At it's essence.
I seem to get lost when I try reading it, and I'm meant to have strong Ti.
Printable View
At it's essence.
I seem to get lost when I try reading it, and I'm meant to have strong Ti.
:Te::
to calculate factorial of n:
start with an accumulator of 1
for each number x from 1 to n, multiply accumulator by x
accumulator now contains the result
:Ti::
factorial is a function from the set of natural numbers to itself such that:
the factorial of 0 is 1
the factorial of any other number n is n times the factorial of n's predecessor
I hope that contrast helps
Also, if you are indeed INFj, then your :Ti: isn't strong... it's just not quite as weak as an ENFp's.
That was an awesome explanation! We DESPERATELY need more of such! Funny thing is that your Te example actually sounds boring to me. Ti otoh... <3Quote:
Originally Posted by tejing
Can you do that with other IEs, pretty please?
as for satan: Ti is a definition and the ability to define.
My own boredom with :Te: may be bleeding through there. It is, after all, my ignoring function.Quote:
Originally Posted by nondescript
I'd have to find a good subject matter first. This example came from an observation I made a while ago that imperative programming is :Te: oriented, while functional programming is :Ti: oriented.Quote:
Originally Posted by nondescript
I see what you're doing and there is no way Te is valued over Ti. It took me months to sort it and I once seriously considered ILI for you.Quote:
Functions were originally described by psychologist C.G. Jung as different ways people judged and perceived information. He named these functions thinking, feeling, sensing, and intuition. Kepensky had a similar idea, called information metabolism, which Aushra Augustinavichiute combined into her theory of socionics.
Jung's function: Introverted Thinking
Socionics function: http://www.the16types.info/info/images/Ti.gif white logic - logic - logic of correlation
objective, outwardly measurable relationships between objects - laws, regulations, rules, categories, quantifiable properties, logic, analysis, belonging, authorship, hierarchy, subordination, objective judgments
Positive(short range):
Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization,
Negative (long range):
abstraction, generality, universality, system, classification, typology, the general laws, objectivity, true, validity, the analysis, logic of a science, criteria.
MBTI Description
Analyzing, categorizing, and figuring out how something works. Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, there is a search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system.
http://www.the16types.info/info/infoelems/Ti.htm
I can also stand to be in your non-physical presence for long periods of time without any frustration. You rarely use demonstrative Te around me and your Se and Ti is balanced except when you are working a lot. Then I imagine you are using your introverted logic much more.
lol @Satan as an INFj
Use your imagination:
When I deal with Te people, they appear to be pulling their thoughts from horizontal places -- it's like they're dealing with an inventory of knowledge out there in the world that they reconnect with. Sometimes it even looks like it's physically behind them.
When I deal with Ti people, they appear to have thought balloons over their heads in which they are tabulating information.
ETA: This is not as whimsical as it might sound, because the impression given off has to do with where they are focusing their eyes and where and how they are gesturing.
logic = understanding how things will happen, given the current circumstances (initial condition) and following a certain progress (equation, principles etc).
I guess the easiest way to differentiate Ti vs Te, is that Ti views their logical framework as a thing unto itself, whereas Te view the logical framework only as a means to convert data to information. Te is focused on what the result will say about the input, while Ti is focused on what the result says about the process. This is why Te seems encyclopedic, because it uses logic to gain information on inputs. Given this input, I get this result. It's also why Te is seen as more trustworthy and grounded in reality, because it is mainly focus on results and building an information base on inputs themselves.
Contrast this with Ti as being seen as more theoretical because it can operate without either an input or a result. It can use its framework to extrapolate: Given this result, the input must have been... or Given this input, the result must be... it can give more insights, but also depends on the accuracy of their framework.
links between objects
Hmm, I find both of those hard to understand. A quick google found me an easier to understand explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tejing
From: http://www.purplemath.com/modules/factorial.htm
Quote:
Factorials are very simple things. They're just products, indicated by an exclamation mark. For instance, "four factorial" is written as "4!" and means 1×2×3×4 = 24. In general, n! ("enn factorial") means the product of all the whole numbers from 1 to n; that is, n! = 1×2×3×...×n.
That kind of description works a LOT better for me than some kind of abstract explanation.
