ISTjs and following rules, order, regulations: Socionics vs. the reality

I wanted to create a separate topic for this discussion since I've seen it come up several times without being fully studied and addressed. A major problem that I've noticed in many of socionics descriptions of (Ti,Se) type called LSI is that LSIs are described to be rule-followers who uphold rules, laws, order, and regulations above anything else, as the social mission of this type according to Stratievskaya.

I'm always surprised to read such descriptions of ISTjs how they are supposed to love rules, order, and regulations, when the socionics "benchmark" for LSI is Joseph Stalin - the man who went against the existing order, against every conceivable rule, against the regulations of his era, who defied the authorities and the government, a man who created anarchy and unrest in his country instead of keeping order, and used the ensuing chaos to make himself the head and chief of his country.

The question is: Is there something fundamentally wrong with the way socionics describes ISTjs, their behavior, in everyday life as well as how they go about achieving positions of power? On this very forum I've seen some posters quote these LSI profiles verbatim, but even those few members who self-type as LSI don't seem to agree with this. Doesn't this seem problematic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Yes, you're confused. LSIs don't love rules and regulations. Order is something entirely different. A law or a regulation tells you what to do and how to do it. This is why it falls under Te. The kind of "rules" that fall under Ti are more along the lines of organization and categorization. This belongs in this category, it doesn't belong in that one. This fits with this and that, but not with that.

---

I found strat's article on EIE and LSI duality helpful in this regard

its more like LSI builds a rule based framework around the ideological content and impetus conveyed by EIE. they don't have a problem starting from the ground-up, and in doing so placing themselves in charge. in fact its possible they prefer it that way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo

I wanted to create a separate topic for this discussion since I've seen it come up several times without being fully studied and addressed. A major problem that I've noticed in many of socionics descriptions of (Ti,Se) type called LSI is that LSIs are described to be rule-followers who uphold rules, laws, order, and regulations above anything else, as the social mission of this type according to Stratievskaya.

I'm always surprised to read such descriptions of ISTjs how they are supposed to love rules, order, and regulations, when the socionics "benchmark" for LSI is Joseph Stalin - the man who went against the existing order, against every conceivable rule, against the regulations of his era, who defied the authorities and the government, a man who created anarchy and unrest in his country instead of keeping order, and used the ensuing chaos to make himself the head and chief of his country.

The question is: Is there something fundamentally wrong with the way socionics describes ISTjs, their behavior, in everyday life as well as how they go about achieving positions of power? On this very forum I've seen some posters quote these LSI profiles verbatim, but even those few members who self-type as LSI don't seem to agree with this. Doesn't this seem problematic?

---

Living with an LSI mother as an LII daughter, she only really cares about rules when 1-) It is about her -and also people she cares about- safety and 2-) When there is someone being unfair (a kind of trigger for Ti-bases, it seems?) She kind of is an odd case since she ended up being a nurse and actually raised a child because she wanted to and also has kind of an experiment feel to it, which probably would have offended many other types. She often times does whatever she needs to as her work not because of any kind of absolute obedience but rather she hates when someone else have any ammo to shoot at her when in an argument. If she does her job properly, then no one can mess with her and if they do mess with her, she can fight back without having anything to be held against her. Her interactions with people always have this underlying theme.

Her Ti and Se cares about "order" but only as in "how can I find a shortcut for this" and "this really goes against my aesthetic pleasure so things should be in their order" way. She does, however, follow her own personal Ti-rules and regulations- ie "never give anyone any ammunition to hit you with especially in Fe matters" is a rule she always follows, or "be friendly and get along with people so you can keep contact with them for whenever you need something from them" or simply "there is this thing wrong here so I should point this out even if others don't like it" way. But Te order/regulations/rules? A lot flexible with them again, until something crosses her Ti or Fe. (or Se.)

(Also do keep in mind that she still does have going against authority thing but due to financial condition plus responsibility of almost being a single parent with a child in college, it is not as extreme. She still very much have her lone wolf who detest authority in her but simply goes about it in a more roundabout way than as obvious whenever she can. So no, she -to some extent- fakes being a perfect employee who follows the rules while it is more of careful planning and taking action when necessary on her part. She quickly finishes whatever she needs to do without much fuss and goes on with her day doing whatever she wants to/needs a human being to do.)

LSIs seem to be interested in ideologies, and they pick and choose those that they like and create their own rules, systems & protocols for themselves to follow, either ideology-wise or practical life shortcut-wise. That seems to be the extent of how the stereotype plays out IRL I've found.

As for me, I only care about if I'm following rules, I would never attempt to push rules on others, because I hate those kinds of people. And when I'm following rules, I only follow the ones that work or make sense, or, I learn the exact rules so I know how I can bend them to get away with it. I am hardly much like the LSI descriptions. I live in chaos and I suck at time management. I do much better in a work environment where there is flexibility and a slower pace. I am currently becoming beyond burned out from strenuous minimum wage jobs, I'm one shit sandwich away from renewing my stripper license. I will be glad to be back in a job where I can make my own rules, choose my own customers, choose my own hours, outfits, etc. I'm exhausted from following others' orders for the last 2 years.

The Ij temperament is a planner and ST-types seem to prefer everything quantified. Rules, orders and regulations is one way of quantifying that is also associated with planning structures so there is a fit with the ISTj persona. However, ISTj rebels may not follow any laws because their way of quantifying reality may be completely opposed to the general population. ISTjs want structure and usually have their own plans, which is not necessarily tied to established ways. The uninspired follow existing rules because it requires no thinking.

a.k.a. I/O

If you go back to the basics of model A it's really quite simple:

Te rules (i.e. how to do things, best practices, instructions, etc): I tend to disregard these and more or less assume they're below me. I'll purposefully do something in a convoluted (and to a Te type, inefficient) manner for the hell of it. This can and has come back to bite me. But it also leads me to shortcuts in doing things that can put me way ahead of the competition. This tendency drives my SEE brother loony.

Ti rules (I.e. classification, organization, system design, etc): The best wsy to understand my mind I'm this area is to understand object oriented programming. I am constantly identifying objects in the environment, assigning properties to objects, assigning classes to objects, daydreaming of better classes, and experimenting with different groups in my mind. This allows me to process huge volumes of information and retain it for long periods of time. I'm also extremely flexible with these categories and classifications since I'm constantly toying with them and rearranging them in my head. This flavors every aspect of my life.

Fi rules (I.e. How to feel about people, how to greet people, etc): I'm quite rigid and inflexible in these. You'll see me get most angry when someone bends or disregards one of my Fi rules in a way I don't like or I feel makes me look bad. I don't have a very nuanced understanding of these and because I don't have a great deal of confidence in this area, I tend to toe the line

Fe rules (I.e. How to express myself, how to relate to the emotional environment, etc): I am damn near blind in this area. I need someone to guide me through these rules and cover up my blunders.


Just a disclaimer: I could be LII rather than LSI. But regardless, the F/T descriptions should hold true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo

I wanted to create a separate topic for this discussion since I've seen it come up several times without being fully studied and addressed. A major problem that I've noticed in many of socionics descriptions of (Ti,Se) type called LSI is that LSIs are described to be rule-followers who uphold rules, laws, order, and regulations above anything else, as the social mission of this type according to Stratievskaya.

I'm always surprised to read such descriptions of ISTjs how they are supposed to love rules, order, and regulations, when the socionics "benchmark" for LSI is Joseph Stalin - the man who went against the existing order, against every conceivable rule, against the regulations of his era, who defied the authorities and the government, a man who created anarchy and unrest in his country instead of keeping order, and used the ensuing chaos to make himself the head and chief of his country.

The question is: Is there something fundamentally wrong with the way socionics describes ISTjs, their behavior, in everyday life as well as how they go about achieving positions of power? On this very forum I've seen some posters quote these LSI profiles verbatim, but even those few members who self-type as LSI don't seem to agree with this. Doesn't this seem problematic?

---

Well to me rules are very fundamental. Beyond the very immediate contact with tangible objects which doesn't need much of a systematic approach, as soon as any context beyond the absolute immediate one needs to be applied, I simply can't *truly* see things without applying rules / structure on them, so yes I see them "through" those. Before doing so, it's just data that's not discerned fully and I put it aside for later processing and it truly gets *noticed* when I've managed to see it through a rule or the rules of a system. And I keep to the rules stuff as consistently as a human being can.

But rule-follower? Eh, in a sense yes and in another sense no. Formalized rules are the domain of Logic (both Ti and Te have rules), and the rules that come from an external system without me having processed that system and having accepted it for myself in my own way, that is, it will definitely be interpreted through my already existing views, by comparison to other systems and so on, well, rules of such an external system I don't really accept. I can use them if I need to, yes, but that's about it. It is also entirely possible that I will accept that system after processing through it in that fashion, yes. I do see good rules as universal, applying to everyone and without exception.

So then... I'm able to go against the existing order if it doesn't make sense to me as long as I think I can get away with it. I would argue with authority too starting from elementary/primary school. :lol: With society on the whole, I do fit into a lot of the existing order rather well though wherever it makes sense to me and I suppose as a collectivist type it does easily make sense for many things with caveats that I'm also aware of and I do very much like the idea of progress and changing structures for the better.

Otoh, I'm not very creative so I don't often have ideas on that, though from time to time I definitely do have my own pretty deep ideas. But because of not being a very creative out-of-the-box Intuitive and because of seeing the limited resources/realities I'm more accepting of current systems than Intuitives would be. So that's another reason why the stereotype would put LSI as a rule-follower capable of accepting existing social order. This has truth to it in this way with the caveats as detailed above. And yes EIE does broaden the horizon there too.

Overall, no, I don't know where the confusion comes from for you. I have been MIA on this forum, can you please link me to those discussions you referred to? I'm curious. Because I really do think ISTj is very well described in Socionics sources. I agree with the ideas in most of those descriptions while keeping it in mind that it's not to be applied in a stereotypical or extremely literal way.

Stratiyevskaya's LSI description is pretty good as an example. Or this LSI-EIE duality description.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck

The Ij temperament is a planner and ST-types seem to prefer everything quantified. Rules, orders and regulations is one way of quantifying that is also associated with planning structures so there is a fit with the ISTj persona. However, ISTj rebels may not follow any laws because their way of quantifying reality may be completely opposed to the general population. ISTjs want structure and usually have their own plans, which is not necessarily tied to established ways. The uninspired follow existing rules because it requires no thinking.

a.k.a. I/O

---

I don't see myself as a planner tbh. Idk, LSI-Ti seems more like it than I am. The rest you did put very well. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bertrand

I found strat's article on EIE and LSI duality helpful in this regard

its more like LSI builds a rule based framework around the ideological content and impetus conveyed by EIE. they don't have a problem starting from the ground-up, and in doing so placing themselves in charge. in fact its possible they prefer it that way

---

Yeah, new framework would be jump-started by EIE's input. I can have my own deep ideas as I said but that Ni creative/Ne demo is pretty cool for this too. Talking to an EIE can be really really fertilizing to bring out deeper ideas. It's awesome to me. Then if any change can be created based on that... yeah, that's totally cool by me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

LSIs seem to be interested in ideologies, and they pick and choose those that they like and create their own rules, systems & protocols for themselves to follow, either ideology-wise or practical life shortcut-wise. That seems to be the extent of how the stereotype plays out IRL I've found.

---

Yeah, the stereotype interpreted entirely literally seems like E6 soc-first instinct or something. A lot of the rules are for myself, my own life, too or for how I can interface with other people's systems. But I don't mind the idea of creating law that would apply to entire society. :lol: In the ideological sense it's very interesting to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApeironStella

Living with an LSI mother as an LII daughter, she only really cares about rules when 1-) It is about her -and also people she cares about- safety and 2-) When there is someone being unfair (a kind of trigger for Ti-bases, it seems?) She kind of is an odd case since she ended up being a nurse and actually raised a child because she wanted to and also has kind of an experiment feel to it, which probably would have offended many other types. She often times does whatever she needs to as her work not because of any kind of absolute obedience but rather she hates when someone else have any ammo to shoot at her when in an argument. If she does her job properly, then no one can mess with her and if they do mess with her, she can fight back without having anything to be held against her. Her interactions with people always have this underlying theme.

Her Ti and Se cares about "order" but only as in "how can I find a shortcut for this" and "this really goes against my aesthetic pleasure so things should be in their order" way. She does, however, follow her own personal Ti-rules and regulations- ie "never give anyone any ammunition to hit you with especially in Fe matters" is a rule she always follows, or "be friendly and get along with people so you can keep contact with them for whenever you need something from them" or simply "there is this thing wrong here so I should point this out even if others don't like it" way. But Te order/regulations/rules? A lot flexible with them again, until something crosses her Ti or Fe. (or Se.)

(Also do keep in mind that she still does have going against authority thing but due to financial condition plus responsibility of almost being a single parent with a child in college, it is not as extreme. She still very much have her lone wolf who detest authority in her but simply goes about it in a more roundabout way than as obvious whenever she can. So no, she -to some extent- fakes being a perfect employee who follows the rules while it is more of careful planning and taking action when necessary on her part. She quickly finishes whatever she needs to do without much fuss and goes on with her day doing whatever she wants to/needs a human being to do.)

