Model A with the +/- signs

[Hitta]

+ and - are locational signs. You could as well call them north and south, left and right, or back in time and ahead in time.

The last one is closest to the conventional way of interpreting them... other reasonable interpretations include: 'backward and forward', 'raw material and product', 'primitive and advanced', 'past and future', etc.

Important to realize is that the configuration is determined entirely by the two functions that a type (/function trajectory) is made up of. N and T combined always results in the N function being - and the T function being +. Likewise, T and S combined results in T being + and S being -. When I say 'always' I actually mean: unless indicated otherwise. This is very easy to represent in a diagram:

N+ -T+ -S+ -F+ -N

Where left is concrete and right is abstract.

Events are generally understood to move from the + side to the - side. Take for example the construction of a house: it begins with a human need (F), then becomes an idea (N), then it becomes a decision to realize that idea in a certain way (T), and finally it becomes a concrete reality (S). Then, when the house is finished, people begin to live inside the house, realize that it wasn't as perfect as they imagined it to be, and learn about what other wishes they have in regard to it (F). From there, the process repeats itself.

Now in this thread function trajectories are being discussed in which the + and - roles are reversed. It's harder to come up with an interpretation of what would be happening in such a case. Perhaps it would involve the destruction of the house, or it's creators realizing that their plan to realize the construction wasn't good enough and needed to be brought back into the stage of being just an idea. Destructive criticism or agression may factor into this, which is in line with how the ID functions (which are said to have reversed + and - signs) are associated with negative actions.

+ and - are also called concrete and abstract in some circles.

The most important implication they carry is that they determine wether a type is process oriented (= focussed) or results oriented (= unfocussed). Process types look at a situation and determine how they can help it forward to another situation. Result types look at a situation and wonder how they can redefine it, how they can look at it in different ways or reshape it in accordance with their goals. The former is immersed in it's actions, the latter observes action from a rather disconnected position from where the end looks more important than the means. The former's actions are directly constructive, the latter's actions are revisive and perfecting.

Process = +accepting, -creating
Result = +creating, -accepting

Yes, I agree, except for this statement: "Important to realize is that the configuration is determined entirely by the two functions that a type (/function trajectory) is made up of. N and T combined always results in the N function being - and the T function being +. Likewise, T and S combined results in T being + and S being -." Take an INTj for example. The ego block is composed of -Ti +Te +Ne -Ni. You have four data chains. You have the -Ti +Ne data chain. You have the +Te -Ne data chain. You have the +Te +Ne data chain. And you have the -Ti -Ni data chain. The last two I would like to refer to as sub-data chains due to the fact that the data is not changing expressive orientation. ENTps and INTjs are the only two types with either of the two main chains. It works something like this:



+Te -Ni chain is an INTj/ENTp.

[Rocky]

Honestly this seems like mental masturbation.

[Expat]

an INTj is -Ti +Te, an ENTj is -Te +Ti

Ok, I got that mixed up. Let's look at ISTj then. ISTj is +Ti -Te. So if you follow that interpretation of yours, you're saying that the dominant function of the ISTj is identical to that of the ENTj. It makes no sense in socionics.

[tcaudilllg]

Well I'll say this... I'd like to know what hitta's exertion type is.

Hitta's argument seems to be this: you can only model reality and not truely understand it. Augusta's information element/aspect theory says, point blank, the elements apprehend information elements that exist independent of the observer. This sets Hitta's argument against socionics, and in my view, against reality.

INTjs think in terms of cause/effect chains. That correlates to phenomena: one phenomena is responsible for this phenomena, works in tandem with this phenomena to create this phenomena etc. Anyone who argues differently is not an INTj, because behind every structure there exists that cause/effect analysis. The president exists to coordinate the work of the cabinet, exists to coordinate the beuracracy, all with the popular will. If you don't have communication between the levels of structure, then the structure cannot function.

(I think I understand the problem...) How old are you, Hitta? You shouldn't be making the argument that is a 1st function facility. INTj is always a restraining "limiting" factor. ...I'll have to think more on this.

At the very least I don't see the benefit in saying that is base information to INTj. In their youth they avoid it like the plague. (I know I did) One thing I know though: I *do not* switch between and . I let 's information in, but I am still apprehending structure, with an aim to using the information to create a social structure that will endure. I could not do that without function 7's rapport report faculty.

