Ti - What it is and isn't

I've seen many on this forum attempt to describe introverted logic. Some of the descriptions are not bad, others are poor. The key problem is that, in our society, structure is often associated with organization and logistics. Therefore, because it is named "structural logic," things like organized living rooms, "structured lifestyles" and even tidiness become associated with Ti. My interpretation is that Ti is supposed to be a mental function as opposed to an external one. I think it deals more with logical structure than logistical structure.

As an example, think of a chemistry text. The text has a "structure" to it, but it is a purely logical structure. The material is organized not because the author simply seeks organization, but because it serves a logical function and brings a level of coherence to the material that would not be there if this organization were absent. Such a text is also structured because it is dealing with the underlying structure of physical events; notice that this notion of structure is logical and abstract, dealing more with hidden structures and, further, a more cognitive picture of logic. I think this is what Ti is supposed to be about. On the other hand, the more concrete and logistical forms of structure are perhaps more the domain of the director - who has the role of concrete organizer.

It should also be noted that these different forms of information are easy to confuse, and this is why Ti is often associated with administrative activities - such as organization - and even concrete and rote knowledge, which is, once again, more a matter of concrete sequential abilities than abstract sequential logic - which is debatebly the domain of LSIs, but certainly not the domain of LIIs.

(You might want to check my work by looking at those who have these different traits and covertly testing them to see if there is a pattern towards seeking outgoingness and what I call Ti, and perhaps seeking more internalized tenderness and what I call Te - specifically :Te::Si:.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

I've seen many on this forum attempt to describe introverted logic. Some of the descriptions are not bad, others are poor. The key problem is that, in our society, structure is often associated with organization and logistics. Therefore, because it is named "structural logic," things like organized living rooms, "structured lifestyles" and even tidiness become associated with Ti. My interpretation is that Ti is supposed to be a mental function as opposed to an external one. I think it deals more with logical structure than logistical structure.

---

Although I don't know what forum posts you're referring to, the association of having an organized life with base-Ti comes the Russian Socionists. For example, this is from Filatova's LII description, in the Ti function portion:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filatova

LII loves precision and order in everything; she is scrupulous and meticulous. Finds pleasure in systematizing, organizing everything “on the shelf.” Everything is done according to plan.

---

Note that such descriptions never show up for ILE. So I think it comes partly from the Russian Socionists' view of what, in their conception, Ij temperament people are like.

In the West, especially with the influence of MBTI, people are more likely to view someone with Ti dominance as having structured thoughts only and quite possibly being quite unstructured and spontaneous in their lifestyle; and there is a tendency here to associate logistics and organization more with Te. The Russian Socionists tend to view these as more related to being a "rational" type.

There is also a divergence between Ti as used to describe a personality (e.g., the person's lifestyle resemble's Ti) and Ti defined as a purely intellectual ability. These two views lead to completely different typings of people.

As to whether LSIs may be "logistical" and organized, that's certainly the mainstream view in classical Socionics. If one's views are based on Jung's original essay and/or MBTI, it may be hard to believe that would be the case with a Ti type, but in Socionics it's a pretty mainstream view. Anyway, Se in LSI would be related to the external environment, so LSIs would tend to be much more attuned to keeping their surroundings tidy than LIIs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Although I don't know what forum posts you're referring to, the association of having an organized life with base-Ti comes the Russian Socionists. For example, this is from Filatova's LII description, in the Ti function portion:



Note that such descriptions never show up for ILE. So I think it comes partly from the Russian Socionists' view of what, in their conception, Ij temperament people are like.

In the West, especially with the influence of MBTI, people are more likely to view someone with Ti dominance as having structured thoughts only and quite possibly being quite unstructured and spontaneous in their lifestyle; and there is a tendency here to associate logistics and organization more with Te. The Russian Socionists tend to view these as more related to being a "rational" type.

There is also a divergence between Ti as used to describe a personality (e.g., the person's lifestyle resemble's Ti) and Ti defined as a purely intellectual ability. These two views lead to completely different typings of people.

As to whether LSIs may be "logistical" and organized, that's certainly the mainstream view in classical Socionics. If one's views are based on Jung's original essay and/or MBTI, it may be hard to believe that would be the case with a Ti type, but in Socionics it's a pretty mainstream view. Anyway, Se in LSI would be related to the external environment, so LSIs would tend to be much more attuned to keeping their surroundings tidy than LIIs.

---

I think that there might be something faulty about traditional socionics in some ways, given that, for instance, ILEs and LIIs would have to link up somehow (this applies to all mirror pairs). These quotes contradict this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filatova ILE

The ILE’s behaviour may frequently appear to be unpredictable, even chaotic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filatova LII

Generally is irritated by chaotic, disorderly, inconsiderate people. (See post below.)

---

(And we know that ILEs can be inconsiderate as well...)

You also have to be very observant, and notice that Filatova is trying to describe how the types use their strong but unvalued functions as well, because there is no description of the Id or Super-Id. Look carefully here as an example:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filatova IEE

As a rule IEE is very penetrating: she can easily predict what it is possible to expect in the future from another individual, especially if she is sufficiently familiar with him/her. As no other she knows how to inspire, to reveal the abilities and talents of others, to manifest support towards others to realize themselves. In people she values kindness, uniqueness and talent. Envy is alien to her – her creative nature allows her to see many possible avenues worth following. Even in old age she’s always ready to learn new things.

---

This could be going on with the LII description in your quote.

As a note: if the depth of LII thinking is organizing closets and reading instruction manuals, I'm giving up on socionics. :)

(I should also note that I don't see why traditional socionists should be considered an authoritative source of information. This is not an official theory by any means, and so LSEs might be confused with LIIs. I'll show you two Russian descriptions below to see what I mean.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blokhin LII

:

Robespierre

Analytical mind, a structured way of thinking, the ability to separate the important from the secondary, the constant desire to think, analyze
Logic, methodical, hard work, patience, endurance, work without rest or interruption, perseverance, carefully hidden shyness, sharpness, commitment, responsibility, conciseness, brevity, clarity in presenting the material
Astray, to convince virtually impossible, the difficult recognition errors.
Scheme, the structure, classification, plan ahead, the alternatives analysis, systematization
Hoarders, caution, prudence, modesty, frugality
Reserve, taciturnity
Theorizing, the propensity for mental labor, construction of abstract models