---

Yeah unfairness is a strong trigger to me. Interesting strategy about ensuring no ammo against her at the workplace. My motivation is a bit different, I just like to do things well, and very much like to excel beyond that if it comes to complex tasks. I can do shortcuts heh, but I don't really get the aesthetic pleasure thingy. That sounds a bit like SLI since they apply Ti for the Si agenda of having aesthetic pleasure. Ti as Base function of LSI does not follow such a Si agenda but the Si is definitely built into it by using it as data, just not as the agenda for the ordering done by the Logic (Ti). I'm not intending to retype your mom though, no. I suppose you could've just worded that there in an ambiguous way.

What do these Fe matters look like, can you say more? I'm really curious about that.

I don't really relate to the rule of "be friendly and get along with people so you can keep contact with them for whenever you need something from them". Like at all... does she have a strong Social instinct (enneagram)? I do however relate to "there is this thing wrong here so I should point this out even if others don't like it", haha oh well. Though with people who can Fe enough I become more attentive to the Fe side of things so I can deliver the criticism in a better way sometimes or I can even realize another perspective for the issue and let go of it entirely (not easy - takes either a very patient EIE, or an impatient but persistent EIE :lol:).

I don't think I detest authority per se. Hierarchy in society is just what it is... I'll have my own opinion always, I'm a very argumentative person but I know how to work with authority if needed, and it doesn't involve detesting of them, it's just what it is, really, neutral or normal to me. If there is a serious problem with the authority in some place then of course, if any action can be taken, I will be happy to support such action against the authority but not simply because of them being authority but because of the actual problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pole

As for me, I only care about if I'm following rules, I would never attempt to push rules on others, because I hate those kinds of people. And when I'm following rules, I only follow the ones that work or make sense, or, I learn the exact rules so I know how I can bend them to get away with it. I am hardly much like the LSI descriptions. I live in chaos and I suck at time management. I do much better in a work environment where there is flexibility and a slower pace. I am currently becoming beyond burned out from strenuous minimum wage jobs, I'm one shit sandwich away from renewing my stripper license. I will be glad to be back in a job where I can make my own rules, choose my own customers, choose my own hours, outfits, etc. I'm exhausted from following others' orders for the last 2 years.

---

Hmm a word on the rule pushing. I can be pushy to achieve goals and I push people for that and so in a sense I push rules because I go by those so that just happens naturally in the process. But it's not like I explicitly moralize about them in some long-winded way. I'm more like "do this" or "do this because (short reasoning)".

As for chaos - Ij types are to control the chaos in their framework. Probably due to the extra Se, I do like to refer to it as riding the chaos, feeling in control. :lol:

I would not want to stay with the strenuous minimum wage jobs either, it's very menial and degrading for anyone who aspires to anything at all in life. I don't think the issue of rule following is the problem with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokomis

If you go back to the basics of model A it's really quite simple:

Te rules (i.e. how to do things, best practices, instructions, etc): I tend to disregard these and more or less assume they're below me. I'll purposefully do something in a convoluted (and to a Te type, inefficient) manner for the hell of it. This can and has come back to bite me. But it also leads me to shortcuts in doing things that can put me way ahead of the competition. This tendency drives my SEE brother loony.

---

Hehh shortcuts. Yes if you have covered the system of something deeply, you can get ahead of the Te bases. :P I don't bother with doing things in a convoluted manner though, I don't see the point of that. I'll just go for optimizing processes and then do them the same way always. Unless I somehow see some way for more improvement. Sometimes I can even have an entire paradigm shift in my system. Lovely Ni moments!

Instructions are the domain of both Ti and Te btw. Depends how you go about it, the most efficient logical action oriented instructions (Te) or more deeply organizing the material to create the most sensible instructions (Ti).

Quote:

---

Ti rules (I.e. classification, organization, system design, etc): The best wsy to understand my mind I'm this area is to understand object oriented programming. I am constantly identifying objects in the environment, assigning properties to objects, assigning classes to objects, daydreaming of better classes, and experimenting with different groups in my mind. This allows me to process huge volumes of information and retain it for long periods of time. I'm also extremely flexible with these categories and classifications since I'm constantly toying with them and rearranging them in my head. This flavors every aspect of my life.

---

Are you like, LSI-Ti? Some of this went over my head with the daydreaming of better classes and mental experimenting. :p (I do see you mention LII possibility later, well, if you want to decide on this, we could discuss this.)

I do experiment a lot but I do the experiments in practice and I observe concretely, anything that I can point at or grab directly.

I do relate to the quicker processing of a lot of information after having built my system.

Flexible on the fly with the thinking, I'm definitely not that, but I do keep refining the stuff so in that sense maybe. (I can be flexible seeming in taking action though.)

Quote:

---

Fi rules (I.e. How to feel about people, how to greet people, etc): I'm quite rigid and inflexible in these. You'll see me get most angry when someone bends or disregards one of my Fi rules in a way I don't like or I feel makes me look bad. I don't have a very nuanced understanding of these and because I don't have a great deal of confidence in this area, I tend to toe the line

Fe rules (I.e. How to express myself, how to relate to the emotional environment, etc): I am damn near blind in this area. I need someone to guide me through these rules and cover up my blunders.

---

Fe isn't rules lol. Fi isn't rules either but faking it via Ti rules along with a little bit of "feely" concern works for that yah. (Maybe that feely concern is what motivates me to use the rules in that area.)

Laws inherently classify certain actions as either "legal" or "illegal" which is still a categorization which is why I associate them with Ti. Same applies to rules or regulations. You can abide by them or not. Rules and laws imply that there is a framework being built. That doesn't mean that Ti base types are going to follow the rules of society since there are many different frameworks that can be built and your own personal framework may not match up with that built by society. Te may create algorithms and processes but it tends to be very utilitarian in application (ultimately the result is more important than the rules or principles) and if you find a better way to do something than good for you.

Te is the external dynamics of objects which has little to do with laws or rules. Te is about the facts and processes. Laws are actually external statics of fields because as I stated above laws categorize actions as either legal or illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokomis

If you go back to the basics of model A it's really quite simple:

Te rules (i.e. how to do things, best practices, instructions, etc): I tend to disregard these and more or less assume they're below me. I'll purposefully do something in a convoluted (and to a Te type, inefficient) manner for the hell of it. This can and has come back to bite me. But it also leads me to shortcuts in doing things that can put me way ahead of the competition. This tendency drives my SEE brother loony.

Ti rules (I.e. classification, organization, system design, etc): The best wsy to understand my mind I'm this area is to understand object oriented programming. I am constantly identifying objects in the environment, assigning properties to objects, assigning classes to objects, daydreaming of better classes, and experimenting with different groups in my mind. This allows me to process huge volumes of information and retain it for long periods of time. I'm also extremely flexible with these categories and classifications since I'm constantly toying with them and rearranging them in my head. This flavors every aspect of my life.

Fi rules (I.e. How to feel about people, how to greet people, etc): I'm quite rigid and inflexible in these. You'll see me get most angry when someone bends or disregards one of my Fi rules in a way I don't like or I feel makes me look bad. I don't have a very nuanced understanding of these and because I don't have a great deal of confidence in this area, I tend to toe the line

Fe rules (I.e. How to express myself, how to relate to the emotional environment, etc): I am damn near blind in this area. I need someone to guide me through these rules and cover up my blunders.


Just a disclaimer: I could be LII rather than LSI. But regardless, the F/T descriptions should hold true.

---

Yeah, the F/T descriptions do hold true either way, and I like how you brought up the different sorts of rules each element falls under.

@Myst
If I cared enough about my job I would be pushier, but I'm low on the totem pole and don't have anyone under me that requires my instruction. When I train others I do lay out the proper procedures that MGNT expects. When I danced and the manager sent a new girl my way I wouldn't teach her anything that could take my money away but I did teach them safety because no one else would, told them don't get drunk, keep your eyes on your money, don't meet these people outside the club, etc. I just don't care about pushing others unless it directly effects me, only then I take action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pole

@Myst
If I cared enough about my job I would be pushier, but I'm low on the totem pole and don't have anyone under me that requires my instruction. When I train others I do lay out the proper procedures that MGNT expects. When I danced and the manager sent a new girl my way I wouldn't teach her anything that could take my money away but I did teach them safety because no one else would, told them don't get drunk, keep your eyes on your money, don't meet these people outside the club, etc. I just don't care about pushing others unless it directly effects me, only then I take action.

---

Yeah that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbZero

Laws inherently classify certain actions as either "legal" or "illegal" which is still a categorization which is why I associate them with Ti. Same applies to rules or regulations. You can abide by them or not. Rules and laws imply that there is a framework being built. That doesn't mean that Ti base types are going to follow the rules of society since there are many different frameworks that can be built and your own personal framework may not match up with that built by society. Te may create algorithms and processes but it tends to be very utilitarian in application (ultimately the result is more important than the rules or principles) and if you find a better way to do something than good for you.

Te is the external dynamics of objects which has little to do with laws or rules. Te is about the facts and processes. Laws are actually external statics of fields because as I stated above laws categorize actions as either legal or illegal.

---

I liked your post with regard to Te and how law can be Ti just fine - just one thing, Ti isn't really as simple as a binary decision on abiding or not by rules and regulations :lol: That sentence of yours just came off a bit weird. But yeah, agree about the rest of your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbZero

Laws inherently classify certain actions as either "legal" or "illegal" which is still a categorization which is why I associate them with Ti.

---

Except Ti creates its own categories, and people can't exactly have their own rules as to what is legal or illegal only which laws make sense to them and which don't. There is only one right answer as to what is legal in any given country - that which has been codified into law, made a standard. Interpretation of various laws could apply Ti of course, but the law itself is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbZero

Rules and laws imply that there is a framework being built.

---

Not necessarily. A framework is something that ties things together in a way that holds them all up. A lot of laws do nothing of the sort and actually are in conflict with other laws if you try to tie them together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AbZero

That doesn't mean that Ti base types are going to follow the rules of society since there are many different frameworks that can be built and your own personal framework may not match up with that built by society. Te may create algorithms and processes but it tends to be very utilitarian in application (ultimately the result is more important than the rules or principles) and if you find a better way to do something than good for you.

Te is the external dynamics of objects which has little to do with laws or rules. Te is about the facts and processes. Laws are actually external statics of fields because as I stated above laws categorize actions as either legal or illegal.

---

The external dynamics of objects speaks to how something is done. The procedure. What actions are taken. Standard operating procedures (the rules and actions you must follow) therefore fall under Te.

Nokomis made a very good and accurate distinction between Te rules and Ti rules if you didn't read his post yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pole

As for me, I only care about if I'm following rules, I would never attempt to push rules on others, because I hate those kinds of people. And when I'm following rules, I only follow the ones that work or make sense, or, I learn the exact rules so I know how I can bend them to get away with it. I am hardly much like the LSI descriptions. I live in chaos and I suck at time management. I do much better in a work environment where there is flexibility and a slower pace. I am currently becoming beyond burned out from strenuous minimum wage jobs, I'm one shit sandwich away from renewing my stripper license. I will be glad to be back in a job where I can make my own rules, choose my own customers, choose my own hours, outfits, etc. I'm exhausted from following others' orders for the last 2 years.

---

m
I hear you.

LSIs don't need to think that hard about the law. LSIs are the law.

There's also Golihov's description of leading Te and Ti that might help (I think both descriptions apply much more to the STs than the NTs of each group)

Te:

Quote:

---

Aspects in the Valued Functions by Dmitry Golihov

Te as leading function in LSE (ESTj; Shtirlitz) and LIE (ENTj; Jack London)

This person is very confident in his own knowledge. He lives by external rules or "charter" that he has thought up himself. He imposes his vision of the correct "order of things" in external situations and is conservative in this vision (his assessment of who should be doing what, etc.). Everything must be in its place; moving anything makes him want to put it back where it belongs. Has a strong notion of "my territory", of "ownership". Those who create a mess on his territory irritate him - everyone should know their place. Does not seek to change this status quo. If one asks why something should be done in this way and not another, he will reply that this is just how things are done without giving any reasons for it. It is as if he lives by that which he creates in the environment with his own hands; any changes made to this are seen as attempts to change his person. Once he has learned a certain rule, he will follow it throughout his life (2x2=4). Existing order must remain unchanged; if it is replaced by a new one, for him it is worse by default. Restoring order on his territory is self-affirming for him. He is well versed in the rules, the order of things: if you wish to get something done, he can tell you how you should act, which order or sequence of steps you should undertake, where you should go, what documents you should bring, etc. He knows how to assemble and disassemble anything and is confident in his ability to do so. Can spend hours with a soldering iron and parts, taking apart complex mechanisms. “If in my world there are stable and invariable rules and order, then I can live. If not, then I don't exist.” On his own territory, he acts as the boss and does not tolerate opposition. If his notion of territory is more widely delineated, his control may be extended to anyone who is on it. Their home is their fortress. If you try to explain something to him, sooner or later he will say "I got it" and interrupt you since he doesn't aim to attain an understanding. They are interested in facts of objective reality - these are not to be understood, but rather memorized, learned, evaluated, and implemented. For example, if one wishes to assemble and disassemble vacuum cleaner, there is no need to understand but only to remember how to do it, which part goes where. If the facts of his objective view of the world are changed, this irritates him, because he will need time to reevaluate and rebuild. His main criteria of activity is objective benefit that can be achieved. Living with such a person on his own territory can be done only in accordance to his rules, and sometimes he attempts to extend them to nearby territories, as expansion of borders is viewed as a useful activity from point of view that a person lives by this, meaning that by this expansion he will "exist" in even greater extent. To go elsewhere, to someone else's territory, and start dictating who is supposed to do what or how something should be done is fairly typical for him. Communicating with such person there is a persistent impression that he is always in the archetype of the boss - he likes to give orders even if he has not been empowered to it: "take this shovel, you will go dig up potatoes". He does not like those who spend their time irrationally and unproductively. He likes to confirm the factual basis of anyone's argument.

