Introverted Thinking

[marooned]

Properly used, it only accepts the most obvious/unchanging categories, such as:
-"space is a vast network of stars"
-"a beaver is a mammal"
-"a chair is a 4-legged object"

If improperly used, you get someone trying to apply overly static or norm-based thinking to something that is definitely not very simple (and sometimes not even static), as what happens in some Ti hidden agendas.

Hmm... Something that came to mind reading that: I think that often times when a person appears to be "mis-using" the IM element in their HA, it's often that they're actually using that IM element in service of their leading function. They want some information to feed into their leading function so they use one of the "arms" available to the leading fct (in this case, the 6th function) to acquire this information.

With HA specifically, they may say things that indicate they're over-simplifying the complex... but they may well be aware it appears that they're doing that. In other words they may not be "mis-using" it at all, but using it exactly as it should be used (in service of the leading fct)... it just appears as misuse to someone who has that IM element as their 1st, 2nd, 7th, or 8th function. It may be bad , but not necessarily misuse of or the 6th function. (I was just now trying this idea on.)

Or they could actually be over-simplifying the complex.

Now the 2nd/7th functions are 3-dimensional. 3-d Ti is a dynamic image of Ti... that is, the Ti is constantly changing to fit whatever situation is at hand. I think that this allows the person to select which Ti links can be made, and which can be discarded in the heat of a given situation. So, say the person is being ignorant of Te for whatever reason. This ability to dynamically select which Ti links to make and which to discard can allow him not to look very foolish when discussing something he has very little facts about.

4-dimensional Ti I can't really visualize, but it involves prediction.

I find this truly interesting. I have noticed with people who I think are good at that they can quickly adapt themselves to understanding other frameworks and systems of thought and think in those terms. So yes, I think I would agree with this. Strong, valued is very quick at this.

This is if you even go for this experimental hypothesis, which I think Gulenko even criticized, but is extremely popular with socionics practicioners.

I had never heard of it before (I have studied very little).

[Logos]

With HA specifically, they may say things that indicate they're over-simplifying the complex... but they may well be aware it appears that they're doing that. In other words they may not be "mis-using" it at all, but using it exactly as it should be used (in service of the leading fct)... it just appears as misuse to someone who has that IM element as their 1st, 2nd, 7th, or 8th function. It may be bad , but not necessarily misuse of or the 6th function. (I was just now trying this idea on.)

Or they could actually be over-simplifying the complex.

Or over complicating the simple.

[marooned]

Or over complicating the simple.

[strrrng]

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

yes, exactly.

[Blaze]

i'm going to speak about Ti the way i would use Ti. which is substantially different from how an Se leading person would use it and also different from how a Ti leading person would use it.

Ne feeds Ti with perceptions. Ne looks for the essence of objects and Ti then draws a golden thread between things that are similar, and classifies them, kind of the way Loki has described. but i don't see such classifications as terribly rigid or as the be-all end-all of reality. not by any means. to me, Ti classifications are more like guidelines or something. like there could be any number of specific objects or instances where the classification does not hold true.

a very good example of this happens to be drawings of hominids and how they evolve from eon to eon. the last drawing is always homo sapiens sapiens. to me, homo sapiens sapiens always looks substantially different than all the other hominids and nothing has yet been scientifically developed which explains how hominids went from looking in each successive eon like progressively smarter apes to, finally, human beings.

so Ti for me makes a kind of sketch, or preliminary plan. one which has to be confirmed or disconfirmed by more data and experience.

alternatively, i have several good theories or classification systems which i can use interchangeably to make some sense of reality. if one of them doesn't work, then the object is a wild card while i spend more time observing things and seeing if they can be classified differently. having said this, there are tons of wild cards which i don't attempt to explain. it's like there is lots of chaos in the world, and then there are segments of reality that can be classified and easily explained. the idea is to figure out which is which.

i think this really demonstrates the principle of rationality vs irrationality.

[Ms. Kensington]

yeah thanks for posting that article!

i agree with expat's example.. really shows the different focus these individuals have.

