with information, my eyes will subconsciously move themselves so that the information received from my entire field of vision "feels" the best. By this I mean that my eyes/brain will scan my environment for fields of colors, shapes, discernible objects, etc. Then, still at the subconscious level, it seems my brain takes all of the things in that field of vision and somehow synthesizes it all down to a "feeling," an actual emotion that I can understand.
Sounds like you're translating your Ti structure into a much more malleable Ni "structure," allowing it to more fluidly transmute itself into the other. I imagine in an Si mind-frame these boundaries between structures would already be sealed off the instant they were created.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
The difference I'm finding between what you're talking about and what I'm explaining is that I can't analyze my own structure by itself. The structure can only be hinted at by the points around it. This probably does sound like something Ni/Se can relate to as well, but the key difference would be information input vs. output, however that can really be measured.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, could you expand on it a bit?Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
This sounds like a more strictly information input scheme than it is a means of information synthesis, so it's not quite the same thing but it's pretty close, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by strrrng
About the word "Rules"
I just thought we used "rules" as a substitute for what we really meant because we are lazy, because personally I dislike, rules, laws, and the like.
When I speak of "rules" I mean an abstracted version of reality (or fiction) with two or more "objects" and their relations to eachother descibed in such a way, that when you change something with one of the objects, a change must occur to either the described relationm, or the other object, in such a way that the total sum is the same.
Or something like that
right, because the implied Fi boundaries would define the expansion of Si's... I'll clarify this more below.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
it probably also has to do with the fact that you're static and I'm dynamic. I can't analyze the structure of my perceptions' movement, but it always remains very aligned; Ti structures I can suspend more, much like I'd expect you to be able to do with Si.Quote:
The difference I'm finding between what you're talking about and what I'm explaining is that I can't analyze my own structure by itself. The structure can only be hinted at by the points around it. This probably does sound like something Ni/Se can relate to as well, but the key difference would be information input vs. output, however that can really be measured.
this would probably imply the input/output of information as at least partially dependent on ego/super-id functions.
well if I'm visualizing delta functions from an NF pov, then the Fi structure is that implicit pulse, circumscribed by the subject; Ne is its scalar field, the different forms the rubber band can take in being bent. implied by this (contraction-dilation), is a sequence of the points/bends ordered by the parameters of its observable movement (expansion-gradation); thus you have a predictable measure of how a person melds their essential form in different situations.Quote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, could you expand on it a bit?
yeah, it is; but I view it as an a priori necessity for synthesis, clarify the lens before presuming to see.Quote:
This sounds like a more strictly information input scheme than it is a means of information synthesis, so it's not quite the same thing but it's pretty close, lol.
IMO this is a really good metaphor for extroversion vs introversion in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by CILiIf Info Were GluttonyQuote:
Originally Posted by WorkaholicsAnon
:Te: = A buffet line. (More food than you need, but quick and easy to pick and choose what you want.)
:Ti: = A full-course dinner. (Exactly the food you need, but you've gotta sit through the whole thing.)
Chris: I'm not sure that Te is an 'arrow' exactly. It just probably feels that way to you cause you have Te polr. =p
But I liked most of what you said in your post.
Not sure if this post has much use, but I suspect one of my thesis advisors was Ti POLR; it was often difficult to have a satisfying meeting with him.
For example, he seemed to have a fundamental distrust for classification schemes. I had a suite of igneous rocks that I wanted to correlate with a broader (aerially) assemblage on the basis of petrology; that is, the type of rock (i.e. tonalite, granite, granodiorite, etc.). It's a pretty straight-forward task, but it relies on making an accurate determination of what the rocks actually are. For that, you plot the normalized proportions of three end-members - quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase - on a ternary diagram, and the sample will fall into one field or another.
Complications arise when metamorphism or alteration changes the chemical composition of the minerals. Alkali feldspar and plagioclase are end members, but form a solid solution series - so removing calcium and adding sodium or potassium can change your tonalite into a granodiorite, which is a problem if you are doing correlations. Additionally, each rock type has a different origin, so you want to make sure you're effecting the classification scheme to its full potential.
When I brought this problem to my advisor, his response was, "it doesn't matter!" What do you mean it doesn't matter? He refused to acknowledge there was any point in distinguishing between one type from another, and when pressed about it, couldn't explain why it was important to make any distinctions at all. It almost seemed like he wanted to rewrite the entire philosophy behind the practice of classification itself. He did not want to face the particulars of where hard data, arbitrary distinctions, and simplified approximations collided.