[Hitta]

Well the practicality of this comes when you start making comparisons of types and understanding their functions. Take an INTp or ENTj for example. Its two weakest conscious functions are +Si,-Se and +Fi/-Fe. Starting off on the sensing side of it first since it is the weakest functions, a description of +Si would be pleasant sensations, comfort, convenience, harmony, beauty, appeal, rest, health, slackness, good state of health, pleasure, pleasure, sensitivity. This would mean that an INTp and an ENTj would careless about maintaining a good state of health. Also an INTp and ENTjs don't notice or try to achieve euphoric feelings. -Se would be described as capture of authority, submission, attack, aggression, attack, the initiative, persistence, insistence, strong-willed pressure from top to down, the statement of the interests due to others, overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering. INTps and ENTjs aren't usually the ones to go on the offensive. ENTjs have no initiative. INTps and ENTjs are response oriented people(as +Se is their hidden agenda or a least partially a hidden agenda). Now consider +Fi and -Fe. +Fi would be considered the good relations, love, friendship, sympathy, an attraction, heat of attitudes, the sociability, a close psychological distance, kindly, pity. INTps and ENTjs are not the type of people to love and try to have good relations. They do not show much sympathy. -Fe is about understanding the emotional state of groups, influencing group’s emotions, skill to force one to open up through negative emotions, theatricality. INTps/ENTjs are not the people to follow this description. INTps/ENTjs do not know how to influence a groups emotions and do not understand the emotional states of groupes. INTps/ENTjs are seeking -Fi/+Fe. +Fe could be described as understanding the emotional state of individual person, influence on individual’s emotions, ability to force one to open up through positive emotions, spreading optimism, happiness, attempts at lifting mood. INTps/ENTjs are looking for someone to help open up their negative persona.

[Hitta]

an INTj is -Ti +Te, an ENTj is -Te +Ti

Ok, I got that mixed up. Let's look at ISTj then. ISTj is +Ti -Te. So if you follow that interpretation of yours, you're saying that the dominant function of the ISTj is identical to that of the ENTj. It makes no sense in socionics.

Um, yes it does.

-Te=Uselessness, unprofitableness, use, application, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, experiment, sale, trade, actions in conditions of chaos, an ingenuity.

+Ti = Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization,


both sound like both ENTjs and ISTjs.

[krieger]

Yes, I agree, except for this statement: "Important to realize is that the configuration is determined entirely by the two functions that a type (/function trajectory) is made up of. N and T combined always results in the N function being - and the T function being +. Likewise, T and S combined results in T being + and S being -." Take an INTj for example. The ego block is composed of -Ti +Te +Ne -Ni. You have four data chains. You have the -Ti +Ne data chain. You have the +Te -Ne data chain. You have the +Te +Ne data chain. And you have the -Ti -Ni data chain. The last two I would like to refer to as sub-data chains due to the fact that the data is not changing expressive orientation. ENTps and INTjs are the only two types with either of the two main chains. It works something like this:

Your choice.

Do realize the following: IF you are going to reverse the + and - signs, it is necessary to be explicit about it.

If A is on the left and B is on the right, a movement from A to B is necessarily a movement to the right.

Likewise, if A is on the right and B is on the left, a movement from A to B is necessarily a movement to the left.

Notations that I have tried to use in the case of + and - are 'abstracting' and 'concretizing'. Could also call them 'constructive' and 'destructive' or some such thing.

So, instead of saying 'N+T-', say 'N+T- concretizing' when it is not obvious. 'N-T+ concretizing' would then be an impossibility.

Kind advice,

Labcoat

[Expat]

an INTj is -Ti +Te, an ENTj is -Te +Ti

Ok, I got that mixed up. Let's look at ISTj then. ISTj is +Ti -Te. So if you follow that interpretation of yours, you're saying that the dominant function of the ISTj is identical to that of the ENTj. It makes no sense in socionics.

Um, yes it does.

-Te=Uselessness, unprofitableness, use, application, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, experiment, sale, trade, actions in conditions of chaos, an ingenuity.

+Ti = Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization,


both sound like both ENTjs and ISTjs.

I give up. Good luck in inventing your own brand of socionics.

[tcaudilllg]

This would mean that an INTp and an ENTj would careless about maintaining a good state of health.

Your lense is too small. INTp does not disdain the pursuit of health; in fact, they seek roles that are consistent with the needs of their health. They are usually healthy people, and quite often rich.

You are not considering the interplay of the function's *roles" with each other. Listen, those facts are completely irrelevant to the structure. They may be indicative of it, but they do not *make* the structure. You cannot infer the precise nature of the structure from those facts alone. You can *test* the structure by them, but you cannot build a house on sand.