---

Ti:

Quote:

---

Aspects in the Valued Functions by Dmitry Golihov

Ti as leading function in LSI (ISTj; Maxim Gorky) and LII (INTj; Robespierre)

Very attached to his understanding of something, his thinking, his logic and concepts, confident and conservative in these. It is impossible to convince him otherwise, as he "lives" by this, but does not necessarily share his understanding with others. If his understanding does not converge with facts, then at times he will judge the facts to be of lower value. Any attempts at criticizing his understanding make him feel irritated. He knows how reason logically, but does not like to defend his vision of the situation: "Those who understood - understood, the rest don't have it in them". Thus he often surrounds himself with those who accept his logical judgments and who do not make attempts to dispute them. Changes his thinking with great difficultly and needs a lot of time to reflect on mistakes. Likes it when everything converges with the way he understands it. If this cannot be achieved - experiences irritation. Therefore, one can only persuade him using solid arguments. He is often skeptical of new information, if he is unsure in something: everything must be carefully weighed before saying "yes." His thinking is like a foundament - it is solid, something that can be "leaned on" in any situation, thus in this matter there cannot be any risks. It is difficult to require from them to immediately approve someone else's views. In general, he tries to understand everything first, and only then accept it for himself. If it is something he cannot understand, then mastering new information progresses slowly, since it is difficult to accept it for himself. Thus he can spend very long time learning something before utilizing it, even if the question is very simple.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Except Ti creates its own categories, and people can't exactly have their own rules as to what is legal or illegal only which laws make sense to them and which don't. There is only one right answer as to what is legal in any given country - that which has been codified into law, made a standard. Interpretation of various laws could apply Ti of course, but the law itself is not.

---

Ti in Ego will see Ti as part of society.

Quote:

---

Not necessarily. A framework is something that ties things together in a way that holds them all up. A lot of laws do nothing of the sort and actually are in conflict with other laws if you try to tie them together.

---

Yeah, certain laws aren't very well justified. But there's a lot of logic (Ti included) in law in general and I really like the topic itself.

Quote:

---

The external dynamics of objects speaks to how something is done. The procedure. What actions are taken. Standard operating procedures (the rules and actions you must follow) therefore fall under Te.

Nokomis made a very good and accurate distinction between Te rules and Ti rules if you didn't read his post yet.

---

For this I already noted: instructions are the domain of both Ti and Te. Depends how you go about it, the most efficient logical action oriented instructions (Te) or more deeply organizing the material to create the most sensible instructions (Ti).

This of course applies to instructions for procedures too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

There's also Golihov's description of leading Te and Ti that might help (I think both descriptions apply much more to the STs than the NTs of each group)

---

I like those, btw I think they apply to the Base subtypes of T lead NTs just fine (LIE-Te and LII-Ti). Though the Te example of that vacuum cleaner probably doesn't apply to any LIE, they are a bit more curious about internal workings of things than that with their high Intuition :)

Reality is in question so why not have an LSI speak for himself as an example to see what introverted logic is about.

Valtteri Bottas

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CikSYpY9prk

I thought he could be ILI as well but he uses too much :Se: competitive spirit and is more attuned to :Fe: language, overall Beta elements and hyper-Ij behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdEbn-eGVUY&t=74s

Disclaimer: Don't trust an IEE talking about LSIs tbh. My :Ti: is nonexistent so I have problems detecting it, I typed him through method of elimination :lol:

LSIs are much more eager to make up rules then follow them. Rules are their domain- they enforce the laws they see as necessary and disregard any they believe where made by people that know less then they do. Unlike SLEs and their creative Ti however LSIs do actually care about establishing order and driven more from their vision of how things should and less from opportunism, though their methods may often make it seem that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy

LSIs are much more eager to make up rules then follow them. Rules are their domain- they enforce the laws they see as necessary and disregard any they believe where made by people that know less then they do. Unlike SLEs and their creative Ti however LSIs do actually care about establishing order and driven more from their vision of how things should and less from opportunism, though their methods may often make it seem that way.

---

Totally agree, except that LSIs don't just blithely disregard rules if it would create political problems for them (Se). But they can very often adopt a rebellion / "damn the man" mentality like other Beta types if they disagree with the existing order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy

LSIs are much more eager to make up rules then follow them. Rules are their domain- they enforce the laws they see as necessary and disregard any they believe where made by people that know less then they do. Unlike SLEs and their creative Ti however LSIs do actually care about establishing order and driven more from their vision of how things should and less from opportunism, though their methods may often make it seem that way.

---

Ok as for rule-following, a nice quick way I could sum up my approach to rules and systems of other people: I essentially am interfacing with them through my own approach. I find pretty foreign the attitude of some people who look up to rules and systems as being "above" them and submitting to them unconditionally without being interested in thinking about them. I'm more hard-headed than that, lol and I always reserve the last word for myself at least in my head if I cannot express disagreement officially in certain environments. It's a certain kind of internal resistance that I even find fun sometimes. Don't ask me to explain that though :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy

LSIs are much more eager to make up rules then follow them. Rules are their domain- they enforce the laws they see as necessary and disregard any they believe where made by people that know less then they do. Unlike SLEs and their creative Ti however LSIs do actually care about establishing order and driven more from their vision of how things should and less from opportunism, though their methods may often make it seem that way.

---

This is pretty much what my LSI = Judge Dredd joke was about. 4D Ti is beyond norms, so it's more that they think in terms of laws than that they unquestioningly obey and enforce the laws like sheep. It's like how people think of Fe. Fe isn't "being a Stepford" and "being happy all the time" or whatever, it's just people who think in terms of how they and other people feel (ESE tends to want to be happy and relaxed since Si wants comfort, but I thought it was well-known that EIE is super dramatic and IEI is angsty poets who cut their wrists).

I wanted to reply to these posts from the member type thread and looks like they are what started this thread so I'm replying to them here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

LSIs don't love rules and regulations. Order is something entirely different. A law or a regulation tells you what to do and how to do it. This is why it falls under Te. The kind of "rules" that fall under Ti are more along the lines of organization and categorization. This belongs in this category, it doesn't belong in that one. This fits with this and that, but not with that.

---

Well, categorizing and some sorting and arranging and tying things together, this is very nonspecific language for defining Ti as an IE. Is this categorizing here again done without judgments like where you said "you can categorize without judging. It's done all the time, when you sort bolts, or arrange your closet, go to the library, find a parking place. Things have categories, places in which they go".

Ti is a Rational function which does have to make judgments about the relationships between things to categorize, to determine the place of a thing, etc.

Quote:

---

This can be very individual as well since everyone will have their own idea of how to sort things, which criteria to choose. For instance - plants and animals and deciding which family, genus, species something is - this is highly contested all the time. And changes all the time according to new criteria, where whole branches of phylogenetic trees have been move or changed, especially now that DNA rather than physical similarities is being taken into account more and more for the divisions. Anyway, the sorting of things into categories like that is Ti. It's about how things relate to each other. How things fit together. What belongs where and with what. The only "rules" this follows are the criteria used in the sorting.

---

This part isn't too bad but I don't see why you felt the need to put "rules" in quot. marks. They are rules pretty much, that criteria, based on some reasoning ensuring logical consistency.

Quote:

---

Yes, the structure and the consistency, putting things into an order (in other words, organizing) - how things fit together - like I described with the categorization. None of this has anything to do with how you must do something. It's not about laws or regulations. Laws, regulations and procedure have nothing to do with structure, and everything to do with saying how things must be done. Ti isn't about how you do something, or following regulations - it's about organization, fitting things together to understand them.

---

As for the bolded. The other big thing beyond Ti actually making judgments that you've been missing is how Ti works with Se creative. When Ti is applied in the real world through Se creative, its rules definitely do have to do with doing things. The action taken by Se depends on the Ti understanding of a system applied for the action. It's then about what you do, structured by the rules of the system as to what you are allowed to do, what you are not allowed to do and why. The reasoning for the why's of what to do or not to do is very much core of the Ti system. Ti with Se then goes beyond just fitting things together to understand them though yes, of course things have to be logically fitting together in a consistent system.

Then you state this quite strange thing that laws etc have nothing to do with structure. You can structure laws and regulations very well, and there is definitely a need for it or it'd be just some chaotic list of rules. Though of course I can see how some laws and regulations etc could be better structured and reasoned for... sigh heh. But, a regulation if applying such structure is then essentially a Ti system enforced via Se in tangible reality as law.

Quote:

---

strat seems to think all betas are social instinct. She misses a lot for this reason. The small grain of truth in this though, has to do with loyalty to a system and application within it, but that is not about following regulations. It's about making a system work and how they fit into that system.

---

For Ti lead it's about following their own rules and of the system they have in their head. So it's rule following in that sense. This can be an entirely mental system thinking about some ideas or can be enforced in tangible reality (Se) too especially if the lawmaker has the power for it. The Ti system of the Ti lead can also be a way of interfacing the Ti lead with an external system that they have their own take on.

And, when I said that for Ti in Ego Ti is part of society this* is what is meant by it. To a Ti ego, the Ti organization is very much visibly part of society's structures of things.

*: (You were quoting darya on "Any phenomenon is viewed by him as part of certain existing system, that is regulated by certain patters and laws, and a certain logical order, understanding which the LSI considers himself obligated. Under no circumstances can the LSI be "by himself", "thinking only for himself", "himself only for himself" - this contradicts the program of his intellect too deeply".)

Quote:

---

Yes, again what I was describing - structure and organization. Prioritization also is part of organizing information or objects. Categories, and the "rules" for those categories such as "All blue objects go here and all orange objects go there" and "These are the most important, these are the least" not laws or rules such as "You must file this paper and only park on this side of the street" or "Everyone has to wear a seatbelt." These are two different kinds of things.

---

The rule (still quot. marks, why?!) on how all blue objects go to a certain place is a rule as much as "only park on this side of the street". Absolutely no difference here in terms of how both are about taking action by an explicit rule. The reasoning behind each of these can be Ti or it can simply be a Te rule purely for efficiency of logical action without having reasoning for a logically consistent system (Ti) behind it. Ti can have a system about parking and Te could also utilize the rule on all blue objects (with the Ti side of the information which's also there regarding the logical relationship created about the properties of all blue objects being utilized for the Te agenda).

So no difference in terms of taking action by a rule for these examples of rules ("blue objects go here" and "only park on this side of the street") but a difference in the way you put it could be that the former you might only do for yourself and the latter is enforced on people by law. (Though you could enforce the former rule on blue objects too for sure. There is no difference in terms of that) That however does not make it Te. Enforcing the Ti law can be done through Se. What would make it Te is if its simply for logical action from the pov of what makes sense for efficiency without Ti having limiting rules on behaviour, and where what makes sense purely for efficiency of logical action does not come from an idea of a logically consistent system but is just usage of objective facts directly fitting for the action. The example of the rule "only park on this side of the street" actually easily limits such efficient Te action from the pov of a Ti system for say, consistently enforcing safety or some other idea.

Quote:

---

Absolutely. This is all about the organization of information. Programming rules for instance are absolutely not the same thing as regulations and laws. Keeping track of accounting and having all of that information in order, again follows a kind of rule but it's something entirely different from the laws and regulations I was referring to. Categorizing, prioritizing, organizing, sorting, labeling -- those are the kinds of "rules" being discussed here once again. The military part is as mentioned earlier about finding a place within a system - some place where they belong and know how they belong.

---

Programming rules can be part of a consistent logical system just like laws can be a consistent logical system too. They are the same thing then in this way. Keeping track of accounting can also be done by your own rules and your own Ti reasoning. Also, you refer to "categorizing, prioritizing, organizing, sorting, labeling" as "rules"? What were you even trying to say with that?! If you meant you have to do categorizing, prioritizing, etc by rules then sure. Then you were just wording this in a sloppy way.

Quote:

---

I'm sure you can see by now what exactly is being referred to in every quote, and it's about structure and a system (of their own) and how things fit within that system. Not all will find the same things or same kind of system important, won't prioritize the same things or form the same categories Again categorization, sorting, organizing, how things work together, fit together, so on and so forth. And this is their own system, or one they adopt as their own in some cases, and it's not a system the way bureacracy is a system - instead it's about how one thing fits with or is connected to another thing. Hierarchy(Which is another way of saying Prioritization), Categories, Connections. It all boils down to understanding and making sense of things.

---

Except bureaucracy can be viewed as a system of organizing things, too. The rules of a Ti system then get applied on Se material things. I don't know how you don't see that.

Quote:

---

You can think about the rules of Algebra as more like Ti, where the rules of physics are more like Te. (Hopefully that comparison makes sense and I didn't just leave an opening for misunderstanding)

---

Both algebra and physics can be approached with either Ti or Te.


All in all, you are consistently neglecting essential parts of Ti and saying that it is Te. :rolleyes: You do get some parts of Ti but it's just not a coherent whole in your understanding. And you entirely miss how Se creative works with Ti. So I wanted to correct that post to make it clear for the OP of this thread about how it's a non-issue with what OP brought up as a quote from you.