When I went to my other advisor, he saw right away what my problem was, and gave me a plan of attack in less than two minutes, no fuss, no muss (which was determine the protolith through metamorphic grade, relict textures, and geochemistry). Not even a mention regarding the classification scheme.
yes, according to a lot of posts I've seen it sounds like Ti types are stuck blindly following rules meanwhile Te types are stuck mindlessly absorbing facts :/ which is sadQuote:
Originally Posted by Ashton
I think so, I took the word "static" in its literal interpretation but it looks like you meant it in context of theory, so we're on the same page here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
From what I understand their Ti definitions and categories are tied to some concrete variables while in Beta Ti is connected with some unified conceptual framework (Ni). That actually explains why I've observed Alpha NTs come up with theories and idea which they would treat as if they were something completely new, while for me it simply looked like a slight variation of an old concept. Then I'd become perplexed why they got all excited about it lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
I've read Fi-valuers describing Fi as a sort of feeling of resonance or harmony when some information coming in from outside feels just right to you. The feeling of "coherency" that Ti gives I think is analogous to it. At least that is how I see it, once again basing from my premise that there is symmetry in this model. One big difference seems to be that while judging what resonates and what doesn't, Fi is striving to maximize the personal component while Ti is striving to take this component to nil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
I don't treat F functions as actual feelings per se because that doesn't seem to correspond to what can be observed of real people (i.e. types 'low' on F don't seem to be deficient on actual feelings or have lower feeling capacity, etc.) I mean it has been dubbed as "feelings" as per Jung but there seems to be some other modifier in effect here.
Sounds like NeFi. I cannot relate to this. I'm usually absorbed into my own thoughts, then at some point something might click together and it would just feels right though if somebody asks me to describe why it feels right I wouldn't be able to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
I've used the word "principles" in past as opposed to Fi "values" - some basic premises that on individual level one considers to be true - but that doesn't quite hit the mark either. "Rules" imho is a rather loaded term to use which can lead to misinterpretations in terms of actual behaviors that follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
This makes a lot of sense, given how a lot of the Alpha NTs on here like to pass off other people's arguments as "oh he uses a different system, there's no way to reconcile it."Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
I think the main difference here is that the same feeling of resonance in Fi is, as you're saying with Ni, it's intangible. Fi can't point to something concrete and say "that feels right" because there's no solid cohesion to point to. I could maybe point to a few of the more important points being taken into account, but that doesn't say anything about the entire coherency. All I can really do is take in all the points of data that I can and determine whether or not this field of vision is "right" or "wrong." Not even "right" or "wrong" in a sense of punishment or reward, but just in judging whether or not a scene "makes sense" or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
I agree, this is a bad habit to break that should really be broken. It'd be best to just treat them as external/phenomenal vs internal/noumenal.Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
Oh it's Ne+Fi out the ass, lol. I talked with Riddy (Ne-ENTp) about the same thing, and he does the same sort of thing where he looks for entire fields of color/shape/whatever. The difference in his case is that his resulting consolidated field isn't really noumenal, rather he said something along the lines of the consolidated image representing a physical "situation" or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
^Ti polr in action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galenrantedy rant rant wheeeeeeee
Absolutely yes. I don't even really care for "the rule" to begin with, because no single rule I've come across has ever really encompassed everything it tries to do, no matter how hard people try to bend it. What really pisses me off is when people try to assert how their own self-made "rules" actually work in the real world, then when I point out the discrepancies between how the world works and what their rule stipulates they weasel their way out of it. People can become so painfully attached to the rules that they create about the world, and it's like they can't bear to give them up and instead have to force data into it, straining their spider web so hard until it rips apart although the person never knows that it's broken.Quote:
Originally Posted by octopuslove
What else annoys me about Ti valuers is that they like to build their own world in their head from the ground up, affixing their own basic starting points and situations to create an argument. This works fine so long as the system stays inside the individual's head, but when you try to apply it to the real world, there's always some way in which it doesn't quite fit. The issue then becomes that they don't even see how it doesn't fit: they just go along with the bias they have for their own head.
That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated. I've always been under the impression that the outer world is really just a giant playground of chaos where each infinitesimally small little part does what it does, and these small parts compound into larger parts and everything just grows out of an extrinsically unstructured environment. An ENFp friend of mine one said "truth is temporary," which I think is a good summary of everything here.
seriously, this is what i notice about them. they totally overreact to Ti...this is the main characteristic of Ti polr. they claim that Ti is rigid....when really it's that they don't understand what Ti egos are talking about.