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blokhin LSE

Stirlitz

Quick, clear, sober mind. Sober calculation, a clear understanding, clarity, clarity, order, discipline, initiative, energy, assertiveness, decisiveness, initiative, directness, activity, clarity of action, work, work, efficiency, courage, passion, resourcefulness, justified risk, honesty, strong character , instruction, law, meticulousness and professionalism, punctuality, sense of duty, technique, technology, work, stability, predictability, stability, specificity, healthy conservatism, uncompromising, inflexible, dry business, officially
Reasonable and logical to operate, observe the rules of the game, persistent, daily work, quality of work, calculating the situation, depth, practical benefits, the benefits, argue, be in the middle of the action, keep promise at any cost, to put into practice,
Stingy with praise, the inability to admit to feelings, an inability to apologize, admit mistakes, to see more disadvantages than advantages, intolerance of other people's weaknesses
Smartness, self-discipline, discipline, responsibility, commitment, athletic bearing, engagement in, sharpness, directness, latent nervousness, endurance, hard work, overcoming difficulties, organizational skills, never show weakness, and sometimes tactless, inconsistency, temper
Information, logic, calculations, facts, analysis, "facts first" facts and once again the facts, outrageous order (throughout), the order with a capital letter
"Everything I do - I'm doing well," he said - did not you - do not promise, "" I want to know everything, "the authorities are not afraid - boldly defends his views, sometimes aggressive, always knows what and how to do a good administrator, manager, likes to teach people how to act and live
Aesthete, elegant, stylish dresses (but do not dress up), cleanliness, tidiness, punctuality, quality things, comfortable working conditions, to avoid physical discomfort
Abhors: procrastination nesobrannosti, mumbled, slobs, laxity, laziness, irresponsibility, chaos and confusion, (Cited above.) incompetence, cunning and guile, thieves and tricksters, intrigue, political games, can not stand when customized and in a hurry, late for a meeting in violation of terms performance, talk about trifles

---

You might cite the fact that they are both rational temperament, but that begs the question as to why you don't see the same pattern amongst E_Fjs and I_Fjs, I_Tps and E_Tps, etc. (If you can find examples of how the other dichotomies are similar in the same way as here, I will try to make it worth your while...)

This thread interests me greatly.

Excellent thread. I have reason to believe that Ti(External Field Statics) is actually native to Beta and the Ti that shows in Alpha & is representative of INTj is a derivative of primary Beta Ti. Just as well, the other quadras are all primarily representative of one function pair.

Alpha(Ne/Si) ~ Beta(Fe/Ti) ~ Gamma(Se/Ni) ~ Delta(Te/Fi)

If you break the elements down by +/-, this is what you get. These fixed primary pairs are the reason for the distinctions between the quadras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

re: reply that you deleted,

Your entire spiel there about what Ti supposedly is, strikes me as that of someone too self-enamored by their own thinking processes, to a point that prevents you from conceiving them clearly. This is a common handicap of Ti types.

---

Care to explain how it seems that way and why it's common handicap of Ti types?

(ps try to be a bit less offensive.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Excellent thread. I have reason to believe that Ti(External Field Statics) is actually native to Beta and the Ti that shows in Alpha & is representative of INTj is a derivative of primary Beta Ti. Just as well, the other quadras are all primarily representative of one function pair.

Alpha(Ne/Si) ~ Beta(Fe/Ti) ~ Gamma(Se/Ni) ~ Delta(Te/Fi)

If you break the elements down by +/-, this is what you get. These fixed primary pairs are the reason for the distinctions between the quadras.

---

How is this at all testable/relevant?

Jonathan, are you a Ti type?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

re: reply that you deleted,

Your entire spiel there about what Ti supposedly is, strikes me as that of someone too self-enamored by their own thinking processes, to a point that prevents you from conceiving them clearly. This is a common handicap of Ti types.

---

Yes they are. All introverts are enamored by their Self processes, whether that is Si, or Fi, or Ti..etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

How is this at all testable/relevant?

---

Elaborate on the testable bit. I'm itching to pull the subjectivity card and one-up your fallacy.

It's relevant because the subject of my previous post is to show how Ti is natively Beta and if we want to get to the root of what it is, we have to acknowledge that and not work from the LII, or otherwise, Alpha Ti bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

What the fuck are you talking about?

---

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

Also see above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I don't think I'm being that offensive.

---

just needlessly so.

Quote:

---

From Uncle Carl:

This thinking easily loses itself in the immense truth of the subjective factor. It creates theories for the sake of theories, apparently with a view to real or at least possible facts, yet always with a distinct tendency to go over from the world of ideas into mere imagery. Accordingly many intuitions of possibilities appear on the scene, none of which however achieve any reality, until finally images are produced which no longer express anything externally real, being 'merely' symbols of the simply unknowable. It is now merely a mystical thinking and quite as unfruitful as that empirical thinking whose sole operation is within the framework of objective facts.

Whereas the latter sinks to the level of a mere presentation of facts, the former evaporates into a representation of the unknowable, which is even beyond everything that could be expressed in an image. The presentation of facts has a certain incontestable truth, because the subjective factor is excluded and the facts speak for themselves. Similarly, the representing of the unknowable has also an immediate, subjective, and convincing power, because it is demonstrable from its own existence. The former says 'Est, ergo est' ('It is ; therefore it is') ; while the latter says 'Cogito, ergo cogito' (' I think ; therefore I think'). In the last analysis, introverted thinking arrives at the evidence of its own subjective being, while extraverted thinking is driven to the evidence of its complete identity with the objective fact. For, while the extravert really denies himself in his complete dispersion among objects, the introvert, by ridding himself of each and every content, has to content himself with his mere existence. In both cases the further development of life is crowded out of the domain of thought into the region of other psychic functions which had hitherto existed in relative unconsciousness. The extraordinary impoverishment of introverted thinking in relation to objective facts finds compensation in an abundance of unconscious facts. Whenever consciousness, wedded to the function of thought, confines itself within the smallest and emptiest circle possible -- though seeming to contain the plenitude of divinity -- unconscious phantasy becomes proportionately enriched by a multitude of archaically formed facts, a veritable pandemonium of magical and irrational factors, wearing the particular aspect that accords with the nature of that function which shall next relieve the thought-function as the representative of life.

---

I agree with this. The only problem I do have with this idea of Te/Ti is that I tend to think it works really well as TeSi and TiNe and not as well with TeNi and TiSe. So what would be the difference between TiSe and TiNe for example?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Elaborate on the testable bit. I'm itching to pull the subjectivity card and one-up your fallacy.

---

How can I possibly elaborate? I want to know what you can show to demonstrate this hypothesis in action instead of simply stopping after you say it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

It's relevant because the subject of my previous post is to show how Ti is natively Beta and if we want to get to the root of what it is, we have to acknowledge that and not work from the LII, or otherwise, Alpha Ti bias.

---

Yeah but, what the fuck does that mean? You're not explaining yourself, you're just stating a theory and running along inside your own head while I'm sitting here clueless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

What fallacy pray tell are you 'itching' to one-up?

---

The Testability Fallacy, most likely. It reads something like "nothing can ever be proven, so any form of testing is a moot activity."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I gather that neurotic Ti—TiSe or TiNe—manifests in virtually the same way, just modulated by different kinds of qualitative content. Se being more anchored concrete qualifiers (while not necessarily being concrete per se; key difference here), Ne being anchored in abstract qualifiers (again, while not necessarily being abstract per se).

---

Could you elaborate on what you mean by concrete or abstract qualifiers versus being concrete or abstract itself (not necessarily with Ti)? Like an example or something?

From what I've read about Ti I think you, and Jonathon, did a good job explaining how it manifests between the different Ti's.
Ti, IMU, works more chaotically in Ti creatives, whereas the dominants seem to mentally structure things before acting on anything related to it

I sort of see Ti+Ne as an absorption of creative thinking processes, constantly or sporadically looking for tunnels which allow for them to change and grow without a dead end, "look at all these passages, I wonder where they lead"
Ti+Se works similarly but it's more tenacious; it doesn't require the same tunneling and if it needs one it will implode through mental barriers creating it's own "this is where I'm going, screw this wall"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

re: reply that you deleted,

Your entire spiel there about what Ti supposedly is, strikes me as that of someone too self-enamored by their own thinking processes, to a point that prevents you from conceiving them clearly. This is a common handicap of Ti types.

