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

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