[krieger]

At the very least I don't see the benefit in saying that Extraverted Thinking is base information to INTj. In their youth they avoid it like the plague.

We hear you say that a lot. Can you give an example of what kind of information you mean when you do?

[tcaudilllg]

At the very least I don't see the benefit in saying that Extraverted Thinking is base information to INTj. In their youth they avoid it like the plague.

We hear you say that a lot. Can you give an example of what kind of information you mean when you do?

The whole idea of Cartesian doubt, that you can never be sure of anything save the principles of logic alone. That's without . would say, "ah but look what I have here: all these little trinkets that hold clues to the mystery.... Won't you peruse of my wares?" To which says, "What? You must be joking, look at all those CONFLICTING facts! Offer me the chance to show you how those facts should create each other, and perhaps I'll look a little more closely!"

[Hitta]

an INTj is -Ti +Te, an ENTj is -Te +Ti

Ok, I got that mixed up. Let's look at ISTj then. ISTj is +Ti -Te. So if you follow that interpretation of yours, you're saying that the dominant function of the ISTj is identical to that of the ENTj. It makes no sense in socionics.

Um, yes it does.

-Te=Uselessness, unprofitableness, use, application, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, experiment, sale, trade, actions in conditions of chaos, an ingenuity.

+Ti = Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization,


both sound like both ENTjs and ISTjs.

I give up. Good luck in inventing your own brand of socionics.

How can you not see that?

[Hitta]

Yes, I agree, except for this statement: "Important to realize is that the configuration is determined entirely by the two functions that a type (/function trajectory) is made up of. N and T combined always results in the N function being - and the T function being +. Likewise, T and S combined results in T being + and S being -." Take an INTj for example. The ego block is composed of -Ti +Te +Ne -Ni. You have four data chains. You have the -Ti +Ne data chain. You have the +Te -Ne data chain. You have the +Te +Ne data chain. And you have the -Ti -Ni data chain. The last two I would like to refer to as sub-data chains due to the fact that the data is not changing expressive orientation. ENTps and INTjs are the only two types with either of the two main chains. It works something like this:

Your choice.

Do realize the following: IF you are going to reverse the + and - signs, it is necessary to be explicit about it.

If A is on the left and B is on the right, a movement from A to B is necessarily a movement to the right.

Likewise, if A is on the right and B is on the left, a movement from A to B is necessarily a movement to the left.

Notations that I have tried to use in the case of + and - are 'abstracting' and 'concretizing'. Could also call them 'constructive' and 'destructive' or some such thing.

So, instead of saying 'N+T-', say 'N+T- concretizing' when it is not obvious. 'N-T+ concretizing' would then be an impossibility.

Kind advice,

Labcoat

What law of socionics says that you can't reverse the polarity of the functions? If you consider all the types, every possible + - combination is used.

[tcaudilllg]

Answer me this: what the hell is a *function*? I've not yet seen a good explanation, save some kind of natural progression of thought. No answer as to why, though.

Note that I am distinguishing between functions and the information aspects/elements they use. The information aspect/element theory is iron-clad, but the function theory seems shaky.

[krieger]

What law of socionics says that you can't reverse the polarity of the functions? If you consider all the types, every possible + - combination is used.

It's logic. Mathematics. Reality.

Can't move from left to right and go 'to the left'. If you don't make the distinction, left and right become meaningless.

[Hitta]

Answer me this: what the hell is a *function*? I've not yet seen a good explanation, save some kind of natural progression of thought. No answer as to why, though.

Note that I am distinguishing between functions and the information aspects/elements they use. The information aspect/element theory is iron-clad, but the function theory seems shaky.

Thats a very good question. I don't agree with the current definition of what a function is. I think a function is a composition of both introverted and extroverted aspects. Take -Ti and +Te would combine to create function A. Although, would -Ti and +Te be distinct if people as whole weren't subject to social learning. What is the formation of any idea? Is it just how we've learned to categorize things. Is a block a block? Or is it a cylinder with trimmings around it?

[Hitta]

What law of socionics says that you can't reverse the polarity of the functions? If you consider all the types, every possible + - combination is used.

It's logic. Mathematics. Reality.

Can't move from left to right and go 'to the left'. If you don't make the distinction, left and right become meaningless.

Left and right are just relative to the information around it.

[Hitta]

What law of socionics says that you can't reverse the polarity of the functions? If you consider all the types, every possible + - combination is used.