Their description is going along a better track in some ways. But I still find it hard to understand. I think it is important to make better descriptions, but it's hard for me when I struggle to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by nondescript
So how would one define a good explanation?Quote:
as for satan: Ti is a definition and the ability to define.
If we want explanations that everyone can understand then we have to not rely on specialised knowledge, we have to have easy to understand language that will work even if people don't speak English as a first language, and we have to be able to relate to common things that everyone will understand.
Factorials is a good start in some ways. But it's advanced maths. Anything more complicated than integer maths (negative and positive whole numbers) is probably too complicated for the layman.
So like a power cord plugging an appliance in for power?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Which for me brings up many links actually.
In order for a device to be powered:
a) you have to connect power, pay power bill; a bond may be required if you don't have a good credit rating
b) your central power must be switched on
c) your wall socket must have power on
d) your appliance must be plugged in with a power cable, with a firm connection. If sparks come out there may be a lose connection, but there's power available.
e) if the device will not power on, there may be a fuse within the device that has blown. Or a circuit breaker may have triggered. Try another device that's known to work, or try another power socket. If another device works power is fine, and the device is at fault. If the device works in another power socket then a circuit blower may have blown, or there may be bad wiring, which would require an electrician to safely fix.
f) if still wanting to fix device, and the power line to the device is good, then check if there's a fuse or dodgy connection. Try wriggling the cable a bit if it uses a thin cable (ie with a power brick). If still no joy, then an alternate power brick may work. Most of such devices are DC voltage, and compatible as long as the volts match, and the amps are good enough. So if it says 12v 1amp, you can use a power brick that has the same connector you can use 12v and 2amp and it'll work - but you have to make sure that positive/negative are the same. There is usually a symbol with a full circle in the middle that'll show that the centre is positive - and so check that lines up.
Damn, it seems a lot less complicated when you don't think about it. So is that a Ti way of thinking? The thing is I don't really like that kind of thing, I just tend to know it. Hmm.
And now I am brought to thinking that if it's a thick cable / high voltage. Then it's best to just throw away the appliance generally if there's a power problem and no easily replacable fuse. As there could be a fire risk.
Also I see that I'm missing possible things - like there could be a power board, and that may need reseting. And I tend to focus instead on things like tracing power cable to see where it's plugged in, and seeing if other things have power plugged in etc.
logic of correlation. it manifests in real life as distances between things, as attention of one person on another.
*deletes*
*hopes there were no witnesses* :agent:
Well that was a bit ranty. I apologize to all tech support personnel who are only doing their job, by the book. :hide:
Edit: Yes, I believe you are using Ti.
Quote:
This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, there is a search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system.
analysis and overthinking but strong Ti also tends to build a clear picture of either side by elimination of similarity. it can be very easoteric. take a very simple example. Ask Ti "what is the difference between an apple and an orange." you get something like this A. Apple. Has a firm texture throughout. Is white on the inside Has a star shaped center when cut vertically B. Orange. Has a soft center. Is orange inside. has 8 Sections when cut vertically. What you dont get is similarities that have been thought about and eliminated for instance they are both a fruit, both have seeds. ect.
this is my role function Ti into work :)
seems like you are describing a processQuote:
Originally Posted by Satan
Well the analogy with physics is meant to help describe how you consciousness looks; when objects actually collide and interact, which is an abstraction of the idea of extroverts being more "interactive people" rather than withdrawn, they influence each other, arouse each other, displace each other -- and of course the most removed view on all this is the potential they carry.
The introverted perspective to the largest degree tries to look to relations between objects before they're forced to interact. So e.g. with Fe, where it really sees how interacting with X changes my state, Fi just observes there was some ethical relation a priori between me and the something, else it wouldn't have changed my ethical state of arousal.
To understand Te vs Ti it is good to understand T in general: overall, reason comes both from ones intuitive ideas, tangible experiences, and logical formulation. The logical formulation of a thought is where T comes in. Reason kind of exists in the clouds until you really come out and say it in some particular logical way (you might understand something before you can put it into logical formulation). So what you need to do is find a way to implement it.
The psychology of this is effectively that you're doing work to implement an agenda (the other side is there was some arousal of your sense of the significance of something to pursue the result).
You are producing something from an idea in the clouds by specifying the relevant logical facts, as if you're laying bricks, until you reach the result.
That is the Te side of the picture.