---

Pot kettle black

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Show me.

---

I see your approach to Socionics as being comprised of bits and pieces of outside theory filtered into a separate theory that makes structural sense to you, and also isn't recognized outside of this forum and Socionix
Strikes me as very Ti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

My approach is more eclectic—I'll take and incorporate what seems to be congruent with first-hand experience, working evidence, known scientific facts, etc. And discard what isn't.

---

Precisely, you *incorporate* data to create a base that makes sense, or at least to you. I'm not suggesting you're not strong in Te, you use it as a means to Ti rather than relying on it as is

Quote:

---

I'd rather not cling to theoretical models. I don't think this is very :Ti:.

---

It's not the clinging so much as the "give and take" when it comes to information approach, like you described above, that strikes me as Ti valuing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Well, what do you think? Your explanation on that would likely be as good as mine.

---

I think that it doesn't work. I mean, how can Ti be more focused on the theory for the sake of the theory and yet still be focused on concrete things? Does that just mean that TiSe just mainly focuses on theorizing about concrete things and TiNe about abstract things? TeSi presentation of concrete facts and TeNi of abstract facts?
(obviously simplistic, but I hope you know what I mean.)

I've struggled with this thought before, I'm just wondering if you have a solution.

Quote:

---

I gather that neurotic Ti—TiSe or TiNe—manifests in virtually the same way, just modulated by different kinds of qualitative content. Se being more anchored in concrete qualifiers (while not necessarily being concrete per se; key difference here), Ne being anchored in abstract qualifiers (again, while not necessarily being abstract per se).

Similar story with neurotic Te—either just becomes modulated through different thematic contexts. Si concretizes, while Ni abstracts.

---

So are you basically saying that TiSe would tend to pull the concrete details out of their experiences and form theoretical models/ideas of them, and TiNe does the same thing except with abstract details they pull from their experiences?

And, with TeSi, they tend to demonstrate the concrete details they come across while TeNi the abstract details they come across?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

The Testability Fallacy, most likely. It reads something like "nothing can ever be proven, so any form of testing is a moot activity."

---

Yeah. In those terms, the subjectivist is always right.

It occurs to me that ESC fails to consider the generic nature of Ti as an IE. He comes from looking at it as "an attitude which makes you correct people". What he fails to consider is whether Beta +/- is +j, instead of +Ti and +Fe specifically. His mistake is even more noticeable when he states that Alpha Ti is represented by LII (it's somehow "in the ownership" of this type). Philosophical onanism, if you ask me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

I think that it doesn't work. I mean, how can Ti be more focused on the theory for the sake of the theory and yet still be focused on concrete things? Does that just mean that TiSe just mainly focuses on theorizing about concrete things and TiNe about abstract things? TeSi presentation of concrete facts and TeNi of abstract facts?
(obviously simplistic, but I hope you know what I mean.)

I've struggled with this thought before, I'm just wondering if you have a solution.



So are you basically saying that TiSe would tend to pull the concrete details out of their experiences and form theoretical models/ideas of them, and TiNe does the same thing except with abstract details they pull from their experiences?

And, with TeSi, they tend to demonstrate the concrete details they come across while TeNi the abstract details they come across?

---

Kant makes a distinction between what we call the "Alpha Ti" (nature, laws of nature, speculative use - theory and understanding, pure reason - red) and the "Beta Ti" (freedom, laws of ethics, practical use - will and action, practical reason - orange). This would as well refer to "Delta Fi" and "Gamma Fi", however he excluded above (*) the principles accumulated by factual and historical means, further hinting at systemic integrity as a must. (green pertains to architectonics and systemic integrity - Ti)

Quote:

---

In view of the complete systematic unity of reason, there can only be one ultimate end of all the operations of the mind. To this all other aims are subordinate, and nothing more than means for its attainment. This ultimate end is the destination of man, and the philosophy which relates to it is termed moral philosophy. The superior position occupied by moral philosophy, above all other spheres for the operations of reason, sufficiently indicates the reason why the ancients always included the idea—and in an especial manner—of moralist in that of philosopher. Even at the present day, we call a man who appears to have the power of self-government, even although his knowledge may be very limited, by the name of philosopher.

The legislation of human reason, or philosophy, has two objects- nature and freedom—and thus contains not only the laws of nature, but also those of ethics, at first in two separate systems, which, finally, merge into one grand philosophical system of cognition. The philosophy of nature relates to that which is, that of ethics to that which ought to be.

But all philosophy is either cognition on the basis of pure reason, or the cognition of reason on the basis of empirical principles. The former is termed pure, the latter empirical philosophy.

The philosophy of pure reason is either propaedeutic, that is, an inquiry into the powers of reason in regard to pure a priori cognition, and is termed critical philosophy; or it is, secondly, the system of pure reason—a science containing the systematic presentation of the whole body of philosophical knowledge, true as well as illusory, given by pure reason—and is called metaphysic. This name may, however, be also given to the whole system of pure philosophy, critical philosophy included, and may designate the investigation into the sources or possibility of a priori cognition, as well as the presentation of the a priori cognitions which form a system of pure philosophy—excluding, at the same time, all empirical and mathematical elements.

Metaphysic is divided into that of the speculative and that of the practical use of pure reason, and is, accordingly, either the metaphysic of nature, or the metaphysic of ethics. The former contains all the pure rational principles—based upon conceptions alone (and thus excluding mathematics)—of all theoretical cognition; the latter, the principles which determine and necessitate a priori all action. Now moral philosophy alone contains a code of laws—for the regulation of our actions—which are deduced from principles entirely a priori. Hence the metaphysic of ethics is the only pure moral philosophy, as it is not based upon anthropological or other empirical considerations. The metaphysic of speculative reason is what is commonly called metaphysic in the more limited sense. But as pure moral philosophy properly forms a part of this system of cognition, we must allow it to retain the name of metaphysic, although it is not requisite that we should insist on so terming it in our present discussion.

...

All pure a priori cognition forms, therefore, in view of the peculiar faculty which originates it, a peculiar and distinct unity; and metaphysic is the term applied to the philosophy which attempts to represent that cognition in this systematic unity. The speculative part of metaphysic, which has especially appropriated this appellation—that which we have called the metaphysic of nature—and which considers everything, as it is (not as it ought to be), by means of a priori conceptions, is divided in the following manner.

---

(*) - this is an exerpt from a larger article I wrote.

I liked Expat's "constitution" analogy in some post he wrote.

Basically ISTj and INTj use Ti to look at life as a constitution. This constitution is constantly being examined, picked apart, and re-edited throughout life. Now this constitution must be consistent all throughout- One paragraph of the constitution has to be consistent with the next paragraph of the constitution. If a section of the constitution doesn't make sense, the loophole has to be closed or else the whole constitution risks falling apart. This consistency and order all throughout is very important.

So the difference between ISTj and INTj?

ISTjs sees where the world is headed based on the here-and-now (S), in using this constitution.