It's logic. Mathematics. Reality.

Can't move from left to right and go 'to the left'. If you don't make the distinction, left and right become meaningless.

Although if you want to be technical about it, if you keep going right you will end up going left. You will continuously turn around. Not sure if that is irrelevant or not, but seeing as something can be something else in that situation, I imagine it can happen for all things.

[Rocky]

How can you not see that?

Eckk. Talking like that is so annoying. It's like saying, "Well OF COURSE I'm right, but I'm not going to bother explaining why I'm right. It should just be as obvious to you that it is to me".

You might make friends with Phaedrus.

[tcaudilllg]

I'm coming around to your PoV now. The idea of the function is lacking, even if the phenomena we see as their activity is (somewhat) well understood.

I'll tell you what my approach is now: deduce the differences between how the functions use the elements. We have very little structural data concerning this. Two things I've noticed thus far: 8th function seems only to consider things that are time-transient/unchanging. 4th function seems not to consider time at all, even going so far as to deny it's existence or relevance. (also, the order in which you do things) 5th function seems to see the order of events as mystical or unexplainable, even supernatural.

In particular, the non-ego functions seems to be used on behalf of psychological defense mechanisms.

Expat: what he's trying to do is revise the concept of the function. So to say, we know very little about functions 7 or 8, for example. He's criticizing the idea of the function as a determinant as we now understand it. He may stick with what he has now or he may not, but his intention is to revise how we think of functions. (not information elements)

[Expat]

How can you not see that?

I can see how you play around with concepts internally in a self-contained system. But I do not find interesting to play around with formulae not connected to reality. And no matter how you just read those descriptions as if they were the absolute truth in a mathematical equation, what concerns me is whether real people typed as ISTjs really share the same base function as real people typed as ENTjs. IMO and IME they clearly do not. So, in Rocky's words, I see what you are doing as mental masturbation.

[tcaudilllg]

How can you not see that?

I can see how you play around with concepts internally in a self-contained system. But I do not find interesting to play around with formulae not connected to reality. And no matter how you just read those descriptions as if they were the absolute truth in a mathematical equation, what concerns me is whether real people typed as ISTjs really share the same base function as real people typed as ENTjs. IMO and IME they clearly do not. So, in Rocky's words, I see what you are doing as mental masturbation.

Hitta, "the shadow" is looming.... With your current model you appear to be ignoring the relationship between the elements as used in function 1 and the elements as used in function 7. It's the struggle between and .

I agree with reform's direction concerning this though. The function model does need some revision, even if the elements do not.

what concerns me is whether real people typed as ISTjs really share the same base function as real people typed as ENTjs.

Hitta, if INTjs have in both functions 1 and 7, then shouldn't information from function 7 be applicable to function 1 ? Could you not use function 7's observations with function 1?

[Expat]

Expat: what he's trying to do is revise the concept of the function

What he's trying to do is take as if it was mathematical certainty a very old concept which has been around for ages, as if it was something new and revolutionary. The moment that he says that ISTjs - which are not mathematical concepts, but real people - have the same base function as ENTjs - ditto - then he's not in socionics anymore. But he can play around with it as much as he likes, of course.

[Hitta]

How can you not see that?

I can see how you play around with concepts internally in a self-contained system. But I do not find interesting to play around with formulae not connected to reality. And no matter how you just read those descriptions as if they were the absolute truth in a mathematical equation, what concerns me is whether real people typed as ISTjs really share the same base function as real people typed as ENTjs. IMO and IME they clearly do not. So, in Rocky's words, I see what you are doing as mental masturbation.

-Te=Uselessness, unprofitableness, use, application, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, experiment, sale, trade, actions in conditions of chaos, an ingenuity.

+Ti = Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization,

Your telling me that ENTjs do not follow laws, and organize things. Your telling me that ISTjs don't have the confidence to hold himself together during a condition of chaos. These are their dominant functions. These are with these two types do. I see it very clearly in how they work.