The introverted logic side is that for a piece of reasoning to be truly logical, it has to have a structure rather than be the fluid sense of understanding you had in your mind. So Ti types tend to be very concerned with the essence of what makes the formulation truly logical --- this means really capturing the idea in a fully logical form, so that the logical structure itself reveals the intricacies of the idea. Te is termed practical or algorthmic logic because it views the "point" of logic as different -- to implement a result, rather than to reveal in a more defined way the structure. Which is certainly one valid way of looking at it -- an idea in the clouds never gets anywhere without laying out an agenda and doing some work from that starting point. It can remain a potential.
Both these are necessary to go e.g. from intuition to logical reason (which is my preferred example since I'm N, although you could also do the same with a tangible concrete observation to logical reason).
However, one's ego may be more invested in one than the other and the other may just happen automatically and not be something you cognitively value enough to drive you.
I'd say it's a person's ability to logically map the world. Ti may come up with an understanding of a person that uses certain rules to explain how that person relates with themself and other people; or it may use rules as a starting point for describing the relationships between various occurrences.
But most importantly there's this subjective component of taking something for granted - such as axioms - before anything can be logically derived. Consider that in politics if a person shows support for a political party it is often assumed that they hold certain beliefs or ideologies because of it, even if it may not be true, and some people will use this to find relationships that also may not be true as a result. Thus Ti has this subjective quality.
However, in reference to politics, I'd say Ti becomes a lot less subjective and more grounded in reality when it is supplemented with experience or knowledge of what beliefs people actually have. This requires an extroverted function to balance the introverted one, either Se or Ne in this case, and gives a more objective starting point for basing a subjectively constructed framework. Ideally, I think Ti as a cognitive process has a need for being as objective as possible in order to eliminate devising a world that doesn't map well to reality; otherwise it risks becoming very abstracted from it.
Lol where exactly are you lost, I'm curious. Tell me. I think Ti was the IE for me that never needed explaining - I just read the descriptions and definitions and it was obvious. +Ti and -Ti also pretty obvious. Everything else, every other IE or jungian function or whatever I had to think/consider a bit longer to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satan
For me its essence is that it's a static view looking at things processing and/or building/creating every logical relation together that's there if you were to explicitly break things down. It's essentially structural in nature.
Notes
1) yes socionics Static dichotomy
2) When I say process (or build/create) them together it means they are going to be set along and against each other in a certain way looking for a feel of matching. That of course may have different levels.. can be done not just on one level. So from that can come complex hierarchy etc.
3) I can't find a better word than "relation" to sum up all the different kinds of logical aspects. But note these relations come from feels of magnitudes of various sorts and from the sums of distinct elementary decisions on what exactly things/parts are.
Well, I do also absorb that one much faster. I don't know if that's +Ti with Se? I do learn the fastest through seeing and analysing concrete examples for myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satan
I don't have an issue with the other version either but your simpler version is definitely much faster, because I just look and everything's done in that one look. With the abstract version of it, it invites me to lay out a logical map inside my mind more thoroughly and consider it as part of a larger logical framework (which is also rather abstract in nature) with other relevant concepts in it. It leads to a deeper understanding that can allow me to manipulate more objects with it. That map to me is almost visual and can be made fully visual in an abstract way to illustrate the map (no everyday objects imagined in it, just shapes, lines, distances, colours, angles, dimensions, overlays, etc) but it's not necessary.. it's just an illustration for fun.
You sound like very Ti creative here, I do think that's a cool ability, the Ti creative, to explain without getting too deep in Ti, I suppose the Te demonstrative also helps :pQuote:
If we want explanations that everyone can understand then we have to not rely on specialised knowledge, we have to have easy to understand language that will work even if people don't speak English as a first language, and we have to be able to relate to common things that everyone will understand.
Factorials is a good start in some ways. But it's advanced maths. Anything more complicated than integer maths (negative and positive whole numbers) is probably too complicated for the layman.
1) That was Te demonstrative with Ti creative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Satan
2) You don't like to think about parts of it, that's the Te probably.
3) Yeah it's gonna take a while to draw out the whole framework, Ti is like that.