INTjs sees where the world is headed based on an ideal world (N), in using this constitution.

As mentioned, this difference is why INTjs can seem more "theoretical/speculative" and ISTjs more "practical" relative to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

OP's wanking :8*

---

Hey, just like every post you make about your valued functions.

Ashton if your model is based on what aligns with your eexperience, while asserting that people only have direc experience and therefore full understanding of their own functions, and you categorize yourself as LIE, then isn't pretty much everything you say about Ti completely fucking useless by your own reasoning? If not please explain what you have to add other than Jung quotes and the biased, antagonistic, bullshit jargon you've spewed thus far in this thread.

yeah, logistics are more of a Te thing.

Ti-analysis of objective facts to arrive at the subjective thought of the thing...

Te-objective facts as they are-a reflection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

No.

---

I'd love to see your attempt at exlpaining that.

Quote:

---

Est, ergo est.

---

Ergo est nihil sed fallacias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

You over-simplified and misunderstood what I said.

No, not necessarily. Go back and re-read what I said.

---

I'll come back to it later. I haven't been much in the socionics mood lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azeroffs

(ps try to be a bit less offensive.)

---

I just realized this might have been unclear, I was mostly referring to this post and not the one I quoted:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

OP's wanking :8*

---

ITT = http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/k...storm/wank.gif

I would appreciate it if you paid attention to the difference between information elements, especially as dominant functions, and information aspects. Elements/Functions combinations describe cognitive attitudes. Aspects describe kind of information matching those attitudes.

Ti aspect being "structural logic" means no more than the information it deals with has an explicit structure. People with Ti as their base tend to approach information this way, i.e. what they perceive is primarily "systems", coherent structure, explicit and overt and stable and orderly. Whether they choose to look at chemistry or their own room or baseless theories is another matter entirely. Classical logic may seem like a formalized reflection of this approach, but it doesn't mean Ti egos' thinking is classical logic.

it definitely isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

Jonathan, are you a Ti type?

---

Depends whom you ask, LOL. That used to be the subject of a lot of debate on the forum.

Most people type me as ILI, but there's a strong contingent that types me and many of the other "ILIs" on the forum as Alpha. Because I've never seen a completely stable and authoritative version of Socionics, and since I feel I can traverse modes sometimes, I don't have a strong preference for how people type me. I think that in the most "classical" Socionics sense, I'm ILI, but when people say things like ILE or other types, I don't say "no way"...It's just a different perspective, also valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

I think that there might be something faulty about traditional socionics in some ways, given that, for instance, ILEs and LIIs would have to link up somehow (this applies to all mirror pairs). These quotes contradict this:

---

I don't think it logically follows that a difference in how Ti manifests in LII or ILE is a contradiction. Clearly there must be a similarity, but that doesn't say what the similarity is. I think there's actually a lot of overlap between Filatova's description of Ti in LII and ILE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

You also have to be very observant, and notice that Filatova is trying to describe how the types use their strong but unvalued functions as well, because there is no description of the Id or Super-Id.

---

This gets at the meat of the issue...that you apparently think that if LIIs are organized, they're using Te to be so. Let me explain my opinion on why traditional socionists see LIIs as generally organized and Ti as contributing to some orderliness in life. Traditional Socionists see base-Ti types as thinking in clear, definite, consistent ways, and having a more or less stable view of things (barring some radically new information). This is an asset when you're trying to be organized. Keep in mind that basic organization doesn't require a lot of logistics. Any type can be organized, but if a person tends to see things in a clear and consistent way, it makes it easier than someone who is always changing rapidly and moving from one activity to the next or who has a less decided view of things. In no way does this imply that LIIs are obsessed about organizing closets or other sensory activities, but their mental style may make it easier to stay organized than that of an IEI (for instance).

Keep in mind, too, that if a person resembles being a Ti type merely on the basis of his/her academic work, that may not be enough to type the person as such. Ti in Socionics is not the same as intellectual ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

This is not an official theory by any means, and so LSEs might be confused with LIIs. I'll show you two Russian descriptions below to see what I mean.)

---

In the full context, I think traditional Socionists have a good handle of the differences between LSE and LII, although type descriptions can be misleading. I think you're right that traditional Socionics isn't the only Jung-based typology worthy of consideration. However, it's worth understanding it and being able to distinguish it from other variants that may appear on the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Excellent thread. I have reason to believe that Ti(External Field Statics) is actually native to Beta and the Ti that shows in Alpha & is representative of INTj is a derivative of primary Beta Ti. Just as well, the other quadras are all primarily representative of one function pair.

Alpha(Ne/Si) ~ Beta(Fe/Ti) ~ Gamma(Se/Ni) ~ Delta(Te/Fi)

If you break the elements down by +/-, this is what you get. These fixed primary pairs are the reason for the distinctions between the quadras.

---

That's an interesting theory, but do you see any strong evidence for it? As I understand, the +/- idea came from a speculative article by DarkAngelFireWolf69 in which he surmised that types' uses of functions could be divided into "near term" and "long-term" usage. He used +/- merely as indicators for his idea. Then some people on this forum (e.g., hitta) started interpreting "-" to mean "anti" in some sense, without much basis from the original article, which in turn didn't show much empirical research to begin with.

I would have to suspect too that one must be very careful how one's own type may affect how one sees these formulas. For example, seeing Gamma as primarily about Se/Ni may make all the sense in the world if you're ILI. But if you're LIE or ESI, Te/Fi probably comes much more into focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Depends whom you ask, LOL. That used to be the subject of a lot of debate on the forum.

Most people type me as ILI, but there's a strong contingent that types me and many of the other "ILIs" on the forum as Alpha. Because I've never seen a completely stable and authoritative version of Socionics, and since I feel I can traverse modes sometimes, I don't have a strong preference for how people type me. I think that in the most "classical" Socionics sense, I'm ILI, but when people say things like ILE or other types, I don't say "no way"...It's just a different perspective, also valid.

---

I agree with ILI.

Ni has the ability to see different perspectives. How? They just wait to hear other people's perspectives, not come up with their own...that's the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poli

ITT = http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/k...storm/wank.gif

---

Bad poli! http://bionicgoatworld.com/vb/images/smilies/hammer.gif you need to use the official wank-smiley:

 

http://bionicgoatworld.com/vb/images/smilies/7202.gif

I'm pretty far removed from :Ti: - I have to approach it from the outside, more or less, and knowing that :Ti: is something of a T equivalent to :Fi: was a big help, leading me to consider that some people more-or-less think in the same manner that I feel about things, in a way that means something to themselves, and isn't as dependent on whatever the current situation might happen to be at the time, and has a certain permanence to it... this approach strikes me as being untethered to reality at times, yet it seems to work great for lots of people (unless they have to explain something to me, that can be pure hell :lol:), and I can imagine it being really convenient too...

I hope this helped someone somehow :) I find myself mostly having to fill in the blank left by my at-the-moment-of-writing-this ideas of what :Fi:, :Fe:, and :Te: are...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

:Ne: valuing.

---

i've been predicting to myself that the "ashtonite gammas" would try to kick Jonathan out of their quadra at some point in time.

don't get any ideas in your head about how such a thing might make sense from a real alpha's perspective.