A few more short comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

here's an if-then statement with some food for thought. If Ti says there's only one right way to view anything, then Te says there's only one right way to do anything. Standards therefore, approved methods and so on are all in the realm of Te. Those who wish to standardize the process of typing whether it be through tests or what-have-you are wishing to enforce Te, not Ti. The whole idea of an approved canon is Te-based as are all standards of that nature. Regulations, standard operating procedures, laws - all in the realm of Te.

---

Not very good food for thought. Since if Ti is about the right way of viewing things then law is Ti actually, since law is a way of viewing things, too.

Actually the answer is again, both Ti and Te types can approach law, just in a different way.

But you've missed the point by @AbZero in his response to your ideas on Ti about how laws are a set of rules based on principles. Again, same issue as with your longer post that I replied to above. Missing essential parts of Ti.

All in all, your understanding of Ti and Te (and Se as creative function) fits MBTI better instead of Socionics.

@Myst Don't quote or respond to my posts. Keep it in the other thread. That's why it's there.

Think of an NBA referee.

Teams try to out score each other to win the game, but if things get out of line the referee has to step in. Maybe a player travels, maybe he gets dirty and commits a foul, etc If the player does something out of line within the rules of basketball (Ti) the referee will step in to maintain order (Se). The referee has a sharp eye/detail for these things.

Now just apply this mentality to outside of basketball and you get LSI ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteronfireee

Think of an NBA referee.

Teams try to out score each other to win the game, but if things get out of line the referee has to step in. Maybe a player travels, maybe he gets dirty and commits a foul, etc If the player does something out of line within the rules of basketball (Ti) the referee will step in to maintain order (Se). The referee has a sharp eye/detail for these things.

Now just apply this mentality to outside of basketball and you get LSI ;)

---

Isn't that more like an ESI?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Isn't that more like an ESI?

---

Strictly speaking, yeah it would be. But the idea of seeing something out of place and stepping in to fix it could probably apply to both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peteronfireee

Think of an NBA referee.

Teams try to out score each other to win the game, but if things get out of line the referee has to step in. Maybe a player travels, maybe he gets dirty and commits a foul, etc If the player does something out of line within the rules of basketball (Ti) the referee will step in to maintain order (Se). The referee has a sharp eye/detail for these things.

Now just apply this mentality to outside of basketball and you get LSI ;)

---

Yep that's a good example for enforcing things according to the regulations in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FDG

Isn't that more like an ESI?

---

What in it seemed ESI to you?

Committing a foul here is meant in an impersonal sense, a violation of the impersonal rules-based system that applies equally to everyone without exception. So it's Ti, not Fi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Committing a foul here is meant in an impersonal sense, a violation of the impersonal rules-based system that applies equally to everyone without exception. So it's Ti, not Fi.

---

ok, this sentence just confirmed Ti > Fi for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

I wanted to reply to these posts from the member type thread and looks like they are what started this thread so I'm replying to them here.

---

Well, let’s get the whole thing in here then so everyone can see the content (and context)

All of this is off-topic entirely and I considered not posting anything, but might as well address it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

i'm confused as well since LSI's in general love rules, order and regulations. They are usually e6 or e1 and often take care that procedures and regulations are being followed correctly. Even one of the LSI subtypes is named Controller :confused2:. The people I type as LSI are similar as these descriptions (not necesarilly as strict), so idk who the hell some other people are typing as LSI.

---

Yes, you're confused. LSIs don't love rules and regulations. Order is something entirely different. A law or a regulation tells you what to do and how to do it. This is why it falls under Te. The kind of "rules" that fall under Ti are more along the lines of organization and categorization. This belongs in this category, it doesn't belong in that one. This fits with this and that, but not with that.

This can be very individual as well since everyone will have their own idea of how to sort things, which criteria to choose. For instance - plants and animals and deciding which family, genus, species something is - this is highly contested all the time. And changes all the time according to new criteria, where whole branches of phylogenetic trees have been move or changed, especially now that DNA rather than physical similarities is being taken into account more and more for the divisions. Anyway, the sorting of things into categories like that is Ti. It's about how things relate to each other. How things fit together. What belongs where and with what. The only "rules" this follows are the criteria used in the sorting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

Stratiyevskaya:

In its social meaning, [B]the logical program of the LSI is meant to be an alternative of any kind of the destabilization of his environment and surrounding structures: social, political, physical, biological, and so on. For this very reason, LSI's understanding of consistency, reasonableness, rationality is linked, first of all, to the organization of structural order (the "order of things") within the framework of some real, concretely existing system.

---

Yes, the structure and the consistency, putting things into an order (in other words, organizing) - how things fit together - like I described with the categorization. None of this has anything to do with how you must do something. It's not about laws or regulations. Laws, regulations and procedure have nothing to do with structure, and everything to do with saying how things must be done. Ti isn't about how you do something, or following regulations - it's about organization, fitting things together to understand them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

Outside of the system the LSI never examines anything - such is the type of his intellect. Any phenomenon is viewed by him as part of certain existing system, that is regulated by certain patters and laws, and a certain logical order, understanding which the LSI considers himself obligated. Under no circumstances can the LSI be "by himself", "thinking only for himself", "himself only for himself" - this contradicts the program of his intellect too deeply.

And for this very reason this sociotype is characterized by certain conformism and loyalty with respect to the existing regime, since he attempts to find an application for himself within the existing ruling social system.


Due to the fact that representatives of this type consider themselves (and every other individual) to be a part of an existing system of relations, they consider any manifestation of individualism to be unacceptable for themselves, going beyond the framework of what is permissible, undermining and weakening of the social foundations, and introducing chaos and anarchy into the existing order of things. Therefore they see a special social significance in such activities as creation and introduction of instructions, procedures, social and juridical laws, establishment of standards and norms.

---

strat seems to think all betas are social instinct. She misses a lot for this reason. The small grain of truth in this though, has to do with loyalty to a system and application within it, but that is not about following regulations. It's about making a system work and how they fit into that system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

Filatova:

Summary of Functions:

1. :Ti: – Men of structure, which he attempts to find, incorporate himself in, follow, and perfect by the creation of rules, instructions and norms. He loves to collect things. Know how to work on large tasks, prefers to prioritize the most important thing and work in detail, then can move on.

---

Yes, again what I was describing - structure and organization. Prioritization also is part of organizing information or objects. Categories, and the "rules" for those categories such as "All blue objects go here and all orange objects go there" and "These are the most important, these are the least" not laws or rules such as "You must file this paper and only park on this side of the street" or "Everyone has to wear a seatbelt." These are two different kinds of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darya

Professional Assessment:

LSI is irreplaceable where the precise observance of rules, instructions, and technological norms is required. The ideal worker in manual labor, in the office, bookkeeping, traffic control service… Successfully realizes self in mathematics, programming and publishing work. Also in military service, where the precise army structure of subordination is established.

---

Absolutely. This is all about the organization of information. Programming rules for instance are absolutely not the same thing as regulations and laws. Keeping track of accounting and having all of that information in order, again follows a kind of rule but it's something entirely different from the laws and regulations I was referring to. Categorizing, prioritizing, organizing, sorting, labeling -- those are the kinds of "rules" being discussed here once again. The military part is as mentioned earlier about finding a place within a system - some place where they belong and know how they belong.

I'm sure you can see by now what exactly is being referred to in every quote, and it's about structure and a system (of their own) and how things fit within that system. Not all will find the same things or same kind of system important, won't prioritize the same things or form the same categories Again categorization, sorting, organizing, how things work together, fit together, so on and so forth. And this is their own system, or one they adopt as their own in some cases, and it's not a system the way bureacracy is a system - instead it's about how one thing fits with or is connected to another thing. Hierarchy(Which is another way of saying Prioritization), Categories, Connections. It all boils down to understanding and making sense of things.

You can think about the rules of Algebra as more like Ti, where the rules of physics are more like Te. (Hopefully that comparison makes sense and I didn't just leave an opening for misunderstanding)

The discussion above, was regarding one aspect of Ti, not all of Ti as an element, but only what kind of rules fall under Ti. Some rules will fall under Te, others under Fi, etc. as mentioned in other posts this thread. It’s apparent that there are different sorts of rules. So everything above was discussing Ti sorts of rules. It was not discussing the entirety of Ti as Ti encompasses much more than rules, as do all the other elements. Once again for emphasis, Ti is much more than rules. Some rules fall under Ti, others under different elements, but none of the elements can be summed up solely as rules.

A point on the use of quotes around the word rules, as I see this being brought up and I only want to address it once. Quote usage follows standard conventions as in when you quote someone, so to quote a word could mean “the word some people use here” or “what I’ve heard said” as I just used them now. Often when someone refers to rules in relation to Ti, a lot of Ti is being left out, and it fails to recognize rules in relation to other elements, so it’s a way to de-emphasize the word’s association with the element, to question its best usage, or to show in what way the word is meant. Connotation is important and what's meant by rules and what's trying to be communicated with the word can be different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

LSIs don't love rules and regulations. Order is something entirely different. A law or a regulation tells you what to do and how to do it. This is why it falls under Te. The kind of "rules" that fall under Ti are more along the lines of organization and categorization. This belongs in this category, it doesn't belong in that one. This fits with this and that, but not with that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Well, categorizing and some sorting and arranging and tying things together, this is very nonspecific language for defining Ti as an IE.

---

That is because it’s NOT defining Ti as an element. It’s talking about what kind of rules fall under Ti. That’s in fact the exact language used “The kind of "rules" that fall under Ti.” What this means is that there are different kinds of rules, and the kinds that are Ti are the sort that are regarding organization and categorization. The language is specific. And it’s not a definition. It’s an opening statement to begin the discussion. To reiterate what was said earlier: There are different kinds of rules. Different kinds of rules are related to different elements. No element is just rules. There is more to each of the elements, including Ti than rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Is this categorizing here again done without judgments like where you said "you can categorize without judging. It's done all the time, when you sort bolts, or arrange your closet, go to the library, find a parking place. Things have categories, places in which they go".

---

That, as you know is a quote pulled out of context from an entirely different thread and isn’t even talking about Ti at all. I’m pretty sure I already told you that. Here, I’ll just quote myself again “It's clear from the context of the post itself what specifically is meant by judgement, and that it refers to value judgments. This also isn't a reference to Ti or using Ti” So, you’ve already been told once that this quote isn’t referring to Ti. I will tell you again: that quote is not referencing Ti. Should I tell you a third time? Will I have to repeat myself again when you quote it somewhere else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Ti is a Rational function which does have to make judgments about the relationships between things to categorize, to determine the place of a thing, etc.

---

Indeed. It is a rational field function. I don’t think that was ever in question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

This can be very individual as well since everyone will have their own idea of how to sort things, which criteria to choose. For instance - plants and animals and deciding which family, genus, species something is - this is highly contested all the time. And changes all the time according to new criteria, where whole branches of phylogenetic trees have been move or changed, especially now that DNA rather than physical similarities is being taken into account more and more for the divisions. Anyway, the sorting of things into categories like that is Ti. It's about how things relate to each other. How things fit together. What belongs where and with what. The only "rules" this follows are the criteria used in the sorting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

This part isn't too bad but I don't see why you felt the need to put "rules" in quot. marks.

---

Explained above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Yes, the structure and the consistency, putting things into an order (in other words, organizing) - how things fit together - like I described with the categorization. None of this has anything to do with how you must do something. It's not about laws or regulations. Laws, regulations and procedure have nothing to do with structure, and everything to do with saying how things must be done. Ti isn't about how you do something, or following regulations - it's about organization, fitting things together to understand them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

As for the bolded. The other big thing beyond Ti actually making judgments that you've been missing is how Ti works with Se creative.

---

Yes, I left out explanations about Se creative. That deserves some attention. But first, remember not to get Se confused with Te.

Te: external dynamics of objects (this is about what is happening, what someone/thing is doing)

Se: external statics of objects (this is about what something IS, the external characteristics of it)

Dynamics: Doing. Action. Time.
Statics: Characteristics. Space.

The bolded sentence is referring to external dynamics of objects: Te.


Now for Ti and Se in LSI, I’ll refer to Filatova:

LSI is inclined towards realism – he’s interested primarily in concrete and actual problems, rather than hypothetical issues. LSI thinks deeply about any problem, tries to understand its essence and roots. When he doesn't understand something, he refers to established databases of information to check that everything corresponds to what is already known. In such situations, his mind starts to resemble a computer with a built in program, which he will follow without skipping a line.
Se – Implementation of the program. Represents his volitional qualities – purposefulness, competitiveness, power to make things happen. These are the basic traits he relies on to realize himself in practice. Efforts of LSI move him to higher positions – to prevail in a group, to correctly apply his abilities and to qualitatively organize his labor in work that is deserved. LSI lives within a system of his own understanding. He is watchful that others around him respect his position. Simple disagreement with his opinion, he may take to be a challenge or a threat, an encroachment upon his position, and immediately rebuff the supposed aggressor.
LSI possesses outstanding endurance and stamina. He tries to reach high quality in everything that he does – few can exceed him in the thoroughness, honesty and the aesthetic value of his work.