You were quick to identify the Ti parts, cool :) your quote is spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
I'd like to reply to comment on a few other posts too heh :)
@GOLDEN
Interesting imaginative synesthesia you have there. :cool:
@tejing
This is a pretty good contrast. I'd like to note that the Ti example is clearly a tidbit from a larger framework and that's quite typical of Ti. Just like for @Satan it was hard to put the entire framework there in his post about the power/electricity issues. Takes a while if you really want to go into everything :)
@ryoka14
I think this explanation is a bit Te heavy? I don't get the idea on Ti being focused on what the result says about the process.
@Sol
That's um....not very specific to Ti. Any introverted IE is like that. Type of link matters.
@Maritsa
Ah the elimination thing, maybe that's what some people see as negativism as per reinin in me.
Hmm, for me an apple is green, an orange is orange. BUT you can get red apples too. You could say you need to peel an orange, and you don't need to peel an apple. But some people peel apples, and some don't peel oranges. I suppose I'd rather present an apple, and an orange, and say this is an apple, and this is an orange. I would struggle to describe an apple without describing a pear too, but they do taste different. But trying to convey the taste of something is best done by tasting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
I clarified that it's got a physical basis in eye focus and gestures. So I am extrapolating from some visible information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
I tend to randomly take in bodies of information by scanning it first (sort of like speed reading but I can sort of see it all at once) then make instant connections to previous bodies of information. If I have no previous knowledge of it or I have trouble understanding I will read more carefully. Could that be an HA thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Edit: I wonder if you pick up on this when we are chatting because you question if I read something or not. I do read it but my mind is scanning for previous experience and if not it goes into contemplation mode to work out a coherent response. I do read everything it is just out of order sometimes. I know I can go off in a different direction, when I make an association, but I always make it full circle back to the original subject, eventually. :)
With what he wrote I just filtered out all the Te and zeroed in on the essence of what he was describing and that paragraph popped into my head. Then I took it in a different direction but realized what I was doing so edited it. :)
That quote is spot onQuote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
I think I might have accidentally ran into a really really good example of Ti vs Te while trying to type myself.
When trying to find their type, a Ti valuer is more likely to make sure the everything about their type matches up their understanding of themselves. They feel the need that they themselves understand instead of just taking someone else's word for it. A Te valuer, on the other hand, is more likely to simply stick with the recommended methods of typing and accept whatever they are told as truth. The Ti method is less efficient but gives a more complete understanding of the subject, where as the Te method is faster and more efficient for its intended purpose but doesn't offer a full and clear understanding of the subject.
Can you write more about these observations? Eye focus, gestures.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOLDEN
Btw I didn't mean to imply that you were being whimsical, my comment was not sarcastic or anything like that. :)
It's worth noting that :Ti: is very sensitive to arbitrary information, because it cannot be derived from conceptual relationships (which is how :Ti: seeks to encode all information), and to redundant information, because it adds no new conceptual relationships.
I'd probably need to take some time to analyze it more fully, but I have often seen Te-heavy individuals speak with their eyes in what appears to be a fixed position, and one thing they will do is look as though they are focusing behind themselves. To understand what this looks like, simply do it yourself -- try to focus on something that is say three feet behind your head. There is a kind of flatness to this. Te-first extraverts will make some expansive gestures as extraverts are wont to do, but they generally are not very fluid-looking; the arms tend to stay within certain planes ... iirc it's almost like someone landing punches in that the gestures seem to aim here, then there. Locating discrete points in space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Ti types tend to look like they have already gathered a lot of information and are keeping it in a kind of holding pen, and it's located above and in front of them. There are subtle eye movements to indicate they have some focus there. Their eyes will move elsewhere but keep returning to that central spot. For this one, look somewhere other than above and in front of you, but pretend that something is up there and you need to remain aware of it. LSIs are ... not very gestural at all ime. Very contained. LIIs I've known strike a bit more of a balance there but also are quite contained. I'm remembering an LSI-Se professor of mine whose gestures very frequently were immediately frontal and somewhat up and down in lines, though this was somewhat shaped by the fact that he was using a chalkboard. Anyhoo ... personal observations, not sciencey.
Yeah as a ratipnal function it has to do with systems of thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muddytextures
Well, there's no doubt I'm a Ti valuer going by this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tejing
What is Ti? Something I need to use more.
