Introverted Thinking

[Elro]

How would you describe Ti? (In your own words.)

[marooned]

This post is more of an incomplete thought and reguritation of things I absorbed. It probably over-simplifies .

is the “external statics of fields.”

In these definitions I generally take “external” to mean that we’re talking about something in the external objective world that is concrete and observable that we can all agree upon. Properties that are “static” are those that do not change - they are fixed qualities of entities, or at least that’s the idea. “Fields” cannot be viewed apart from the observer, and in that sense are subjective.

As such, a “classification scheme” (or taxonomy) is a good example of a product.

Some examples of systems of classification:



builds systems of classifications like this, only much more complex, and not just covering observable physical objects such as rocks and biscuits… the system will include ideas as well.

All of the objects on earth in each scheme are concrete things that we can all agree upon the existence of (especially batman and zombies) - hence the external aspect of reality. But they are categorized differently in each system (arbitrarily). The way in which objects on earth are classified in the examples more reflect the person classifying them than it does the relationships between those objects. That is why this is the external statics of fields. How you see it cannot be separated from you (subjective)... It doesn't have to be seen the way you see it - it could be seen any way. Reality doesn't care about classifying objects on earth... one way is as good as another... It is the human mind that starts grouping these objects and categorizing them. is good at making these categorizations; is good at judging the most effective system of categorization to use (or not use) for a given purpose.

The system is static and meant to be a picture of reality as a system of classifications. This doesn’t mean the system cannot be changed. It can be revised ad infinitum to incorporate new information and understandings. But it is meant to represent a static classification of reality. When it is revised it isn’t because reality changed, but because the system prior to revision did not reflect reality as precisely as it could have. As such systems are constantly under revision (reality is huge and you can’t ever know everything, so your system will never be finished).

That said, systems are usually built upon a foundation I would imagine and it would be easier to make minor revisions than to revolutionize the entire system and start over from scratch. This is why can be called "narrow-minded" - because there may be a reluctance to change the system if it isn't working, as that would mean you'd have to change your entire way of thinking.

is theoretical in that you can hypothesize according to what you already know of your system of reality where other things are going to fit into the system even if you have no evidence of these things yet. If you know that A=B and B=C for instance, it's a given that A=C. How could it not? So even if you didn't know the value of C through evidence, you already know its value is that of A and B through reasoning. (I think this isn't a very good example, maybe someone else can come up with a better one.)

thinking is very clear and distinct, and can be semantically-based. It precisely defines, correlates, and catalogues concepts, ideas, things, methods, etc. It provides a framework to think in. ego types provide clarity in thinking in the sense that they are able to help others make classifications… this task comes naturally to the ego type, though it could be a chore to everyone else.

and work together in that provides an analysis of input (I am not the first to have said that, and probably wouldn’t be saying it if no one had said it before me – I am re-synthesizing, not adding anything new) and carefully organizes it into useful logical information (by putting it in the right boxes). is very piercing in this way.

[Jimbean]

Loki, I believe that is a good description of Ti. I don't know if could be explained better than that.

[marooned]

Loki, I believe that is a good description of Ti. I don't know if could be explained better than that.

I'd be interested in hearing it from the point of view of people with it in the ego. After some insane consideration early on, I am certain it isn't in my ego block.

[Expat]

I think this is good, but in this particular case isn't really about the "efficiency", I don't think. would be rather what "keeps an eye" on the dynamic qualities of the individual items in your structure, to see if they really belong there -- which is not that applicable in this example because, in principle, a mammal will remain a mammal, etc. Or perhaps it is, if you see it as continually checking that that kind of classification continues to reflect the ever-changing reality.

[marooned]

I think this is good, but in this particular case isn't really about the "efficiency", I don't think. would be rather what "keeps an eye" on the dynamic qualities of the individual items in your structure, to see if they really belong there -- which is not that applicable in this example because, in principle, a mammal will remain a mammal, etc. Or perhaps it is, if you see it as continually checking that that kind of classification continues to reflect the ever-changing reality.

I think this is good.

I was thinking that could look at the usefulness of the entire classification. For instance Classification#1 is useful... it's a (poor) representation of one that is used in life sciences all the time (at least the "living" half of it is). Various people have spent a lot of time studying all of these organisms and finding this very useful way to group them.

Classification #2, however, is fraught with issues. Some of the objects on the land are the same objects as those in the sea (like kelp)... objects on the land can be thrown into the sea... objects in the sea can wash up on the land... where the land ends and the sea begins is constantly changing... so on. It's a really bad way to classify objects on earth... Would there be some conceivable purpose that Classification #2 would actually be useful for? Maybe, but in general it seems pointless to even try to classify objects on earth that way and waste all that time doing so.

[mm]

The way in which objects on earth are classified in the examples more reflect the person classifying them than it does the relationships between those objects. That is why this is the external statics of fields. How you see it cannot be separated from you (subjective)... It doesn't have to be seen the way you see it - it could be seen any way. Reality doesn't care about classifying objects on earth... one way is as good as another... It is the human mind that starts grouping these objects and categorizing them.

I'm not sure you're really capturing fields here, but I've never really managed to grasp it either. Personally I'd like to see field/object ditched in favour of rational/irrational, which seems a more natural dichotomy to me. So, Ti: aspects/elements/characteristics/whatever that are static, external and rational.

[Elro]

Anyway, yeah... I was just meant to ask, Elro, do you think it might be your role turning on after you "decided" to go with ENTp? I mean the photo on your avatar looks ESI, at least imo, and it would make sense, the whole thing, at least distantly.

I'm not sure I follow you.

[strrrng]

Ti is the "external statics of fields"? Ahhh, shit, I thought it was internal.

I can understand why fields are introverted and objects are extraverted. I can understand extraverted irrational and introverted rational functions are static, and why extraverted rational and introverted irrational functions are dynamic, but not what internal and external are about.

What are they about?

it's funny, cause Ti is a very subjective sort of logic. but internal/external simply refers to being directly or indirectly apparent.