Quote:

---

I don't think it logically follows that a difference in how Ti manifests in LII or ILE is a contradiction. Clearly there must be a similarity, but that doesn't say what the similarity is. I think there's actually a lot of overlap between Filatova's description of Ti in LII and ILE.

---

How do you think that there isn't a clear contradiction in (perhaps) quadra values between those two quotes. Further, why do you think that this doesn't carry through to the descriptions as a whole? For instance, how are hard work, perserverance, strict behaviour, etc. alpha quadra values?

Quote:

---

This gets at the meat of the issue...that you apparently think that if LIIs are organized, they're using Te to be so. Let me explain my opinion on why traditional socionists see LIIs as generally organized and Ti as contributing to some orderliness in life. Traditional Socionists see base-Ti types as thinking in clear, definite, consistent ways, and having a more or less stable view of things (barring some radically new information). This is an asset when you're trying to be organized. Keep in mind that basic organization doesn't require a lot of logistics. Any type can be organized, but if a person tends to see things in a clear and consistent way, it makes it easier than someone who is always changing rapidly and moving from one activity to the next or who has a less decided view of things.

---

How could this be reconciled with creative Ti of ILEs? They can think in clear, definite, consistent ways, but they are often described as disorganized, "chaotic," etc. If you look at the overall descriptions, why do you not think that there is an inconsistency here?

Quote:

---

Keep in mind, too, that if a person resembles being a Ti type merely on the basis of his/her academic work, that may not be enough to type the person as such. Ti in Socionics is not the same as intellectual ability.

---

I never claimed that the two are the same. What this stems from is:

1) I have logically deduced my type from a combination of comprehending function descriptions and observing the functions in real life, without looking purely at type descriptions.

2) I don't fit the classic LII description at all, and the problem is always related to this concrete/organizational factor.

3) I've seen a few people who have this organizational trait and they don't seem to be merry types, nor is the relation identical.

4) To find an answer, I read through the Russian descriptions and found that similar terms keep popping up in LII and LSE descriptions, that the terms are the ones that cause me trouble with the LII descriptions, that there isn't a phenomena of similar traits appearing in other descriptions for types that don't share any ego functions, and that the people who I have typed as having this trait are most like mirage partners - this leading to my hypothesis that the two types are being confused.

(An alternative hypothesis is that I am ILE - Model A has confused the suggestive functions of the types, and this would make sense because of its asymmetrical nature [for an ILI, the model is more symmetric if they use :Ni: more than any other function, use :Si: less than any other function, seek :Se: more than any other function, and are most contrary with :Ne:.] The idea would be that accurate theories usually display this element of symmetry because there is something counterintuitive about asymmetry. [For instance, a theory that says that gravity is ubiquitous - and therefore has a strong element of symmetry - is more plausible than one that says it holds everywhere but the moon.])

Jason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

That's an interesting theory, but do you see any strong evidence for it? As I understand, the +/- idea came from a speculative article by DarkAngelFireWolf69 in which he surmised that types' uses of functions could be divided into "near term" and "long-term" usage. He used +/- merely as indicators for his idea. Then some people on this forum (e.g., hitta) started interpreting "-" to mean "anti" in some sense, without much basis from the original article, which in turn didn't show much empirical research to begin with.

---

Watch yourself buddy, we don't take kindly to folks like you bargin' in here and demanding evidence or empiricism, apparently.

jason_m; nice job on the analysis. :)

Quote:

---

2) I don't fit the classic LII description at all, and the problem is always related to this concrete/organizational factor.

---

those parts don't work very well in my case either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

What the fuck are you talking about?

---

I said exactly that outloud when I read his post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

How do you think that there isn't a clear contradiction in (perhaps) quadra values between those two quotes.

---

There's no contradiction, since there's a difference between Base and Creative. If the ILE's Base is Ne, why would it matter that much if it has Ti in common with LII, regarding daily life for example. Ne-Base gives a different global attitude, consideration for objects, for changes, focus on the hidden - not logical - connections, and so on.

Ti being structural/relational logic, it doesn't necessaily mean that everything has to be structured in a consistent internal hierarchy, that's more applicable to Ti-Base. Ti-Creative types use the same rules (contradictions, relationships, designations), though although correctly, not necessarily consistently. There are situations where one can use correct logical rules for two cases separately, but these situations put together, they form a paradox. Paradoxes are usually ignored by Ti-Creatives, they're gathering their premises from the outside world, but Ti-Base can't ignore them (the paradoxes), just either dismiss the rogue premises entirely (more like LSI) - again, premises which are locally correct, for Ti-Creatives - or spend a lot of time to solve them (more like LII). If you know it already, it is stated in the descriptions that the logic of Ti-Creatives is often duplicitous, it is submitted to their base function - ILEs may come with two totally correct theories, though contradicting each other, SLEs may do the same thing in practical matters. Socially, LXIs try to be totally consistent, while XLEs don't, take the following case:

Person A, Ti type, convinced you in the past of something (P), based on logical reasons. Now he is trying to convince you of something else (R), based on correct logical reasons again, though you found a contradiction between P and R. If A is LXI, he will try to stay consistent (in fact *all Introverts* try to stay consistent, in respect to the nature of their Base function) and that argument will weight a lot, making him/her step back in retreat. However, if A is XLE, he will not give up, because R makes sense based on the new premises, whether it conflicts with P or not is not only irrelevant (there are perhaps some "details" in the middle, possible errors) but they simply can't admit R is wrong just because there's a contradiction between P and R. R is correct by itself and that's a fact which can't be ignored - that is Ti-Creative.
---

And my mistake, when I quoted Kant, I should have stated it's Alpha Ti-Base and Beta Ti-Base, not just Ti. In theory the information they deal with is the same - and there's no contradiction between them per se -, Ti-Creative types aim towards full consistency as well, though their focus is towards *now* and *this*, so their ultimate criterion for validation is the current context, not their internal framework, especially regarding empirical observations. In fact I see the Ti-Base problem in you right now, you claim that the descriptions are incorrect, though this is how XLEs *are*, behave, think, why should the descriptions be changed just because something connecting the two classes doesn't make sense to you? I think you need to change a bit your view and strip-down your understanding of Ti as an Information Element, dividing the rest among type attitudes (Ti Base =/= Ti Creative).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

He seems to possess greater willingness on average to engage in the kind of loose exploratory theoretical banter and perspective-swapping ...

---

Very true observations...But the root question is what do we attribute to the IM elements themselves, and what do we attribute to their functional position?

I think this actually mirrors jason_m's argument about Ti in an interesting way.

A paraphrase of what Jason_m is saying: "How can Ti be expressed through orderliness and organization in LII but not in ELI, and shouldn't such qualities be more attributed to Te, given IM descriptions that make Te sound more related to logistics?"

Now a slight transformation: "How can Ni be expressed through speculation and perspective changing in ILI but not in LIE, and shouldn't such qualities be more attributed to Ne, given IM descriptions that make Ne sound more related to divergent ideation?"

I say this not discounting the Alpha possibility for myself; sometimes I feel I can relate to Alpha SFs as an Alpha NT if I want, but more commonly I probably relate to others around me as an ILI.

In any case, a tendency towards exploratory theorizing, etc., will be seen as some as evidence of Ne, and by others as fully compatible with base-Ni.