I can help with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vince
Hmm, interesting. I don't think I have noticed this eye thing yet but I'll try to watch and see. Kinda skeptical tbh. Tho maybe the Ti eyes thing fits me? But let me add, I don't actually imagine anything in front/above even if it may look like that. So I don't know why the focus would be directed there even if it is really so. As for the gestures that does make sense. Your description of that fits my experiences quite well.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOLDEN
I didn't think anyone was actually imagining something in front of them, which is why I suggested that you try to do it to get a sense of what it's like. It's a very subtle thing. Skepticism is fine, but since we do know that people's eyes do move in relation to their thought processes, for reasons that afaik are currently unknown to the scientific community but that may have something to do with evolution. So it stands to reason that if people are favoring different ways of thinking and perceiving as socionics posits, some differences might be seen in habitual unconscious movement patterns of the eyes and else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Nlp posits the following as a theory regarding eye cues.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOLDEN
http://www.youlied.org/nlp3.gif
Not everyone fits the chart, so nlp uses some callabration questions to figure out an individual's typical eye patterns when accessing information.
Edited to add:
When I'm initially trying to remember an event, to pull it up, I access the back of my brain, sifting and sorting until the event comes back to my mind...the actions and order of actions. Once it's pulled out, it's held in the front so further cues can be accessed about it. I'm sure that when I'm initially recalling the event that my eyes stare kind of straight forward going blank, or I close them to block out visual stimulus to make the recall easier.
Also, when people are juggling short term memory thoughts, they tend to look up (like trying to look at a projection of the neocortex).
As I read this I got a vision of the Tasmanian devil cyclone through my brain, pulling open filing cabinets, and papers flying everywhere, until the right file is found and then present it to my conscious mind. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
That was absolutely a first because I tend to envision my mind as a supercomputer processor that quickly selects the needed file without disturbing other files. I think I tend to look slightly up and to the left when I am asked a question and need a moment to think about it or I will gaze far off in the distance like in a trance state. People think they lost me and I get the hand wave in front of my eyes. I tell them I am just stretching my eyes but really I am accessing information. I hear everything they say but it is like they are in the distance and whatever I am staring far off at comes closer than they are, even when they are right next to me. It is hard to explain. I imagine it is disconcerting for some people when we first meet. That trance thingy, I do, is usually triggered in a long conversation.
Edit: Maybe this means my thinking is not as efficient and organized as I imagined.
My mom refers to this as the little man that lives in her brain, who's job is to file everything. She laments that he must be getting senile in his old age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
I've described mine as standing on a stage in front of a closed curtain with the spotlight shining on me. I'm tapping on the curtain telling whoever is back there to hurry up and get me the damned info cuz i'm losing my audience. When I finally get the info it's like a tiny slip of paper slid under the curtain with one 'word'/'clip' on it. From that word/clip I'm expected to remember/figure everything else out. (My mind has a sense of humor I guess.)
I often think that NFs probably have the most disorganized minds due to the double implicit elements. With STs probably having the most organized minds with significantly less fluff due to double explicit elements.Quote:
That was absolutely a first because I tend to envision my mind as a supercomputer processor that quickly selects the needed file without disturbing other files. I think I tend to look slightly up and to the left when I am asked a question and need a moment to think about it or I will gaze far off in the distance like in a trance state. People think they lost me and I get the hand wave in front of my eyes. I tell them I am just stretching my eyes but really I am accessing information. I hear everything they say but it is like they are in the distance and whatever I am staring far off at comes closer than they are, even when they are right next to me. It is hard to explain. I imagine it is disconcerting for some people when we first meet. That trance thingy, I do, is usually triggered in a long conversation.
Edit: Maybe this means my thinking is not as efficient and organized as I imagined.
Knowing why you think what you think and why you don't think what you don't think.
Being able to follow the logic of this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by ouronis
I didn't have to try to do the Ti one as I recognized it, I did try out the Te one and it was weird. I don't see why it has to be linked to Te and I have never tried to observe it before so yep, skepticism is natural here, so natural that I don't think this even needs an explanation. Anyway, I have never heard about any scientific investigation outside NLP - which isn't scientific - about such linking of eye movements to thought processes. I'm not very trusting of NLP either. I once had my brother - who's into NLP a bit - experiment with me about certain eye movements from NLP theory just for the heck of it and the results came out as rather random distributions, heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOLDEN
Focusing on grammar. It is just boring. I think that means undervalued Te. It follows some sort of algorithm and gives no perspective on abstract side of things.