Well to be fair, Ti is rigid lol. At least when compared to Fi. You're right though, if a Ti ego (well, Ti subtype really) and I agree on something there's not going to be much difficulty in communicating, and vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze
it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GalenWell to be fair, Ti is rigid lol. At least when compared to Fi. You're right though, if a Ti ego (well, Ti subtype really) and I agree on something there's not going to be much difficulty in communicating, and vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze
it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.
like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.
get it?
yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by labcoat
On the contrary; despite being a :Ti:-ego, I believe I use :Ti: quite rigidly. That is, I construct a framework for interpreting the world based, to the extent possible, on basic, a priori principles. Given the logical, rather than empirical, foundation of my framework, I rarely need to re-evaluate it; instead, I can simply trust any inference which can be logically derived from that framework and apply it in a real-world situation. Similarly, when confronted by a novel issue, I never rely upon my intuition, but instead construct a logical framework which can deal with that general group of issues. In both cases, my conclusions will be rigid because they are based on a rigid logical system; I need no flexibility because of the correctness of that system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze
Even Jung struggled to speak about a function in isolation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blazeit is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galen
it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.
like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.
get it?
But I'll try too ;)
Ti leading: flexible as an accepting function.
Ti in creative function is not acceptable while it's working.
How does this work?
Meh... ISTj... it doesn't fit in how things are done..that fits with proper explanation, ok.
ENTp...no it's wrong. *tomorrow* yeah what about this!
Meh, others can batter in with explanatos.
Ti is the framework itself, and it is the tendency to use frameworks. pointing out that not everything fits into frameworks...they are only guidelines. furthermore, there are lots and lots of frameworks, they intersect, overlap, and sometimes are in opposition. the working of all these frameworks is a flexible process.Quote:
Originally Posted by BegonerOn the contrary; despite being a :Ti:-ego, I believe I use :Ti: quite rigidly. That is, I construct a framework for interpreting the world based, to the extent possible, on basic, a priori principles. Given the logical, rather than empirical, foundation of my framework, I rarely need to re-evaluate it; instead, I can simply trust any inference which can be logically derived from that framework and apply it in a real-world situation. Similarly, when confronted by a novel issue, I never rely upon my intuition, but instead construct a logical framework which can deal with that general group of issues. In both cases, my conclusions will be rigid because they are based on a rigid logical system; I need no flexibility because of the correctness of that system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze
the process of using frameworks interchangeablely and being to apply multiple frameworks to various phenomena is inherently not a rigid process by any means. if one is familiar with a lot of frameworks, then the person has quite a bit of understanding to work with. to me, the word rigid is better associated with static than it is a specific information element.
Ti polr focuses on the framework itself instead of the process...and chooses Fi, since it is better understood by the person. so Ti polr doesn't really understand multiple frameworks nor does it want to. the main aspect of Ti polr is discussing how Ti concepts are rigid. Ti polr thinks they're rigid because of their limited understanding.
also, some frameworks are crap.
well i guess. understanding the theoretical components of a framework takes time. but applying frameworks is sort of like throwing a grid on top of one small aspect of phenomena, not the whole ball of wax. the grid will account for many aspects of a phenomenon....and probably there is another framework that can explain said phenomenon nearly as well. it's more like a way of understanding things. some things cannot be understood yet. or fall outside of a framework. but when a framework fits, it fits. overtime, new frameworks evolve that explain things differently. thus is the evolution of ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by WordsEven Jung struggled to speak about a function in isolation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaze
But I'll try too ;)
Ti leading: flexible as an accepting function.
Ti in creative function is not acceptable while it's working.
How does this work?
Meh... ISTj... it doesn't fit in how things are done..that fits with proper explanation, ok.
ENTp...no it's wrong. *tomorrow* yeah what about this!
Meh, others can batter in with explanatos.
having said all this i really don't see how Ti is all that rigid. it can only be used rigidly. or be perceived that way by folks who don't understand the information.
moreover, LII is flexible in that they know what they know. they know what frameworks explain what phenomena best and they stay away from any frameworks they are not familiar with. you can be sure if LII is applying a framework, it is one that they have looked at in a lot of detail and they usually are not wrong. the flexibility of LII comes in where they will not apply a framework that they have not yet understood completely. in this way, they only use frameworks with a high level of validity. they will also know clearlly and in detail why the framework is valid.
Sounds about right, both the IEE and SEE parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crispy
Maybe this is about the difference between being Ti-base and Ti-creative, but I would never be able to have that conviction to any belief/framework/rule. Then again I'm not certain I am the type I claim I am either...Quote:
Originally Posted by Begoner
You've "all" said stuff about Ti-polr not liking categorizations or something like that, but I think that would apply to more people than just Ti-polr. Maybe it's just about Fi>Ti.
One thing that came to mind just now was a recent conversation with a friend of mine that I think is pretty strong on the Fi.