Okay, so as you can see from that, it means that:
A. He’s interested in concrete problems rather than hypothetical issues
B. He tries to understand the root of each problem, verifying sources
C. His Se is shown in his competitiveness, his drive to excel
D. May act aggressively to disagreement or lack of respect of his opinion and understanding
E. Thorough: values quality

Filatova summaries Se in LSI as follows:

Quote:

---

2. – He’s goal-directed and adheres to order and discipline, requires the same from others. This fact leads him to pursue a place as high as possible in the social structure fit for him. Is capable and loves to create comfort in his surroundings. An aesthete, he is oriented well in regards to his own health.

---

Order, discipline, and achievement (and she throws in Si demonstrative too with the sections on comfort and health)

Again, don’t get Se Ti and Te confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

When Ti is applied in the real world through Se creative, its rules definitely do have to do with doing things.

---

People aren’t just blobs that float around in space, we use elements in real life of course. I don’t think anyone suggested otherwise. All of the elements are used and applied in real life to do things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

The action taken by Se depends on the Ti understanding of a system applied for the action. It's then about what you do, structured by the rules of the system as to what you are allowed to do, what you are not allowed to do and why.

You can structure laws and regulations very well, and there is definitely a need for it or it'd be just some chaotic list of rules. Though of course I can see how some laws and regulations etc could be better structured and reasoned for... sigh heh. But, a regulation if applying such structure is then essentially a Ti system enforced via Se in tangible reality as law.

For Ti lead it's about following their own rules and of the system they have in their head. So it's rule following in that sense. This can be an entirely mental system thinking about some ideas or can be enforced in tangible reality (Se) too especially if the lawmaker has the power for it. The Ti system of the Ti lead can also be a way of interfacing the Ti lead with an external system that they have their own take on.

To a Ti ego, the Ti organization is very much visibly part of society's structures of things.

---

What you’ve said here, is actually Te. Some quotes:

from Filatova

Quote:

---

Valid laws are essential since they are integral to the concept of objective reality and such institutions of statehood as parliaments, ministries, law courts, penitentiaries etc. Any form of society is impossible without valid laws, and therefore LSE relates with proper respect to facts that are guarded by laws; she is the innate lawyer.

And

For the logical extrovert the reality of the external world is above all. She is directed towards practical activity. The sphere of production and technology interests her.

---

From Golihov:

Quote:

---

This person is very confident in his own knowledge. He lives by external rules or "charter" that he has thought up himself. He imposes his vision of the correct "order of things" in external situations and is conservative in this vision (his assessment of who should be doing what, etc.).

And

He is well versed in the rules, the order of things: if you wish to get something done, he can tell you how you should act, which order or sequence of steps you should undertake, where you should go, what documents you should bring, etc.

“If in my world there are stable and invariable rules and order, then I can live. If not, then I don't exist.”

---

From Reinin:

Quote:

---

Function #1 – objective logic (Te): LIE is confident in his/her knowledge of the world of objects and social structures. He/she knows well all the traffic rules, legal codes, techniques, statistics, car mechanics. The stability of the surrounding world and the order of the world in general are important to a person of this type.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Yes, again what I was describing - structure and organization. Prioritization also is part of organizing information or objects. Categories, and the "rules" for those categories such as "All blue objects go here and all orange objects go there" and "These are the most important, these are the least" not laws or rules such as "You must file this paper and only park on this side of the street" or "Everyone has to wear a seatbelt." These are two different kinds of things.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

The rule (still quot. marks, why?!) on how all blue objects go to a certain place is a rule as much as "only park on this side of the street". Absolutely no difference here in terms of how both are about taking action by an explicit rule.

---

One is a category. This belongs with this. It’s showing how things relate to one another. The other is a procedure/action you must follow.

If you said “You must put the blue objects in this box before you put the yellow objects in that box” that would be a procedure you have to follow, dynamic actions, and Te rules.

If you said, “Small cars belong in small parking spaces” that would be a categorization, so Ti rules.

The difference is in kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Absolutely. This is all about the organization of information. Programming rules for instance are absolutely not the same thing as regulations and laws. Keeping track of accounting and having all of that information in order, again follows a kind of rule but it's something entirely different from the laws and regulations I was referring to. Categorizing, prioritizing, organizing, sorting, labeling -- those are the kinds of "rules" being discussed here once again. The military part is as mentioned earlier about finding a place within a system - some place where they belong and know how they belong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Keeping track of accounting can also be done by your own rules and your own Ti reasoning.

---

You misread. It’s being used as an example of Ti rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Also, you refer to "categorizing, prioritizing, organizing, sorting, labeling" as "rules"? What were you even trying to say with that?! If you meant you have to do categorizing, prioritizing, etc by rules then sure. Then you were just wording this in a sloppy way.

---

Was I wording it in a sloppy way, or were you processing it in a sloppy way? Could be either one. You may finally be starting to see why rules was in quotes. Nobody thinks about rules when they prioritize which tasks to do first, or when they sort papers, it’s an intrinsic kind of thing. Say “traffic law” though and immediately the idea of rules comes to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

You can think about the rules of Algebra as more like Ti, where the rules of physics are more like Te. (Hopefully that comparison makes sense and I didn't just leave an opening for misunderstanding)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Both algebra and physics can be approached with either Ti or Te.

---

I won’t even try to explain the analogy to you, too much room for misunderstanding to begin with, it will not end well. I questioned whether or not I should even include that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

All in all, you are consistently neglecting essential parts of Ti and saying that it is Te. You do get some parts of Ti but it's just not a coherent whole in your understanding. And you entirely miss how Se creative works with Ti. So I wanted to correct that post to make it clear for the OP of this thread about how it's a non-issue with what OP brought up as a quote from you.

---

I think if you read a bit more about Te, and look at the quotes I included, you’ll be able to distinguish it from Ti and Se. You’re not ready to correct anyone else’s understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

A few more short comments.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

here's an if-then statement with some food for thought. If Ti says there's only one right way to view anything, then Te says there's only one right way to do anything. Standards therefore, approved methods and so on are all in the realm of Te. Those who wish to standardize the process of typing whether it be through tests or what-have-you are wishing to enforce Te, not Ti. The whole idea of an approved canon is Te-based as are all standards of that nature. Regulations, standard operating procedures, laws - all in the realm of Te.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Not very good food for thought. Since if Ti is about the right way of viewing things then law is Ti actually, since law is a way of viewing things, too.

---

No, the law is not a way of viewing things. View: “a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion.” An interpretation of a law can be a view, as in when a lawyer argues in court, or a judge makes a ruling based on a law, but laws themselves are not views. They are not attitudes. They are not opinions. They are not interpretations. They are simply lists of regulations. Standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

But you've missed the point by @AbZero in his response to your ideas on Ti about how laws are a set of rules based on principles.

---

I addressed his points. You may have missed my explanations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Well, let’s get the whole thing in here then so everyone can see the content (and context)

---

Cool by me.

Quote:

---

The discussion above, was regarding one aspect of Ti, not all of Ti as an element, but only what kind of rules fall under Ti. Some rules will fall under Te, others under Fi, etc. as mentioned in other posts this thread. It’s apparent that there are different sorts of rules. So everything above was discussing Ti sorts of rules. It was not discussing the entirety of Ti as Ti encompasses much more than rules, as do all the other elements. Once again for emphasis, Ti is much more than rules. Some rules fall under Ti, others under different elements, but none of the elements can be summed up solely as rules.

---

You did try to mention more about Ti than just the aspect of rules. I found your summary on it very lacking so I added to it/corrected it. As for your strawman here, no one tried to claim in this thread or in the member type thread (where this originated from that I already linked to) that Ti is just rules.

Quote:

---

A point on the use of quotes around the word rules, as I see this being brought up and I only want to address it once. Quote usage follows standard conventions as in when you quote someone, so to quote a word could mean “the word some people use here” or “what I’ve heard said” as I just used them now. Often when someone refers to rules in relation to Ti, a lot of Ti is being left out, and it fails to recognize rules in relation to other elements, so it’s a way to de-emphasize the word’s association with the element, to question its best usage, or to show in what way the word is meant. Connotation is important and what's meant by rules and what's trying to be communicated with the word can be different.

---

I don't think it's a good idea to deemphasize that Ti information is information of logical rules-based systems.

Otoh, if you had the need to put "rules" in quot. marks then why did you not do so for the word "categorizing". That's also a pretty general word otherwise you know. So you weren't being very consistent there if your goal was deemphasizing general words in terms of associating them with a specific IE.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well, categorizing and some sorting and arranging and tying things together, this is very nonspecific language for defining Ti as an IE.

---

That is because it’s NOT defining Ti as an element.

---

Doesn't justify use of such nonspecific language since such explains nothing fundamental.

Quote:

---

It’s talking about what kind of rules fall under Ti. That’s in fact the exact language used “The kind of "rules" that fall under Ti.” What this means is that there are different kinds of rules, and the kinds that are Ti are the sort that are regarding organization and categorization. The language is specific. And it’s not a definition. It’s an opening statement to begin the discussion.

---

Yeah except there is more to it than just categorization.

Quote:

---

To reiterate what was said earlier: There are different kinds of rules. Different kinds of rules are related to different elements. No element is just rules. There is more to each of the elements, including Ti than rules.

---

Obviously.

Quote:

---

That, as you know is a quote pulled out of context from an entirely different thread and isn’t even talking about Ti at all. I’m pretty sure I already told you that. Here, I’ll just quote myself again “It's clear from the context of the post itself what specifically is meant by judgement, and that it refers to value judgments. This also isn't a reference to Ti or using Ti” So, you’ve already been told once that this quote isn’t referring to Ti. I will tell you again: that quote is not referencing Ti. Should I tell you a third time? Will I have to repeat myself again when you quote it somewhere else?

---

You told me that, however the statement "you can categorize without judging" as applying to these actions of "when you sort bolts, or arrange your closet, go to the library, find a parking place" makes no sense for how a Ti Ego type thinks. Yes, I still maintain that assertion. Going to elaborate below.

And I mentioned this statement of yours precisely because it's part of your understanding of things so with you talking about Ti in terms of categorizing things here, I wanted to know if your understanding about categorization as such applies to this too.

Quote:

---

Indeed. It is a rational field function. I don’t think that was ever in question.

---

So what you are saying is that you do think Ti makes judgments for categorizations, yet you do not think this is necessary for arranging your closet or other actions in life. Ti egos do consciously process Ti information, hence they make conscious Ti judgments for these everyday life things too. Now I'm not saying you do not do this personally, I'm only talking about your understanding of Ti here. (Clarification: you may not have realized that you do this for those actions so this isn't about anything about you besides the theory itself here.)

Quote:

---

Yes, I left out explanations about Se creative. That deserves some attention. But first, remember not to get Se confused with Te.

Te: external dynamics of objects (this is about what is happening, what someone/thing is doing)

Se: external statics of objects (this is about what something IS, the external characteristics of it)

Dynamics: Doing. Action. Time.
Statics: Characteristics. Space.

The bolded sentence is referring to external dynamics of objects: Te.

---

I assume by "bolded sentence" you meant one of the two lines for Te.

I don't need to be reminded to not confuse Se with Te, tho'. Maybe a useful point for some others reading if they are complete beginners to Socionics.

Quote:

---

Now for Ti and Se in LSI, I’ll refer to Filatova:

---

You didn't express what your point was with condensing that paragraph from Filatova (while you left out fundamental ideas from your condensing, too). You simply added at the end the generic warning about not getting Ti/Se/Te confused.

You still do not seem to realize that laws can be structured with Ti. Te just takes the objective (external) facts of the law for action while Ti structures for logical consistency so it does more with the laws than just taking the facts. But I already explained this. If it wasn't clear to you, well, you have not asked me what I meant by it (which I don't mind being asked about), you just simply seem to not have even registered it.

So where I said, "The action taken by Se depends on the Ti understanding of a system applied for the action. It's then about what you do, structured by the rules of the system as to what you are allowed to do, what you are not allowed to do and why" - if you think action by a system is always Te, then you do confuse Se with Te.

Quote:

---

People aren’t just blobs that float around in space, we use elements in real life of course. I don’t think anyone suggested otherwise. All of the elements are used and applied in real life to do things.

---

Nope, no one suggested otherwise.

Quote:

---

What you’ve said here, is actually Te. Some quotes:

from Filatova

From Golihov:

From Reinin:

---

There are just as many descriptions describing LSI as oriented towards laws. Do not neglect those. Seriously.

And no, it's not Te. Both Ti and Te can approach laws, just in a different way is what I was explaining. For some reason this isn't registering with you.

It's not Te in the way I described the Ti approach to laws as a set of rules based on Ti principles of an internally logically consistent system. You never ever emphasize this about Ti and this is fundamental to Ti. You for some reason clearly miss this about Ti. I did say your understanding of Ti resembles MBTI Ti more with that. You are also essentially missing what makes Ti as a consistently consciously processed IE if Ti is in the Leading function position, and what it means for Ti in Ego to see Ti as part of society. As an information element that's part of laws too from the conscious and strong Ti viewpoint in Ego, yes.

Quote:

---

One is a category. This belongs with this. It’s showing how things relate to one another. The other is a procedure/action you must follow.

If you said “You must put the blue objects in this box before you put the yellow objects in that box” that would be a procedure you have to follow, dynamic actions, and Te rules.

If you said, “Small cars belong in small parking spaces” that would be a categorization, so Ti rules.

---

No, the difference between Ti and Te is whether there is reasoning about the logical relations between things that's behind the rule for the action as a justification.