My perspective:
Ti is very flexible thing to do. I just look at information potential based on different systems, chose it and then manipulate it. I think I'm like system whore where as xEEs can not settle down when it comes to people.
If you look at hard core mathematics it is very much Ti in 4D. Physics comes from more creative Ti perspective since it applies mathematics. I think modern computer programming is very much Te. It is like giving specific instructions to do. I can do it but it is just too tedious in long term.
From a behavioural perspective: Ti = stubborness, analytical, reliable, seriousness
No I would not equate computer programming with Te. It depends what kind of programming you do and how. I also would not equate physics with Ti, I think physics is actually quite a grateful subject for a Te approach. Though of course Ti is fine with it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by unsuccessfull Alphamale
I think one would be surprised, while it is true many fields of study kind of have a most "common" type of their own, there's enough room for differing approaches.
A lot of mathematics is driven almost from an artistic mentality, and expanding pure intuitions into the logical sphere -- this artistic mentality is exactly reminiscent of the kind of thing Jung frequently associated to intuitive dominants.
(As a note, no I am not saying anyone who approaches a subject with a level of aesthetic bent is doing so intuitively, e.g. plenty of programmers find an aesthetic appeal to structuring their code a certain way.)
One can focus on the structural aspects of programming, e.g. the structure of a programming language and so on, and I imagine lots of Ti-oriented types love this. It's true a lot of the industry is driven in a Te way though, but certainly not all.
The latter two rather describe the Ti-Base types, not all Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
---
It should be mentioned that the legendary stubborness of Ti types comes by a few mechanisms.
First, Ti types extract rules, principles and regularities from the facts, discarding the latter more eagerly that other types. That is, they are caught off-hand when asked for real past instances where their opinion applies. They don't want, and generally are unable to take it all over just because someone needs real cases. However, Ti types normally change their views along their lives, when the facts require so - in fact they are more likely to do so than Fi types due to their more rigid, systematic view system. Fi-wise, the relations between things are more flexible and organic, an amalgam of corelations that Ti types also would use in a new area, during the data-gathering stage, when they are not yet put together, mandating necessities. (remember Ti is an External function, cognition elements need be constrained, the single fundamental difference between it and Fi)
Then, when it comes to actions, Ti is about best practices and applying the rules. One field of this approach is security and prevention. They won't change the rules on the fly because that misses the point of making them in the first place. You have to use them. And by the way, this is one reason why Ti types may be anal when one uses improper reasoning: the logical mistake you do today will compromise the system you'll use tomorrow. Ideally, this construct should be a flawless crystal - preferably diamond. ;)
Well said, and I like the crystal image. :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ineffable
In particular, :Ti: leading types don't just have individual systems for specific purposes, but we assemble those systems into one huge system. This means a mistake, if uncaught, can even affect seemingly unrelated areas and quickly reach a point where huge amounts of effort are required to undo the damage. In the rigidly logical areas we prefer, such mistakes are quickly caught because some conceptual relationship doesn't agree with expectation, but in less rigid systems it can cause real problems. For example, in school when my english teacher taught us about metaphors and similes, she got the two names backwards, and didn't realize her mistake for 3 days. In that time I had already made/strengthened huge numbers of connections (to root words, for example), and it was the better part of 10 years before I managed to get it straight.
10 years? That's weird. I wouldn't have even made those connections in 3 days. Also why do names/labels matter so much to you instead of the actual meaning of the label? I'm not following your issue here at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by tejing
I do like your distinction between rigidly logical areas and less rigid ones though I'd say it's more about arbitrariness.
I think of Ti as a web of how everything/all parts of a whole is interconnected. If a part within that system does not fit, then there is a need for concision in order to make sure that it does. If that doesn't happen, then that part is thrown out. As long as the system makes sense without the discarded particular (which would now be seen as trivial).
It's not that I care a lot about language, but it's one of the less rigid systems that I still handle with :Ti:, despite the arbitrarity, and it illustrates the permanence of :Ti: information which causes us to be so meticulous about systemic mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Hm, ok, I'm much more cautious about making such far-reaching connections. Maybe this is an LII thing in your caseQuote:
Originally Posted by tejing