[Hitta]

Well the practicality of this comes when you start making comparisons of types and understanding their functions. Take an INTp or ENTj for example. Its two weakest conscious functions are +Si,-Se and +Fi/-Fe. Starting off on the sensing side of it first since it is the weakest functions, a description of +Si would be pleasant sensations, comfort, convenience, harmony, beauty, appeal, rest, health, slackness, good state of health, pleasure, pleasure, sensitivity. This would mean that an INTp and an ENTj would careless about maintaining a good state of health. Also an INTp and ENTjs don't notice or try to achieve euphoric feelings. -Se would be described as capture of authority, submission, attack, aggression, attack, the initiative, persistence, insistence, strong-willed pressure from top to down, the statement of the interests due to others, overthrow, weakness, lack of will, mastering. INTps and ENTjs aren't usually the ones to go on the offensive. ENTjs have no initiative. INTps and ENTjs are response oriented people(as +Se is their hidden agenda or a least partially a hidden agenda). Now consider +Fi and -Fe. +Fi would be considered the good relations, love, friendship, sympathy, an attraction, heat of attitudes, the sociability, a close psychological distance, kindly, pity. INTps and ENTjs are not the type of people to love and try to have good relations. They do not show much sympathy. -Fe is about understanding the emotional state of groups, influencing group’s emotions, skill to force one to open up through negative emotions, theatricality. INTps/ENTjs are not the people to follow this description. INTps/ENTjs do not know how to influence a groups emotions and do not understand the emotional states of groupes. INTps/ENTjs are seeking -Fi/+Fe. +Fe could be described as understanding the emotional state of individual person, influence on individual’s emotions, ability to force one to open up through positive emotions, spreading optimism, happiness, attempts at lifting mood. INTps/ENTjs are looking for someone to help open up their negative persona.

Read this expat

[tcaudilllg]

Your telling me that ISTjs confidence to hold himself together during a condition of chaos.

That's the relationship between function 1 and function 2. force creates structure. It is created as an extension of the structure that is already there.

-> sees the structure
-> arranges force to accent the structure.

Don't confuse with ESTp.

-> apphrends force
-> arranges structure to permit force flow

INTj:
-> sees the structure
-> arranges internal object energy orientations (potential energy) to permit the creation of a new structure.

[Hitta]

Your telling me that you don't see the similarity between ESTps/ISTjs and ENTjs/INTps. Are the similarities between ESFj/ISFps and INFjs/ENFps. ESTj/ISTp and INTj/ENTp? There is a really big similarity between these types. I even notice the physical similarity between the types. I don't know, this is just very obvious to me.

[Hitta]

Yea i know.... i was comparing illusionaries.

[Hitta]

How can you not see that?

I can see how you play around with concepts internally in a self-contained system. But I do not find interesting to play around with formulae not connected to reality. And no matter how you just read those descriptions as if they were the absolute truth in a mathematical equation, what concerns me is whether real people typed as ISTjs really share the same base function as real people typed as ENTjs. IMO and IME they clearly do not. So, in Rocky's words, I see what you are doing as mental masturbation.

There's a reason why ISTjs and ENTjs make good clutch athletes and are very competitive.

[Expat]

Read this expat

I have read it, and I don't need to read basic information on this +/- theory. Let go of this assumption that I didn't know it. I've read those short-range and long-range descriptions lots of times in the past; up to recently they got a lot of space in the16types.info main site, before McNew took them down. All of the older users here have heard of them. I do know them, and I have reached the conclusion that they're not helpful to lead to a higher understanding and, in fact, can lead to great confusion, which in my opinion it's exactly what you're doing right now.

You want to take another crack at this model, fine, go ahead. Perhaps you can do something new with it. But for the moment you have not, and you're not going to get any validation from me (if that's what you're expecting) by quoting those old short-range/long-range functional descriptions as if they were the ultimate truth.

[Hitta]

Ever notice how someone mistests as an illusionary or beneficiary partner, well the reason is because they have similar function usage.

[tcaudilllg]

Ever notice how someone mistests as an illusionary or beneficiary partner, well the reason is because they have similar function usage.

The problem with your theory is as follows:
(I'm referring to the iframe within)
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...13334&start=15

Line it up with that, and you've got an expansion to socionics. It's got to fit Model-A.

[Hitta]

Ever notice how someone mistests as an illusionary or beneficiary partner, well the reason is because they have similar function usage.

The problem with your theory is as follows:
(I'm referring to the iframe within)
http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...13334&start=15

Line it up with that, and you've got an expansion to socionics. It's got to fit Model-A.

it does fit model A

[Hitta]

-Ti and +Te combine to create a both introverted and extroverted function. An INTj uses +Te and -Ti. This is why there is a deceptive similarity with them an their illusionary and beneficiary partner.

[tcaudilllg]

OK... but what makes the decision as to which function is used?

But anyhow, I think you've hit it on the head. It does explain the UDP debacle, while accounting for the problems one faces when grappling with the unconscious: illusory projections that are ultimately just misunderstandings.