It started with a discussion about "sexual deviations" :whistle: and suspecting such things of people and went on to general categorization.
Well, basically this guy told me that it is devaluing to X if you think X belong in category Q (that is established by "objective" criteria), when said category is thought less of by "the general public"*.
I on the other hand said that the fact that you suspect X of belonging to category Q could never in itself be devaluing. The devaluing of X must be seperate from the categorization according to me, since the categorization is just an aknowledgement that X fulfills these criterias that we've established makes category Q.
So what do you Ti-polr think of this? Or maybe Fi-valuers in general:confused:
*not sure if he actually meant that or he just meant what he thinks less of.
Huh? :confused: Suppose people can be verbally devalued in some way; then there must exist a statement S which is sufficient to devalue them. Let the group Q consist of people to whom the statement S applies. Logically, therefore, by stating that an individual belongs to Q, you are also asserting that S applies to him, and are implicitly devaluing him. I suspect you intended that certain restrictions be imposed on the set of possible categories; for example, you might restrict this set to not include properties pertaining directly to a person's character.Quote:
Originally Posted by plotter
I think so. As I understand it for alpha NTs Ne counterbalances Ti by sweeping in and suggesting that there are other possibilities open, that there exists certain open-endedness, which would weight in more heavily with Ne-leading ILEs and Ne-LIIs. I've noticed that with Ti-LIIs it can be very difficult to convince them otherwise, as with less Ne their Ti frameworks are more rigid making them more set on their judgments and opinions (same thing occurs with Fi-EIIs vs Ne-EIIs).Quote:
Originally Posted by plotter
It sounds like your friend is prone to synthetic reasoning while your reasoning has more of analytic bent to it, so for you this statement that X belongs to category Q is true just by itself while he is including another concept, that general public holds negative opinion about category Q. Afaik this is not related to Fi, but dynamic types are more prone to synthetic reasoning and static types to analytic.Quote:
Originally Posted by plotter
My choice of using the word devalued might not have been optimal, but I couldn’t find a better one. Maybe ”offend” or something similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Begoner
Well even if the criteria for belongin in Q include personal characteristics, and S applies to everyone in category Q, I can’t see how my implicit suggestion that S might apply to person X, because I suspect that X is in category Q, could be seen as ”wrongful” on my part which is basically what this guy said.
Sounds plausible!Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
Thanks! A good explanation. I suspect this guy of being LIE-Ni so that might be true. (They’re dynamic right?)Quote:
Originally Posted by siuntal
Hehe, missed this one before. What I really meant was that Fi-valuers tend to ignore the Ti-info being expressed for the Ti-model to work properly, making the model useless. I would assume the same thing is true (or something similar) when Fi-valuers try to explain some model to a Ti-valuer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galenlol so are Ti egos then, because I find exceptions to their rules all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by plotter
And to be completely honest I don’t find it realistic to try to construct models that will encompass all possible scenarios with specific rules. All encompassing frameworks are often very general or macro oriented, while the micro oriented frameworks are more specific in their construction, and used with ”precaution”.
So it would probably be easy to find exceptions or errors in the application of a framework, when the framework is applied in the wrong way. Plus I’m not saying Ti-egos are geniuses. People will always be wrong about stuff.
What does Ti-PoLR (Point of Least Resistance) look like in real life? If anyone has any videos showing something along the lines of it manifesting, I'd be highly interested to see.
The one thing that immediately makes me suspect :Ti: polr ( in :Ne:-IEE's anyway ) are either huge walls of text, using lots of details and mentioning loads of other possibilites - when what they're saying could be summed up with 80% less writing. It's like some want to give ALLL the details in case they miss something. I don't really see their behaviour as "illogical" cause so is mine :o, but I apreciate logical structure and they seem to ignore it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HandiAce
I was looking at an :Ne:- IEE's work resume, and while seemingly impressive and very :Te: heavy, the amount of detail she gave was superfluous and headache inducing.
Sounds like something I would do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diam0nd
In both SEEs and IEEs :Ti: polr manifests basically as rationalization through :Fi: categories instead of :Ti: ones, so thats why they may seem to exhibit erratic/ illogical behaviour to :Ti: egos.
the IEE guy I know, he keeps saying things that shows he's very proud of Te use (I personally think it's somewhat inefficient Te, but it's usable), but when he's trying to understand a theory, he keeps mixing up definitions, and gets to rather weird conclusions this way. also I irritate him with Ti behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by HandiAce
added: and yeah, his behaviour is illogical, but I don't mind, I'm ok with him :P
ps: he's ENFP in MBTI too