Again, Ti isn't simply categorizing and arranging and organizing, it does so to achieve logical consistency for a system.

And regarding that, you seem to have entirely missed this important part too about the difference between Ti and Te rules: "Enforcing the Ti law can be done through Se. What would make it Te is if its simply for logical action from the pov of what makes sense for efficiency without Ti having limiting rules on behaviour, and where what makes sense purely for efficiency of logical action does not come from an idea of a logically consistent system but is just usage of objective facts directly fitting for the action. The example of the rule "only park on this side of the street" actually easily limits such efficient Te action from the pov of a Ti system for say, consistently enforcing safety or some other idea."

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Keeping track of accounting can also be done by your own rules and your own Ti reasoning.

---

You misread. It’s being used as an example of Ti rules.

---

It was not about misreading, you guessed wrong. I pointed it out for people who would want to associate it with Te first because I saw that happen before.

Quote:

---

Was I wording it in a sloppy way, or were you processing it in a sloppy way? Could be either one. You may finally be starting to see why rules was in quotes. Nobody thinks about rules when they prioritize which tasks to do first, or when they sort papers, it’s an intrinsic kind of thing. Say “traffic law” though and immediately the idea of rules comes to mind.

---

Grammatically it was definitely sloppy for you but nevermind the grammar part of the issue, I'm not even a native English speaker. So I only pointed that out because it was kind of lacking a real point put in that very sloppy way.

So rules of that kind. For Ti leads it is a more conscious thing than for other people. It may be half automatic due to quick processing but it's also conscious.

And, the way you put it, "Categorizing, prioritizing, organizing, sorting, labeling -- those are the kinds of "rules" being discussed here", there is a conscious lack of any reference whatsoever to a well-formed Ti system here, you are just listing actions.

Quote:

---

I won’t even try to explain the analogy to you, too much room for misunderstanding to begin with, it will not end well. I questioned whether or not I should even include that.

---

You don't have to.

Quote:

---

I think if you read a bit more about Te, and look at the quotes I included, you’ll be able to distinguish it from Ti and Se. You’re not ready to correct anyone else’s understanding.

---

I don't know why you keep guessing that I didn't read about Te or whatever. Your guess is wrong. Or that I'm not ready lol. It's actually coming off really weird that you try to assert this with zero evidence, purely based on wishful thinking.

Honestly though, you keep missing fundamental things about Ti so I dunno what you were doing for the last decade reading up on Socionics (doing it for a decade at least as per your earlier claim).

Quote:

---

No, the law is not a way of viewing things. View: “a particular way of considering or regarding something; an attitude or opinion.” An interpretation of a law can be a view, as in when a lawyer argues in court, or a judge makes a ruling based on a law, but laws themselves are not views. They are not attitudes. They are not opinions. They are not interpretations. They are simply lists of regulations. Standards.

---

Yes law in society is enforced but that does not mean that at least some of them were not created as a Ti intepretation of what's logically sensible and consistent. This is what I meant by view, and for Ti in Ego many things for the law definitely can be processed that way.

Quote:

---

I addressed his points. You may have missed my explanations.

---

I saw your post to him but it was not explaining a thing, was not directly addressing his point, you just put in some quotes here then you said you had to run and maybe you'll come back later to add your own thoughts. You never did.

Well it looks like this wasn't over with.
Having read this mess of a post, I can see pretty clearly what the hangup is:
The word "rule" is a cause for confusion... "rule" is not a good substitute for the word "logic"... rule implies the governing of the behavior of things - i.e. external objects. If you are using the word "rule" as a perfect synonym for "logic" you'll argue that Ti uses rules, but this is meaningless since the functions are all connected, everything uses rules, and it actually departs from the definition of rule (governing of things).
On top of that, the functions are always operating in coordination with one another... you cannot even use reasoning without using an ethical function on some level. In your algebra example you have this faulty idea that only the logical functions are involved... this is wrong, every function is involved.
What you're imagining as the internal reasoning process being Ti, with the use of algebraic rules, is actually Fi and Te. The Te is the abstract principles, Fi is the internalization of all those principles... the perceptive functions are pulling those principles out of storage and Te is applying them. Now, Ti (with some perceiving function) is the person checking for coherency as they solve the problem. Yes this process is related with Te, it's related with every other function too but it's simply not abstract, it's not an abstract principle - that's why it's connected to an extraverted perceiving function.
In short - you're wrong, you have a faulty idea that "logical tasks" exclusively involve the logical functions, you mistakenly imply that functions operate in isolation (which is never the case) and as a consequence you misidentify the functions within one another, and you don't understand the ethical functions whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

Well it looks like this wasn't over with.
Having read this mess of a post:
The word "rule" is a cause for confusion... "rule" is not a good substitute for the word "logic"... rule implies the governing of the behavior of things. If you are using the word "rule" as a perfect synonym for "logic" you'll argue that Ti uses rules, but this is meaningless since the functions are all connected, everything uses rules, and it actually departs from the definition of rule (governing of things).
On top of that, the functions are always operating in coordination with one another... you cannot even use reasoning without using an ethical function on some level. In your algebra example you have this faulty idea that only the logical functions are involved... this is wrong, every function is involved.
What you're imagining as the internal reasoning process being Ti, with the use of algebraic rules, is actually Fi and Te. The Te is the abstract principles, Fi is the internalization of all those principles... the perceptive functions are pulling those principles out of storage and Te is applying them. Now, Ti (with some perceiving function) is the person checking for coherency as they solve the problem. Yes this process is related with Te, it's related with every other function too but it's simply not abstract, it's not an abstract principle - that's why it's connected to an extraverted perceiving function.
In short - you're wrong, you have a faulty idea that "logical tasks" exclusively involve the logical functions, you mistakenly imply that functions operate in isolation (which is never the case), and you don't understand the ethical functions whatsoever.

---

I don't think anyone equated "logic" with "rule" in some very general sense. Yes, in the sense of general information processing each IE has rules for its own processing.

With algebraic rules, I think it can be seen both from Ti and Te pov.

No one claimed that only the logical IEs are involved for many things. Actually agreed on how all IEs are involved in many things - that is a quite good note as a general rule for the mind's functioning. A basic idea for function models that even Jung already expressed is that the dominant function (Jungian term) or leading function (Socionics term) is the most consistently differentiated function - Jungian term basically meaning that the information type is pure, not mixed with other information types directly, as much as this is possible in practice. The rest according to Jung can be seen as "mixed" functions, not consistently differentiated. But otherwise, all functions or information types and their processing being in synchronization well are necessary for the mind's functioning optimally.

Everything has rules. That's the point. You can find Te anywhere you want to look.
Do you remember the definition of "rule"? It is a principle which governs external things. Again, logic is not "rules". Logic is also relationships. For example, set theory goes on and on about relationships between empty sets. That's logic but there are no rules to it, because there are no THINGS involved. There are literally infinite relationships that are possible between empty sets in set theory, it's an infinite FIELD. A field has infinite potential, it is adaptable. A rule is a limitation on that potential.
No, the algebraic rules are abstract principles. THey are governing external objects. They are not Ti. Period. Ok?
As I explained, the internalization of those various principles is Fi. Fi stores that information for Te, and Pi will pull that information out of storage. It appears what you're imagining as Ti is actually Fi.
Ti is not an abstract principle, at all. Ti is not a rule, at all. Ti is using fields. Ti is a distinct function from Te. It's entangled with other functions, entangled with functions like Te... it's not Te. Ok?
You see Te in everything... you CAN see Te in everything, but Ti isn't Te.
Now, Ti does rely on Fe (also external objects) - very much so.
I don't think I can be much clearer without spending 20 minutes on this and even then I doubt it'd get anywhere.
At the very least you should agree to shut up about this (like you already did earlier, apparently you were lying then).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

Everything has rules. That's the point. You can find Te anywhere you want to look.
Do you remember the definition of "rule"? It is a principle which governs external things. Again, logic is not "rules". Logic is also relationships. For example, set theory goes on and on about relationships between empty sets. That's logic but there are no rules to it, because there are no THINGS involved. There are literally infinite relationships that are possible between empty sets in set theory, it's an infinite FIELD. A field has infinite potential, it is adaptable. A rule is a limitation on that potential.
No, the algebraic rules are abstract principles. THey are governing external objects. They are not Ti. Period. Ok?
As I explained, the internalization of those various principles is Fi. Fi stores that information for Te, and Pi will pull that information out of storage. It appears what you're imagining as Ti is actually Fi.
Ti is not an abstract principle, at all. Ti is not a rule, at all. Ti is using fields. Ti is a distinct function from Te. It's entangled with other functions, entangled with functions like Te... it's not Te. Ok?
You see Te in everything... you CAN see Te in everything, but Ti isn't Te.
I don't think I can be much clearer without spending 20 minutes on this and even then I doubt it'd get anywhere.
At the very least you should agree to shut up about this (like you already did earlier, apparently you were lying then).

---

I'm pretty sure I already explained above with these same words that Ti is the reasoning about the logical relations between things that's behind a rule for an action as a justification. So the rule is part of it but the rule itself is hardly Ti as the IE itself. Pretty sure this is in line with Ti being a field IE, also.

By the way it was squark who said algebra was more Ti than Te, not me. :)

All in all, you completely misinterpreted the posts. You should go back and read more closely. But I do not see genuine interest in trying to get my viewpoint so yeah too bad.

PS: No, I only asked you to not talk to me about things outside Socionics theory. Socionics theory is fine. Stop doing the off topic or I'll have to report this too.

No, the rule isn't part of it. The rule is Te. Not Ti. And yet Te IS part of Ti, as is every other function. That is the point.
Once again you misidentify the functions within one another.
I do not give a flying fuck if you report that, or about what you demand that I do. Just so we're clear.
You want to put me on ignore that's your right. Go ahead, put me on ignore if it bothers you. I'll just talk to everyone else in the thread, quote you and pick you apart if I see anything that's wrong, but you won't see it. Fine by me.
By the way, I did read your whole knot of a post, but I'm not going over it again. We'll see what Squark has to say, my point was pretty much identical to hers after I read the whole thing.
Carry onward

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

No, the rule isn't part of it. The rule is Te. Not Ti. And yet Te IS part of Ti, as is every other function. That is the point.
I do not give a flying fuck if you report that, or about what you demand that I do. Just so we're clear.
You want to put me on ignore that's your right. Go ahead, put me on ignore if it bothers you. I'll just talk to everyone else in the thread, quote you and pick you apart if I see anything that's wrong, but you won't see it. Fine by me.
By the way, I did read your whole knot of a post, but I'm not going over it again. We'll see what Squark has to say, my point was pretty much identical to hers after I read the whole thing.
Carry onward

---

No, the rule can be either Te or Ti is my point. Go read up on socionics sources if you won't listen to my explanation on this :shrug

Your point was not identical to squark's, since you two disagree on whether algebra rules are Ti or Te. :doh:

Just so to be clear, I don't mind logical arguments. I was referring to off topic personal attacks with the PS.

Oh and nah, I never put anyone on ignore because I prefer to follow all posts in a thread.

LSI does not create the rules of society. LSI does not determine the rules of society.

Ti+ in LSI is 4D Inert. These rules and laws are accepted and incorporated over the course of the LSI's life. By viewing the world through Laws+, then through creative Force-, and to Relationships+, the LSI is the moral standard of society.

LSI does not engage in logical discussions. LSI engages in declaration of what is acceptable behavior, actions, speaking, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

No, the rule isn't part of it. The rule is Te. Not Ti. And yet Te IS part of Ti, as is every other function. That is the point.
Once again you misidentify the functions within one another.
I do not give a flying fuck if you report that, or about what you demand that I do. Just so we're clear.
You want to put me on ignore that's your right. Go ahead, put me on ignore if it bothers you. I'll just talk to everyone else in the thread, quote you and pick you apart if I see anything that's wrong, but you won't see it. Fine by me.
By the way, I did read your whole knot of a post, but I'm not going over it again. We'll see what Squark has to say, my point was pretty much identical to hers after I read the whole thing.
Carry onward

---

The algebra vs physics thing was a vague analogy I put in my post to darya, and knew when I said it how it could be taken different ways. I meant it as in the process of solving an equation, as in algebraic/deductive reasoning (the relationship between the numbers) is more Ti vs. physics formulas and laws being more Te. I knew there's a lot of ways to take/interpret what I said, and hesitated to add it. I completely agree with you that the rules of algebra, such as "these numbers have to be added first" is Te.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

No, the rule can be either Te or Ti is my point. Go read up on socionics sources if you won't listen to my explanation on this :shrug

Your point was not identical to squark's, since you two disagree on whether algebra rules are Ti or Te. :doh:

Just so to be clear, I don't mind logical arguments. I was referring to off topic personal attacks with the PS.

Oh and nah, I never put anyone on ignore because I prefer to follow all posts in a thread.

---

No, you didn't make a point, you made a claim. A point is a reasonable series of statements leading up to a claim, and you don't have that.
She basically just caved in to your muddy use of the word 'rule', made a small concession which is clarified by the fact that multiple information elements exist in everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

The algebra vs physics thing was a vague analogy I put in my post to darya, and knew when I said it how it could be taken different ways. I meant it as in the process of solving an equation, as in algebraic/deductive reasoning (the relationship between the numbers) is more Ti vs. physics formulas and laws being more Te. I knew there's a lot of ways to take/interpret what I said, and hesitated to add it. I completely agree with you that the rules of algebra, such as "these numbers have to be added first" is Te.