Far as I can tell, Ti actually does have a distinctly logistical, organizational and rules-bound side to it. What sets it apart in how it operates for Betas and Alphas is what it's blocked with -- Ti with Ne (and Ti with Ni) seeks consistency of ideas, whereas Ti with Se (and Ti with Si) seeks external consistency. So it can be arranged as follows:

Ti-Ne (Alpha NT): Rules structure of ideas, concepts, theoretical constructs.
Ti-Se (Beta ST): Rules structure of administration; clear, unambiguous instructions and hierarchy.
Ti-Ni (Beta introvert): Rules structure of plans, dreams and ambitions; orderly procedures, planning and rationale in service of fanciful notions, plans and visions for the future.
Ti-Si (Alpha introvert): Rules structure of aesthetic and administrative details; laying out consistent procedures and plans for fulfilling sensory desires or taking care of one's surroundings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

and that is why I want to pummel your skulls in with a sledgehammer.

---

No, THAT is because you were psychologically abused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aleksei

Ti-Ne (Alpha NT): Rules structure of ideas, concepts, theoretical constructs.
Ti-Se (Beta ST): Rules structure of administration; clear, unambiguous instructions and hierarchy.
Ti-Ni (Beta introvert): Rules structure of plans, dreams and ambitions; orderly procedures, planning and rationale in service of fanciful notions, plans and visions for the future.
Ti-Si (Alpha introvert): Rules structure of aesthetic and administrative details; laying out consistent procedures and plans for fulfilling sensory desires or taking care of one's surroundings.

---

You make them all sound like rationals. :thumbsdown:

...Ti is a rational function. I was explaining it in terms of Ti.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aleksei

...Ti is a rational function. I was explaining it in terms of Ti.

---

If you isolate Ti like that and give it one nature, then Ips and Eps end up sounding like Ijs and Ejs. Which is not how it works.

Or, read Ineffable's post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Now a slight transformation: "How can Ni be expressed through speculation and perspective changing in ILI but not in LIE, and shouldn't such qualities be more attributed to Ne, given IM descriptions that make Ne sound more related to divergent ideation?"

---

The difference is that Ni speculation and perspective changing has more to do with subjective/personal/"metaphorical" forms of speculation or perhaps that involving forecasting and projecting in time versus simply developing ideas for their own sake about innovation, science, etc. The same should be said about Ti. Ti can be focused on work, seriousness, etc., but I think the notions are misplaced. Just like Ni types can be speculative about time and their subjective vision, Ti types should be considered organized, methodical, serious, etc. about their intellectual work, theory, blueprint, construct, etc. Also not structured per se, but structured around logic. This is what I think is wrong with classical socionics; LIIs are supposed to be Mirrors to ILEs, and ILEs are people who have grand, sweeping ideas and theories that need to be put together and understood. The role of LIIs is probably not that of a "workhorse" who puts the theories together slowly and methodically, but more of a structured theorist who knows the finer points of the theory and can therefore analyze it and piece it together.

Jason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

:Ne: doesn't have a monopoly on innovation, science, etc. Plenty of :Ni: types do creative work in those fields.

---

Of course, but when they are involved the approach is usually different - namely it is more in line with the ego functions of the type. (For instance there might be EIE scientists who are innovative trendsetters, but they might see themselves as individualists as opposed to innovators, and they set trends through their antics and force of personality...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

Of course, but when they are involved the approach is usually different - namely it is more in line with the ego functions of the type involved. (For instance there might be EIE scientists who are innovative trendsetters, but they might see themselves as individualists as opposed to innovators, and they set trends through their antics and outgoing behaviour...)

---

Have you ever met any live humans before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

re: reply that you deleted,

Your entire spiel there about what Ti supposedly is, strikes me as that of someone too self-enamored by their own thinking processes, to a point that prevents you from conceiving them clearly. This is a common handicap of Ti types.

---

No more than you are with your own. I disagree with the conception of Ti envisioned by Jung, as the IE have beyond those primitive understandings in Socionics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

:Ne: doesn't have a monopoly on innovation, science, etc. Plenty of :Ni: types do creative work in those fields.

---

And :Ni: doesn't have a monopoly in its particular stereotypical fields of study, as there would likely be plenty of :Se:, :Si:, and :Ne: types in those fields. So I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, as I think Jason_M was noting tendency and patterns and not absolutes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

2) I don't fit the classic LII description at all, and the problem is always related to this concrete/organizational factor.

---

Me neither, nor would I suspect anyone who knows me.

Quote:

---

I suspect that's also true. I'm inclined to believe that no types/IEs/whatever possess significant vocational monopolies, and that one will tend to find a diversity of types in any field. But never mind my heresy for saying that, of course. I know it's unpopular to say things here that inhibit people from jerking off their romanticized self-concepts.

---

as if the view that type doesn't in any way limit or affect what a person can and can not successfully accomplish doesn't lead to "romanticized self-concepts".

also: if you FIRST claim that type determines a persons' mental architecture in groundbreaking ways and THEN say this has no effect on vocational success whatsoever, the result is not a skeptical statement but a strong positive claim.

i can accept the quoted in isolation. a problem arises when a person first successively claims X, Y, Z and a whole range of other factors are not in any way related to type and then does continue to act as if type is something easy to detect to the point you can make extensive typing lists and assert types under the pretense of authority. you can have one or the other, but not both.

Quote:

---

Well, apparently only real innovation comes from :Ne: according to Mr. jason_m. According to his own account, an EIE could only set innovative trends via 'antics' and 'force of personality'. Not by actually being creatively brilliant and busting their ass for years working on scientific theory, rigorous experimentation, etc. That's reserved for LIIs it seems. :8*

---

Yes, it is possible that any type could be innovative. My point was that there is a tendency more for Ne to take on this role more than other types. This is consistent with most interpretations of socionics.

http://bionicgoatworld.com/vb/images...877mXCyzXN.gif

Quote:

---

Except it's apparent by reading these boards, that it does.

---

yes, it does. i was talking about the attitude opposite to the one you described.

Quote:

---

I never said type determines a person's mental architecture in groundbreaking ways.

---

it's implied by half of what you write about socionics. also my third criticism applies here: if type is just some tiny, insignificant subtlety, it becomes unfitting to treat them as something easy to detect and a subject of certain determination. you can have one or the other, not both.

Quote:

---

You're not thinking, you're just being logical.

By that reasoning of yours, any readily quantifiable personal attribute—such as say, someone's shoe size—must obviously have a HUGE influence on personality and cognitive function. Yet to my knowledge no significant observable relationship exists between the two.

---

my statement was very Ni themed. the problem is that through the course of all your postings around here you never strike a credible balance between the two. your constant "not type related" claims have become a broken record and in the meantime you never provided a real counterweight to these that would make evident what makes you treat socionics types like a topic of certitude. at a certain point, it just makes you loose credibility.

as for what you wrote here: you're the one turning it into a 100% this, 100% that thing. take some of your own medicine. "just being logical" indeed.

ps. Te is the function of binary logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

By that reasoning of yours, any readily quantifiable personal attribute—such as say, someone's shoe size—must obviously have a HUGE influence on personality and cognitive function. Yet to my knowledge no significant observable relationship exists between the two.