So then, the other functions operate similarly? OK... what do you get when you mix + with -? Another thing: why do the signs exist at all? Are you saying the information elements possess orientation?

Another thing: what of the relationship between positive and negative, and Jungian transcendence? Also, more to the point of Expat's criticism: the polarity tells us nothing about why - must always be followed by + in the ego. Why can't - be followed with + in ego block?

[Hitta]

OK... but what makes the decision as to which function is used?

But anyhow, I think you've hit it on the head. It does explain the UDP debacle, while accounting for the problems one faces when grappling with the unconscious: illusory projections that are ultimately just misunderstandings.

So then, the other functions operate similarly? OK... what do you get when you mix + with -? Another thing: why do the signs exist at all? Are you saying the information elements possess orientation?

Another thing: what of the relationship between positive and negative, and Jungian transcendence? Also, more to the point of Expat's criticism: the polarity tells us nothing about why - must always be followed by + in the ego. Why can't - be followed with + in ego block?

Well technically - can be followed by +, this would be an ESTj. Every polar function can be linked with every polar function that is opposite in Rationality/Irrationality.

[tcaudilllg]

OK... but what makes the decision as to which function is used?

But anyhow, I think you've hit it on the head. It does explain the UDP debacle, while accounting for the problems one faces when grappling with the unconscious: illusory projections that are ultimately just misunderstandings.

So then, the other functions operate similarly? OK... what do you get when you mix + with -? Another thing: why do the signs exist at all? Are you saying the information elements possess orientation?

Another thing: what of the relationship between positive and negative, and Jungian transcendence? Also, more to the point of Expat's criticism: the polarity tells us nothing about why - must always be followed by + in the ego. Why can't - be followed with + in ego block?

well technically - can be followed by +, this would be an ESTj

No, that's not what I'm getting at. How do we cognize this? It's not as easy as it looks.

It's basically hovering around, from what I can see. You say you can switch the functions around? I'm skeptical. It'd be two completely seperate personalities in one. Who's in control? What determines the switch?

From my PoV if I accept your stance as true, then I will be willingly blinding myself to phenomena that I am quite certain exists. Until you modify your analysis to account for these phenomena, I will remain uncommital.

[Hitta]

Every +- combination between rational and irrational functions is accounted for. Take an INTj for example. If you think about it, it makes total logic sense. An INTj doesn't only organize the knowledge in their head, they apply it too, usually through Ne and Te. +Te : Advantage, benefit, profitability, technology, the facts, purchases, accumulation, the purchase, savings, putting in order, a practicality. I think this is a bad description when linked to -Ni and the rest of the INTj functions, but you can see that the INTj does have external order too. Ti is an internal function. IT CAN NOT EXPRESS ITSELF ALONE. This is explained through the concepts of information metabolism. The data has to be transferred. +Te is one of the functions that INTjs use to interact with the world, AND stimulate -Ti.

[tcaudilllg]

Every +- combination between rational and irrational functions is accounted for. Take an INTj for example. If you think about it, it makes total logic sense. An INTj doesn't only organize the knowledge in their head, they apply it too, usually through Ne and Te. +Te : Advantage, benefit, profitability, technology, the facts, purchases, accumulation, the purchase, savings, putting in order, a practicality. I think this is a bad description when linked to -Ni and the rest of the INTj functions, but you can see that the INTj does have external order too. Ti is an internal function. IT CAN NOT EXPRESS ITSELF ALONE. This is explained through the concepts of information metabolism. The data has to be transferred. +Te is one of the functions that INTjs use to interact with the world, AND stimulate -Ti.

Your description is inconsistent with my experience. I am not convinced.

[Hitta]

Every +- combination between rational and irrational functions is accounted for. Take an INTj for example. If you think about it, it makes total logic sense. An INTj doesn't only organize the knowledge in their head, they apply it too, usually through Ne and Te. +Te : Advantage, benefit, profitability, technology, the facts, purchases, accumulation, the purchase, savings, putting in order, a practicality. I think this is a bad description when linked to -Ni and the rest of the INTj functions, but you can see that the INTj does have external order too. Ti is an internal function. IT CAN NOT EXPRESS ITSELF ALONE. This is explained through the concepts of information metabolism. The data has to be transferred. +Te is one of the functions that INTjs use to interact with the world, AND stimulate -Ti.

Your description is inconsistent with my experience. I am not convinced.

So basically you're saying that an INTj doesn't have any external order at all?