---

You originally said "You can think about the rules of Algebra as more like Ti, where the rules of physics are more like Te".

But of course rules without the Ti reasoning would be Te in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

No, you didn't make a point, you made a claim. A point is a reasonable series of statements leading up to a claim, and you don't have that.
She basically just caved in to your muddy use of the word 'rule', made a small concession which is clarified by the fact that multiple information elements exist in everything.

---

I did reason for that point but you don't really want to see that. If you were genuinely interested, you'd simply ask me for my reasoning if it wasn't clear enough to you but no, instead you just try to claim that I don't have a reasoning. The bias is too transparent.

No, she said that before I even posted anything to her. You really are not following the actual facts, zero objectivity from your part in this again.

And, a logical argument is not about making some irrational concession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

The algebra vs physics thing was a vague analogy I put in my post to darya, and knew when I said it how it could be taken different ways. I meant it as in the process of solving an equation, as in algebraic/deductive reasoning (the relationship between the numbers) is more Ti vs. physics formulas and laws being more Te. I knew there's a lot of ways to take/interpret what I said, and hesitated to add it. I completely agree with you that the rules of algebra, such as "these numbers have to be added first" is Te.

---

There you have it. She completely agrees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

No, she said that before I even posted anything to her. You really are not following the actual facts, zero objectivity from your part in this again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

No, the rule can be either Te or Ti is my point.

---

Her point, however muddled her language may have gotten, is very clearly that Ti is not "rules". She went off into a tangent that "everything contains rules" attempting to reconcile the notion... that is true; and as I clarified, you can find every information element within anything. Again, this is a muddying of language, but her essential meaning is very clearly "Ti is not rules", and she has stated her agreement with that. Do you understand? I hope so.
We know for a fact that Ti is not a "rule" by definition - a rule is the governance of a thing (an external object) and a limitation (and fields lack boundaries).
And in agreeing with that she is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

I did reason for that point but you don't really want to see that.

---

No, you actually just made a claim in response to a long post that went into plenty of detail explaining why this is not the case and which you have yet to intelligently address. What you have is a claim, not a point. Maybe in your head you have a point, but not here. I made a point - not you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

If you were genuinely interested, you'd simply ask me for my reasoning if it wasn't clear enough to you but no, instead you just try to claim that I don't have a reasoning. The bias is too transparent.

---

If you genuinely had a point you would have made it by now. Let's hear it. Go quote the paragraph and respond, clearly and intelligently, like you failed to do. OR... shut up about it and move on. Either one is fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

And, a logical argument is not about making some irrational concession.

---

And? Am I supposed to care? Your babbling has just been the muddying of concepts into some wad of a claim... If you babble nonsense for long enough people start to get confused in their attempts to untangle what you're saying. Big deal.

Also... you are arguing on behalf of Daryas point, I basically treat you as mentally embodying her in that sense. I really don't care about the technicalities, I care about your essential meaning (and you made the identical point).
Did you not just claim that Ti is in some sense "rules"? Let's see if I can quote you..
Here we go-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

No, the rule can be either Te or Ti is my point. Go read up on socionics sources if you won't listen to my explanation on this :shrug

---

That's your "pointy point" - the allusion to some shadowy socionics source supporting your ~claim~ which I had just thoroughly addressed. Honestly I don't even think my words registered with you.
If you can't defend your point than as far as I'm concerned you don't have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by squark

Well, somehow my post that was on-topic and responding to Myst got deleted, as I no longer see it in the thread. So, I'll go ahead and put it back. But, as already pointed out. I don't wish to engage in this argument any longer with her, but I also don't want my posts deleted. Here's the post that got deleted:

---

Yeah, some mod must've misunderstood something, that post was definitely ontopic and I already asked the mods in the afternoon to put it back (it was moved to your "Here" thread, not deleted).

EDIT: it got fixed apparently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

There you have it. She completely agrees.

Her point, however muddled her language may have gotten, is very clearly that Ti is not "rules". She went off into a tangent that "everything contains rules" attempting to reconcile the notion... that is true; and as I clarified, you can find every information element within anything. Again, this is a muddying of language, but her essential meaning is very clearly "Ti is not rules", and she has stated her agreement with that. Do you understand? I hope so.
We know for a fact that Ti is not a "rule" by definition - a rule is the governance of a thing (an external object) and a limitation (and fields lack boundaries).
And in agreeing with that she is correct.

---

Actually, Ti is pretty much to do with limitations on behaviour, too.

Sure, I understand she has a very different idea on what Ti is.

Quote:

---

No, you actually just made a claim in response to a long post that went into plenty of detail explaining why this is not the case and which you have yet to intelligently address. What you have is a claim, not a point. Maybe in your head you have a point, but not here. I made a point - not you.

If you genuinely had a point you would have made it by now. Let's hear it. Go quote the paragraph and respond, clearly and intelligently, like you failed to do. OR... shut up about it and move on. Either one is fine.

---

I explained in my posts #25 and #32 how Ti is to do with rules of a system of logical relationships, and Te is to do with external rules seen as objective facts.

If this, or anything in my posts as referred to is unclear, ask.

Quote:

---

And? Am I supposed to care? Your babbling has just been the muddying of concepts into some wad of a claim... If you babble nonsense for long enough people start to get confused in their attempts to untangle what you're saying. Big deal.

Also... you are arguing on behalf of Daryas point, I basically treat you as mentally embodying her in that sense. I really don't care about the technicalities, I care about your essential meaning (and you made the identical point).
Did you not just claim that Ti is in some sense "rules"? Let's see if I can quote you..
Here we go-

---

What is this incoherent babbling of your stream of consciousness about Darya and my embodying her and then suddenly this idea about Ti vs rules again? No, don't answer this, it was rhetorical.

Quote:

---

That's your "pointy point" - the allusion to some shadowy socionics source supporting your ~claim~ which I had just thoroughly addressed. Honestly I don't even think my words registered with you.
If you can't defend your point than as far as I'm concerned you don't have one.

---

If you don't follow my point, then ask about the parts that are unclear to you. I'm happy to explain more. If you can't ask and instead continue to try to blame your inability to ask on me, then simply fuck off. I do not have time for your trolling. I only have time for logical and fully impersonal discussions.

I do not believe that your intention for trying to understand what I'm saying are genuine here but I will give you some socionics sources anyway:

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Te

"He lives by external rules or "charter" (...) If one asks why something should be done in this way and not another, he will reply that this is just how things are done without giving any reasons for it. (...)"

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Ti

"He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement."

These show how both Ti and Te deal with rules and how they deal with them differently. There is more at the links and at other sources, but I will not spend time finding the links for you unless you show genuine interest which you haven't so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Actually, Ti is pretty much to do with limitations on behaviour, too.

Sure, I understand she has a very different idea on what Ti is.




I explained in my posts #25 and #32 how Ti is to do with rules of a system of logical relationships, and Te is to do with external rules seen as objective facts.

If this, or anything in my posts as referred to is unclear, ask.




What is this incoherent babbling of your stream of consciousness about Darya and my embodying her and then suddenly this idea about Ti vs rules again? No, don't answer this, it was rhetorical.




If you don't follow my point, then ask about the parts that are unclear to you. I'm happy to explain more. If you can't ask and instead continue to try to blame your inability to ask on me, then simply fuck off. I do not have time for your trolling. I only have time for logical and fully impersonal discussions.

I do not believe that your intention for trying to understand what I'm saying are genuine here but I will give you some socionics sources anyway:

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Te

"He lives by external rules or "charter" (...) If one asks why something should be done in this way and not another, he will reply that this is just how things are done without giving any reasons for it. (...)"

http://www.wikisocion.net/en/index.php?title=Ti

"He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement."

These show how both Ti and Te deal with rules and how they deal with them differently. There is more at the links and at other sources, but I will not spend time finding the links for you unless you show genuine interest which you haven't so far.

---

I already responded to those posts in my post. You ignored what I said, and for the 3rd time now.
Judging by your refusal to muster a specific response after being prompted repeatedly I conclude you don't have a response.

The description you linked uses poor, muddy language. It sucks, it's that simple. It was written by someone much like yourself, someone who's not a genius. But that's irrelevant, because it isn't even talking about the function Ti - it is talking about ISTj.

Ti always works in combination with Fe. Fe and Te govern external objects, not Ti or Fi.
The only "rules" that Ti, as a function, ever produce are in the form of Te and Fe. All the functions are connected, but as I have explained 3 times now, a rule is the governance of a thing (an external object). It can rightfully be considered alot like Te or Fe. It is not Ti, at all.
And a rule is a limitation, and fields do not have boundaries. "Actually, Ti is pretty much to do with limitations on behaviour, too.": No, the limitation on behavior (behavior of a THING, an OBJECT - an EXTERNAL OBJECT) is Fe, or Te, which is connected to the Ti. Do you understand?
In short: there is some Fe and Te to be seen in Ti, but neither are Ti.
I read your posts. They suck. You muddy concepts into a wad of obscurity and out of that extrapolate the point that serves your purposes, you have no clue where you are or what you're saying.
The only aspect of Ti which is a 'rule', is either the Fe aspect of it which is dual seeking (which you can focus on through shifting your perspective); or the Te aspect which it illustrates. The function Ti is not described as a rule; no more than any function is described by means of any other function. Period

The End.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

I already responded to those posts in my post. You ignored what I said, and for the 3rd time now.
Judging by your refusal to muster a specific response after being prompted repeatedly I conclude you don't have a response.

---

You asked for reasoning for my point expressed earlier about this topic: "No, the rule can be either Te or Ti is my point".

I gave you that, what was unclear about it?

If you feel I didn't respond to something, state what that was. I didn't respond to the babbling on Darya, sure, that's the only part I ignored.

Quote:

---

The description you linked uses poor, muddy language. It sucks, it's that simple. It was written by someone much like yourself, someone who's not a genius. But that's irrelevant, because it isn't even talking about the function Ti - it is talking about ISTj.

---

Lol your idiotic attempt at insulting. And those descriptions were written by more than one people. If you find it poor, muddy language, then I don't know how you see your own language.

Quote:

---

Ti always works in combination with Fe. Fe and Te govern external objects, not Ti or Fi.

---

The Ti system can be applied on Se material things.

Quote:

---

The only "rules" that Ti, as a function, ever produce are in the form of Te and Fe. All the functions are connected, but as I have explained 3 times now, a rule is the governance of a thing (an external object). It can rightfully be considered alot like Te or Fe. It is not Ti, at all.
And a rule is a limitation, and fields do not have boundaries. "Actually, Ti is pretty much to do with limitations on behaviour, too.": No, the limitation on behavior (behavior of a THING, an OBJECT - an EXTERNAL OBJECT) is Fe, or Te, which is connected to the Ti. Do you understand?

---

I understood your idea before too and I think I already let you know that I don't agree with some of the things you say. It's that simple.

As for the limitations on behaviour in the way Ti reasons for it, a description is here: http://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com/...lement-Agendas

And, that's one of the ways of how Ti helps Fe - giving it a logical direction with the necessary limits too.

Feel free to ask any other LII or LSI to explain to you more. Doubtful that you are even typing yourself as Ti lead anyway.

Quote:

---

In short: there is some Fe and Te to be seen in Ti, but neither are Ti.
I read your posts. They suck. You muddy concepts into a wad of obscurity and out of that extrapolate the point that serves your purposes, you have no clue where you are or what you're saying.
The only aspect of Ti which is a 'rule', is either the Fe aspect of it which is dual seeking (which you can focus on through shifting your perspective); or the Te aspect which it illustrates. The function Ti is not described as a rule; no more than any function is described by means of any other function. Period

The End.

---

You are still strawmanning and doing ad hominems I see. I'm not going to sink and stay on this level, I have better things to do in life. But I'll repeat one last time that no one ever equated Ti with rules. Do you know what the word "equation" means? I hope.

No, your posts do suck, and that one sucked too. Nowhere is a shred of intelligent reasoning contained within that post. It's all... "well Ok but I just don't agree". I don't care about your opinion, its' worthless to me. Say something intelligent or just leave. Infact, I'm just calling this over with. You've had your chance, you didn't take it. We're done here.
Have a nice day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

No, your posts do suck, and that one sucked too. Nowhere is a shred of intelligent reasoning contained within that post. It's all... "well Ok but I just don't agree". I don't care about your opinion, its' worthless to me. Say something intelligent or just leave. Infact, I'm just calling this over with. You've had your chance, you didn't take it. We're done here.
Have a nice day

---

It's as if you didn't read my posts. I definitely said more than just "I don't agree". Not my problem if you can't register anything outside your biases tho'. Most interestingly, before you involved yourself in the drama in the other thread, you were able to have an intelligent discourse with me. Not after that. Yah, I'm also done with this because of your bias. See ya

The moderators have asked me to let this die, and I said that I would. So, If anyone cares to read this thread (which I doubt), they can decide for themselves what makes sense. Goodbye

EDIT: and just to summarize:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

No, the rule can be either Te or Ti is my point.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

But I'll repeat one last time that no one ever equated Ti with rules. Do you know what the word "equation" means? I hope.

---

lol 'equation'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

The moderators have asked me to let this die, and I said that I would. So, If anyone cares to read this thread (which I doubt), they can decide for themselves what makes sense. Goodbye

---

Agreed, they can decide for themselves. Of course if anyone wants any clarification on my posts and I'm around, I'm always happy to explain more, as usual.