---

Oh jesus fuck, grow some fucking ingenuousness. His criticism had nothing to do with being quantifiable, but rather the relative importance and influence of Socionics types with regards to overall brain function/psychic space. Read what's there, not what you want to read, lest I begin calling you white trash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

No it wasn't. :p It just sounded like a :Ti: generalization.

---

you're confusing presentational form for content.

Quote:

---

I've explained up and down what my methodology is, what my theoretical assumptions are, what I regard as reasonable evidence and why, etc. Most of it's elaborated on here. Links to relevant source material are included for your perusal.

---

what you write in there nuances your views on vocational interest and success considerably. but what's worse is that your selection among indicative traits is almost arbitrary. you dismiss behavior for being liable to subjective interpretation (in my opinion it isn't; behavior has directly observable characteristics; one can even scientifically measure the extent to which behavior is loud, active, talkative, etc) and at the same time write that you orient like this: "Any spontaneous visceral reactions I have towards the person for no explicable reason, which I've similarly had towards others of a certain type."

Quote:

---

You've a greater habit of asserting more binary claims than I.

---

i dispute that. also again: form =/= content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

. I'm inclined to believe that no types/IEs/whatever possess significant vocational monopolies, and that one will tend to find a diversity of types in any field. But never mind my heresy for saying that, of course.

---

I have to agree with you on that one. I don't know why it would be controversial, or why people would think that professing to type people accurately would contradict saying that no type has a vocational monopoly. But probably they didn't notice the word "monopolies."

It's actually pretty standard in Socionics to recognize that there isn't a specific mapping of types to careers, as is clear by some traditional typings of famous people. I think there are general tendencies in terms of career choice (a lot of statistical studies in MBTI show correlations of type with career choice, so I suspect it would be similar in Socionics), but monoplies, no.

What does happen, though, is that there are stereotype that people have regarding which types can succeed, even if those people have never heard of Socionics. And this often leads to people being caught offguard by others' abilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

The role of LIIs is probably not that of a "workhorse" who puts the theories together slowly and methodically, but more of a structured theorist who knows the finer points of the theory and can therefore analyze it and piece it together.

Jason

---

It may help to know exactly whom or what you're critiquing. I don't know of any quote that describes LII as "a "workhorse" who puts the theories together slowly and methodically."

However, your contrasting view, while probably accurate of many LIIs, is problematic because it seems to confuse type with intellectual level and interest. In particular:
1) There are many people who aren't LII or even Alpha and know the finer points of a theory and are able to analyze it and piece it together.
2) Socionics types are generally considered (and I think correctly) to cover a broad enough spectrum that we have to consider little children and others who aren't experts in any academic field to still be LII.

Quote:

---

I dismiss behavioral traits like 'loudness', 'active', and 'talkative' as being operationally meaningful traits to assign sociotype by.

---

then you are ignoring factors that could be revealing crucial information about types to you. socionics types are like the flap of the butterfly wing in chaos theory: they influence everything around them in subtle ways to the point you can infer information about them from almost anything.

Quote:

---

Obviously I don't deny that there exist observable symptoms of type—I point out quite a few in that link. But if you're vainly going by behavioral traits such as the ones you cite above, I say that's a prime recipe for attribution errors and psycho-social biasing effects.

---

the risk of attribution error is tautological. it applies to EVERYTHING. those written expressions of values that you like to cite as indication of a type are just as much subject to situational influences as behavior is.

also: no one is talking about looking at one single instance of behavior, attributing it immediately and deciding on the basis of that alone. a synthesis of a person's sustained behavioral trends is what is looked at. but this is something so basic and fundamental that it's hard to ever not be doing it when typing. a person's writing is just another form of behavior. so is a person's mannerisms and body language, etc, etc. which is why it is so debilitating to hear to you categorically dismiss "behavior". you basically commit mental suicide by saying it.

this is basically the problem: the synthesis of observable characteristics across longer stretches of time can not be conveyed in a public discourse. this why when discussing clear indications or "evidence" of typings, you can not rely on these syntheses, but have to reference the particular behavioral occasion instead. it is something with downsides, but at least it allows typings to be discussed publicly rather than to have everyone just profess their opinion without clearly being able to indicate why they believe what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labcoat

i can accept the quoted in isolation. a problem arises when a person first successively claims X, Y, Z and a whole range of other factors are not in any way related to type and then does continue to act as if type is something easy to detect to the point you can make extensive typing lists and assert types under the pretense of authority. you can have one or the other, but not both.

---

That's the most important principle of Ashtonian Socionics (TM): nothing, but absolutely nothing, is type related. You can type by means of psychic power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I have to agree with you on that one. I don't know why it would be controversial, or why people would think that professing to type people accurately would contradict saying that no type has a vocational monopoly. But probably they didn't notice the word "monopolies."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan

1) There are many people who aren't LII or even Alpha and know the finer points of a theory and are able to analyze it and piece it together.

---

You talk in generic terms. If you stick to the terms, you won't be able to make the differences and it's no one's fault for your equivocations. Each notion means a lot of things, one has to use its denotation, in the context of the descriptions (or the posts, unless they're generic themselves). It's just enough to consider that innovation in art is not the same thing with innovation in science, innovation in ideas is not the same thing wtih innovation in methods.

A primarily analytical mind - the monopoly of Ti-Base types, indeed - is just that, an analytical mind, its nature has very little - if anything - in common with "data analysis", "market analysis" or whatever comes to your mind.

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thum...in-circles.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

I know it does, but generalized behavioral attributions ('loud', 'gregarious', etc.) are particularly prone. Hence they should be avoided—unless one is sensibly taking into account relevant contextual dependencies of said behavior—situational, interpersonal, cultural, temporal, and so forth. Most people are cognitively lazy though and won't do this.

---

Yep. Often in this case, information elements are collateral outlets for all kinds of similar superficial behavior and belief systems which don't necessarily explain that which is consequentially relational in the long term. There are personal factors which diverge into all the types, which is why duality isn't perfect and human relationships are tricky to piece together as an elaborate construction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

You missed the point, dear Gilly.

---

Then what, pray tell, was the point?

Dodge me here, artful dodger, and I will probably leave you alone in the gladiator arena in your head forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

1) I have logically deduced my type from a combination of comprehending function descriptions and observing the functions in real life, without looking purely at type descriptions.

2) I don't fit the classic LII description at all, and the problem is always related to this concrete/organizational factor.
Jason

---

I was thinking again about what you said here, and a question popped into my mind: Do elements of the classic ILI description fit you?

I'm not saying that you're an ILI...It's just that there are many people who fit into a lot of the Socionic conceptions of ILI, yet they or others feel that they use primarily what in their definition are Ti and Ne.

I just wonder if you're the same type/subtype/combination-or-whatever as as some of the people often typed as ILI. I'm just raising that because you've been stressing your discomfort with the "structured" and "organized" characterization of LII, and because you remind me somehow of some people who typed themselves as ILI.

Ti is analyzing and categorizing things of the external nature to fit one's internal structure/concept; it's a conceptualizing function so it tries to fit the coincidences of life into a neat box... a subjective box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

Quote:

---

I don't think it logically follows that a difference in how Ti manifests in LII or ILE is a contradiction. Clearly there must be a similarity, but that doesn't say what the similarity is. I think there's actually a lot of overlap between Filatova's description of Ti in LII and ILE.

---

How do you think that there isn't a clear contradiction in (perhaps) quadra values between those two quotes. Further, why do you think that this doesn't carry through to the descriptions as a whole? For instance, how are hard work, perserverance, strict behaviour, etc. alpha quadra values?

How could this be reconciled with creative Ti of ILEs? They can think in clear, definite, consistent ways, but they are often described as disorganized, "chaotic," etc. If you look at the overall descriptions, why do you not think that there is an inconsistency here?

---

Allow me to quote Jung at you:

For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in con~sdousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.



Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but, as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.

That alone makes "but as a creative function it..." a broken argument, if you read at least the last sentence.

In another part, he states:

From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men. But, viewed from a higher standpoint, such men are living evidence of the fact that this rich and varied world with its overflowing and intoxicating life is not purely external, but also exists within.

Yet in socionics, every extraverted rational has an introverted irrational function in their ego block, and every introverted irrational has an extraverted rational function there.

Methinks that shows he was being kind of serious when saying primary and secondary functions aren't nearly comparable.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Keep in mind, too, that if a person resembles being a Ti type merely on the basis of his/her academic work, that may not be enough to type the person as such. Ti in Socionics is not the same as intellectual ability.

---

I never claimed that the two are the same. What this stems from is:

1) I have logically deduced my type from a combination of comprehending function descriptions and observing the functions in real life, without looking purely at type descriptions.

2) I don't fit the classic LII description at all, and the problem is always related to this concrete/organizational factor.

3) I've seen a few people who have this organizational trait and they don't seem to be merry types, nor is the relation identical.

4) To find an answer, I read through the Russian descriptions and found that similar terms keep popping up in LII and LSE descriptions, that the terms are the ones that cause me trouble with the LII descriptions, that there isn't a phenomena of similar traits appearing in other descriptions for types that don't share any ego functions, and that the people who I have typed as having this trait are most like mirage partners - this leading to my hypothesis that the two types are being confused.

---

Wait. So you deduced your type from functions, then you decided to make this thread to re-do functions so they match your typing? Sorry but it sounds increasingly as if you merely wanted to rename stuff or rearrange classification for your own convenience. If we consider not-so-subtle implication of point three ("merry opposes organizational/structured") alone, that contradicts socionics enough to make everyone but you "wrong" about it.

:doh: @ people quoting the idiot savant Jung.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krieger

:doh: @ people quoting the idiot savant Jung.

---

Jung invented your Ti

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason_m

I've seen many on this forum attempt to describe introverted logic. Some of the descriptions are not bad, others are poor. The key problem is that, in our society, structure is often associated with organization and logistics. Therefore, because it is named "structural logic," things like organized living rooms, "structured lifestyles" and even tidiness become associated with Ti. My interpretation is that Ti is supposed to be a mental function as opposed to an external one. I think it deals more with logical structure than logistical structure.

As an example, think of a chemistry text. The text has a "structure" to it, but it is a purely logical structure. The material is organized not because the author simply seeks organization, but because it serves a logical function and brings a level of coherence to the material that would not be there if this organization were absent. Such a text is also structured because it is dealing with the underlying structure of physical events; notice that this notion of structure is logical and abstract, dealing more with hidden structures and, further, a more cognitive picture of logic. I think this is what Ti is supposed to be about. On the other hand, the more concrete and logistical forms of structure are perhaps more the domain of the director - who has the role of concrete organizer.

It should also be noted that these different forms of information are easy to confuse, and this is why Ti is often associated with administrative activities - such as organization - and even concrete and rote knowledge, which is, once again, more a matter of concrete sequential abilities than abstract sequential logic - which is debatebly the domain of LSIs, but certainly not the domain of LIIs.

(You might want to check my work by looking at those who have these different traits and covertly testing them to see if there is a pattern towards seeking outgoingness and what I call Ti, and perhaps seeking more internalized tenderness and what I call Te - specifically :Te::Si:.)

---

Congrats you just identified the content of the post you read is intuitive and logical. Now reread the actual post and figure out what you are from the definition.

Seeking internal tenderness is Te/Fi, so known.

Seeking outgoingness is stupid, and actually not type related except in one case. Dual seeking. Some people just do it instinctively. But in this case, you're wrong, because it's not that one case.

Compare me, LIE, and Arnold, LSE. We both look pretty similar. So similar, Arnold was INTJ, and I was INFJ/P. Nope. And now I'm here, and LIE, and everything is peachy.

Logical cohesion makes sense at first, but then you run into the fact that Ti is usually paired with Ne and Se. So. Huh.

Finally, I read the top part, and I don't get it. Isn't it that? Because, I used to do a ton of categorization in my free time, specifically taking out cars, and ordering them, and pushing them. I also did this with cards, but organizing them by type. I had a pokemon card pokedex, and a bunch of yugio cards that I'd organize by type and element. Really pointless stuff, but I did have little wars between the types and that was fun. Even roleplayed a little. Sadly, it took too long to organize and my mom would always clean them up till she told me to stop and I did.

I have seen people say not type related, but obviously I disagree as it's one of the core things I do. Not very enjoyable though. I like other things better, which is why I barely play video games anymore except to learn how to play them and win so I can apply that to other things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alomoes

Congrats you just identified the content of the post you read is intuitive and logical. Now reread the actual post and figure out what you are from the definition.

Seeking internal tenderness is Te/Fi, so known.

Seeking outgoingness is stupid, and actually not type related except in one case. Dual seeking. Some people just do it instinctively. But in this case, you're wrong, because it's not that one case.

Compare me, LIE, and Arnold, LSE. We both look pretty similar. So similar, Arnold was INTJ, and I was INFJ/P. Nope. And now I'm here, and LIE, and everything is peachy.

Logical cohesion makes sense at first, but then you run into the fact that Ti is usually paired with Ne and Se. So. Huh.

Finally, I read the top part, and I don't get it. Isn't it that? Because, I used to do a ton of categorization in my free time, specifically taking out cars, and ordering them, and pushing them. I also did this with cards, but organizing them by type. I had a pokemon card pokedex, and a bunch of yugio cards that I'd organize by type and element. Really pointless stuff, but I did have little wars between the types and that was fun. Even roleplayed a little. Sadly, it took too long to organize and my mom would always clean them up till she told me to stop and I did.

I have seen people say not type related, but obviously I disagree as it's one of the core things I do. Not very enjoyable though. I like other things better, which is why I barely play video games anymore except to learn how to play them and win so I can apply that to other things.

---

The original post was written by me years ago. I therefore do not agree with everything I wrote.

Several points:

1) Ti is sometimes associated with structure, organization, and precision in thought and action.
2) Ti can also be associated with internal notions of consistency and logic, developing a model of how the world works, and building a unifying (e.g. philosophical) system.
3) I identify with 2) more than 1).
4) Ti is sometimes confused with Te - E.g., Jonathan's quote from the Filatova description is really about Te if you read her descriptions carefully.
5) I no longer agree with my original post that Ti cannot be associated with structured thought or behaviour at all - However, it is simply not a description of my 'Ti.'

Now take all of this into consideration when reading my original post...