Quote:

---

No, the rule can be either Te or Ti is my point.

---

If this was unclear to you, then, here is what is meant by that (which I thought the context would make clear, but apparently it didn't for you?): "No, the rule can be based either in Te or Ti is my point."

Quote:

---

lol 'equation'

---

Dictionary in Google:

the process of equating one thing with another.

"the equation of science with objectivity"

Fe is always based in Ti, like I told you.
Honestly this thread is inspiring me to make a post explaining to people what ethical functions are on how they work. They aren't understood in a rational way by the people here. They aren't simply 'those irrational, feely things', they are actually very pragmatic.

lmao who's harassing quoting now when they don't even need to be here (and who always was actually)

face the ego, crazed

This person is quoting and talking to me, Niffer... it's not like what you do. You insert yourself into things where no one is talking to you.
But if the conversation is about socionics I don't really see a problem with it. Though I'm sorta done talking with Myst anyway because there isn't anything more to say, but I think I may make a post explaining what the ethical functions are to people.... because the people on this forum do not understand them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

You insert yourself into everything when no one is talking to you.

---

That's how you entered this thread (and squark's, and many others) in the first place though, is what I'm saying, obviously...

Also, I was tagged in squark's thread initially... I guess you missed that.

And now, mods are telling you to stop, and you don't even know how. You should be banned just like Jeremy. Your posting style is just a remix of his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

lmao who's harassing quoting now when they don't even need to be here (and who always was actually)

face the ego, crazed

---

I am fine with the quoting as long as it's just Socionics theory. I'm fine with that from squark too, actually. Personal shit I'm not fine with, right but crazedrat has listened to the mods on this so that's looking okay now.

I hope this info helps & thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

Fe is always based in Ti, like I told you.
Honestly this thread is inspiring me to make a post explaining to people what ethical functions are on how they work. They aren't understood in a rational way by the people here. They aren't simply 'those irrational, feely things', they are actually very pragmatic.

---

Fe/Ti: I was specifically talking about the Ti part of the coin though.

Sure, feel free to make a thread on it. I agree actually that Ethics isn't "irrational feely things". It's an evaluation system like Logic is, just a different one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myst

Personal shit I'm not fine with, right but crazedrat has listened to the mods on this so that's looking okay now.

---

Lol, so far. Let's see how long he keeps that up for.

He gets personal and hurls emotion-laced insults and loaded comments when he is hardly involved and doesn't even know the person and has never been personally instigated by them even indirectly like by indirect association. And then he comments in a thread saying I do this and calls me a schizoid fruitloop and thinks he can get away with it? Yeah, not gonna happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by niffer

Lol, so far. Let's see how long he keeps that up for.

He gets personal and hurls emotion-laced insults and loaded comments when he is hardly involved and doesn't even know the person and has never been personally instigated by them even indirectly like by indirect association.

---

It was annoying, yes. But with drama gone I gotta focus on real life :)

Quote:

---

And then he comments in a thread saying I do this and calls me a schizoid fruitloop and thinks he can get away with it? Yeah, not gonna happen.

---

I replied to you more on this one elsewhere.

Keep this up and it will get personal, ... then your safe space may be violated, and I know you don't want that.
Here is the post I alluded to, for those who need (or want) to learn what an ethical function is and why it is considered a rational function (and maybe learn the difference between the words logical and rational while you're at it):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/53846-How-the-ethical-functions-work-and-their-relationship-with-logical-functions?p=1196685#post1196685

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedrat1776

Keep this up and it will get personal, ... then your safe space may be violated, and I know you don't want that.
Here is the post I alluded to, for those who need (or want) to learn what an ethical function is and why it is considered a rational function (and maybe learn the difference between the words logical and rational while you're at it):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/53846-How-the-ethical-functions-work-and-their-relationship-with-logical-functions?p=1196685#post1196685

---

Your first line doesn't make much sense - the first part sounds like you were talking to niffer because I was not talking to you anymore, the last part sounds like talking to me because I was the one making the request to not go personal, not niffer. Whatever.

Cool that you made a new thread on the topic, hopefully it will help people but I can see you referred to me in there based on a comment that you misunderstood lol. Anyway, no more off topic, I'll go over there.

Quote:

---

then your safe space may be violated, and I know you don't want that.

---

Dude is crazy. LMAO.

Mind your own business Niffer.

Each of you are being immature. You kids stop fighting. If you can't say something nice and respectful, then keep it to yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidH

Each of you are being immature. You kids stop fighting. If you can't say something nice and respectful, then keep it to yourself.

---

Sorry dad...

This conversation has been moved to the other thread, if you have something to say than continue it there.

ti egos create their own rules. Te valuers prefer to follow external standards.

Following rules is more due to being of the Normalizing subtype, and has less to do with Ti or Te, as I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uncle Ave

Following rules is more due to being of the Normalizing subtype, and has less to do with Ti or Te, as I see it.

---

hmm I think it does have a bit to do with Ti, since normalising subtypes have accentuated Ti. I do have a couple of rules for myself but I also kinda break them often for fun. sometimes it's also more of a basic routine that helps like I never leave my apartment without every of my 4 pockets in my jeans being full (keys, wallet, phone, hankerchiefs). for normalizing subtypes reality is a bit more frightening so they try to stick to routines and rules to make life more managable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alive

hmm I think it does have a bit to do with Ti, since normalising subtypes have accentuated Ti. I do have a couple of rules for myself but I also kinda break them often for fun. sometimes it's also more of a basic routine that helps like I never leave my apartment without every of my 4 pockets in my jeans being full (keys, wallet, phone, hankerchiefs). for normalizing subtypes reality is a bit more frightening so they try to stick to routines and rules to make life more managable.

---

I dunno, I think L has alot to do with systematizing information, which doesn't translate to an external system of rules. Beta managers stick to rules that seem to just to them, because from an L standpoint justice is in one's individual interest. But beta managers aeren't often sticklers for rules that don't make sense to them. L likes to make sense of things. LSIs are often passionate about a system, but that system is not necessarily a set of rules or ideological dogmas, it can also be an LSI architect passionate about a building, so long as we're dealing with systematization of information.

So I think the points made by the OP make alot of sense, I mostly agree with the quote by squark in the OP but I disagree that P valuing logicians are sticklers for rules - P is algorithmic logic, which is why alot of P valuing types seem drawn to programming (though of course, that's not a rule, either...just a trend I have noticed) since programming is algorithmic. It can appear quite flexible especially in irrationals.

There's something to be said about the fact that MBTI approaches type descriptions from business logic and Te vantage point because the original authors were oriented toward Te. Consequently, their view of "rules" is different from the Ti oriented approach of most Socionists and Jung. Since Jung approached things from a Ti perspective, his Ti "rules" are rules just as well. This is reflected in Socionist's emphasis on rationality vs. irrationality. LSI is a rational type, so some figment of order is necessary for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EIE

I thought Ti was more rules that are defined by the Ti user that they find relevant. So ISTjs will follow external rules if it aligns with or doesn't directly conflict with their internal logic system. The misnomer for the "rule following" is that Ti seems to seek out principles that are more universally applicable compared to that of Te's context-based dynamic logic.

As a side note, I think this is why a lot of LSIs are noted to be socially agreeable and adaptable in groups. However, if the rule is incongruent with their internal logic system, they will tend to react/fight against it with Se. If the principle is high priority, they will also try to reinforce it with Se. I have noticed this across all the subtypes but to varying degrees.

I have talked with several LSIs over the years, and even if the the arguments/rules don't make a lot of sense by external standards, there's almost always an internal consistency in their reasoning.

---

I pretty much agree. The only caveat is that my own thinking isn't deliberately systematic (and I'm not implying anything about what you said since you didn't mention this aspect of things), but rather, just kind of attracted to systematic information. I say this because alot of descriptions will make it seem like L deliberately tries to be systematic. I do try to be consistent in how I present arguments, though.

This makes sense from the standpoint of SHS understanding of types btw, since the second function (S for LSI in model G) corresponds with internal communication and the first function (L for LSI) communicates information to others. LSI's thinking may appear chaotic to themselves but is presented in a neat fashion to others lol.

I was actually planning to write a blog entry about how the first function solves problems (kind of like the CPU of a computer) whereas the second function "sees" the world (kind of like one's perception of it) and feeds raw information to the first in order for that infromation to be "processed". I'm not sure I am right about this though, which is why I hesitated in writing it up but I find the idea fascinating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rune

There's something to be said about the fact that MBTI approaches type descriptions from business logic and Te vantage point because the original authors were oriented toward Te. Consequently, their view of "rules" is different from the Ti oriented approach of most Socionists and Jung. Since Jung approached things from a Ti perspective, his Ti "rules" are rules just as well. This is reflected in Socionist's emphasis on rationality vs. irrationality. LSI is a rational type, so some figment of order is necessary for them.

---

I agree with the last statement, but I think order is different from rules. The quote by Squark in the OP explains this pretty well.

LSIs follow the rules that make sense to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardware Punk

Following rules is more due to being of the Normalizing subtype, and has less to do with Ti or Te, as I see it.

---

Wouldn't the N subtype create their own system they adhere to rather than simply following rules?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynn

Wouldn't the N subtype create their own system they adhere to rather than simply following rules?

---

Possibly, I can see them creating their own rules or adhering to others' rules.

I would describe my close ISTj friend as liking order and consistency, not "rules" per se. Sometimes order and consistency means rules, but not always. When the rule seems unnecessary or unfair he seems happy to break it, but he'll follow it very closely if it seems important

Examples:
- He doesn't go a single digit over the speed limit when driving in town, but will drive like a maniac on the old, seldom-used logging roads
- He is a stickler for proper vehicle maintenance and handling at his warehouse. He's always complaining about coworkers' incompetent and negligent use of the forklifts, but is perfectly happy to push his own lift past indicated limits because he "knows his lift"
- He can say "You should never do this, but I know what I'm doing," and I genuinely believe him

My impression is that ISTjs are just very rigidly logical. He's very serious about the rules that fit within his framework, but if it falls outside of that then he doesn't care. He might easily give the impression of being a rigid rule follower in certain contexts. My ESTj friend however, seems to genuinely love rules in a way that makes me feel physically ill. She read our employment handbook cover to cover and loves to cite it at people, and everyone considers her the go-to person if you have a legalistic sort of question about living in Japan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AWellArmedCat

I would describe my close ISTj friend as liking order and consistency, not "rules" per se. Sometimes order and consistency means rules, but not always. When the rule seems unnecessary or unfair he seems happy to break it, but he'll follow it very closely if it seems important

Examples:
- He doesn't go a single digit over the speed limit when driving in town, but will drive like a maniac on the old, seldom-used logging roads
- He is a stickler for proper vehicle maintenance and handling at his warehouse. He's always complaining about coworkers' incompetent and negligent use of the forklifts, but is perfectly happy to push his own lift past indicated limits because he "knows his lift"
- He can say "You should never do this, but I know what I'm doing," and I genuinely believe him

My impression is that ISTjs are just very rigidly logical. He's very serious about the rules that fit within his framework, but if it falls outside of that then he doesn't care. He might easily give the impression of being a rigid rule follower in certain contexts. My ESTj friend however, seems to genuinely love rules in a way that makes me feel physically ill. She read our employment handbook cover to cover and loves to cite it at people, and everyone considers her the go-to person if you have a legalistic sort of question about living in Japan

---

LSIs sound like really cool, stoic, disciplined people that I would never want to meet in person. XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manatroid92

LSIs sound like really cool, stoic, disciplined people that I would never want to meet in person. XD

---

Lol I usually get along great with them, but I suppose that makes sense given they're my Activator. Other than relatives he's been my friend for longer than anybody else

The LSI woman I know was kinda hyper obedient at following the rules of society in a boring way but she secretly enjoyed it if other people broke rules because she wanted to be the one that corrected them. I actually used to REALLY piss her off before because even tho I'm IEI- I'm also like this, and I almost always follow rules of society even tho I'm provocative online. She was annoying at first, but over time I made her into a more sensitive person- I think IEIs kinda naturally correct the fucked up shit other Betas do but the problem is IEI is just some shy loser that usually likes to just keep to ourselves too much instead of interact with ppl in the real world, but socionics is based on real world changes not IEI fantasies and ideals. So yeah it's not really good to be so rigid and insensitive with others like that... and when she finally cried I ate her tears and said 'good job you're human now.' j/k not literally but it was sort of like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo

I'm always surprised to read such descriptions of ISTjs how they are supposed to love rules, order, and regulations, when the socionics "benchmark" for LSI is Joseph Stalin - the man who went against the existing order, against every conceivable rule, against the regulations of his era

---

First off, Stalin was an SLE not LSI. Secondly, ESI (dreissers) are the rule abiding citizens not LSI. Dreissers make rules so that we live a more ethical civilized society. LSI accept the rules so that they can have an organized life. "follow the traffic rules properly so we don't get stuck in traffic and can go about our lives".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Milo

Is there something fundamentally wrong with the way socionics describes ISTjs, their behavior, in everyday life as well

---

It depends? The person describing for starters is not an LSI so, predictably she is gonna be somewhat biased and describe things with her own words. Her words mean something to her and can mean somehting completely different to you.

Both ESI and LSI are similar in the sense of introverted rational types but the reason why they follow rules are completely different.