[Logos]

Just to make sure that you understand, that was not personally directed at you or your post, but was merely an addition to what you said. I could see a Ti HA over-complicating things as a form of overcompensation of not being able to appropriately apply the right amount of Ti to the given circumstances of Te (PoLR). I think that it would be fair to say that the HA can overcompensate for a weakness arising from the PoLR. The ILI/SLI may become overly attached to things and people (Fi) out of an inability to adequately read or gauge their emotional dynamics (Fe). The LII/EII may be overly concerned with comfort and stability (Si) out of an inability to have full control over their physical surroundings (Se), and so on with other types.

[marooned]

Just to make sure that you understand, that was not personally directed at you or your post, but was merely an addition to what you said.

Got it. I was taking most posts personally that day.

[mm]

I think it's correct what you said in my experience.

An Fi polr has often lead me to overcompensate on the Fe HA. I become overly attached in covering as many Fe bases as possible out of an inability to grasp a single specific psychological distance.

For example, the first sentence I wrote in this post was originally "I think it's correct what you said... in my experience at least." But I wasn't sure how you would personally react to me saying "at least."

Would saying "at least" offend you or not? because saying "at least" has the potential of implying that, you think, that I think your system isn't universally applicable... and this could offend you in some way.

So I reworded my statement to the less powerful version... which is much more benign, but also much less informative. And this is how an Fe Hidden Agenda has often trounced my attempts at civilized discourse... and why a weak Fi makes me extremely anxious whenever I post something novel and Ne-related that might not sit well with someone... hence why I care a great deal about what people think of me.

Gods, I've revealed too much about myself in the name of scientific advancement.

Just in case you ever end up in a similar situation, confirming someone's ideas from honest personal experience is hardly ever offensive no matter how you phrase it.

[Ezra]

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?

[JRiddy]

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?

Internal and external can be compared to time and space, but only within the context of general relativity. They are decidedly not time and space in the conventional sense. It's a tricky little dichotomy, but like each of the three information dichotomies, it is an exceedingly important part of IM theory. It's easier to grasp if we understand that the focus dichotomy (body/field) is based on how we view an object or subject; i.e., we can view an object as a whole even though it could be further subdivided. Take the example of a car, which is a complex object:

• Bodies
  
  • Statics
    
    • Internal - - The car has a multitude of inner parts, and there are specific, discrete elements that make it work; each one of these elements can be manipulated in a variety of ways to make the car work in different ways. Each attribute allows the car to perform a specific task.
    • External - - The car has a gas pedal, a brake pedal, a clutch pedal, a steering wheel, 4 tires, etc.; Each one of these discrete elements speak to the cars abilities and what items allow it to interact with the operator and the world.
  • Dynamics
    
    • Internal - - The car has an ongoing process of combustion that keeps it running. Fe will keep tabs on the state and strength of this combustion, as well as how it is consuming fuel (related to Ne) or producing exhaust (related to Se).
    • External - - The car is moving in a specific direction at a certain speed. Te will track the speed, and any elements of the movement of the vehicle among other things.
• Fields
  It gets a little trickier with field elements, because an external field element can deal with relationships that are essentially "inside" an object and internals can deal with relationships that are "outside." The difference is much more subtle. The best summary I can think of is that externals tend to be about position, whereas internals are about angle and orientation.
  
  • Statics
    
    • Internal - - The car's internal structure gives rise to specific orientations, and maintaining a proper relationship with other objects is necessary for correct functioning. Many fields affect the car in specific ways, such as gravity that holds it to the ground, or the wind that creates resistance. These things are important because they effect the car's ability to work and go places (Te).
    • External - - The car sits in position relative to other things in the world. It has a specific extrinsic structure that either give rise to it's inherent attributes (Ne) or allow it to be used and mobilized in specific ways (Se). These things are important because they affect the cars ability to become and remain active (Fe).
  • Dynamics
    
    • Internal - - The car is traveling along a specific path. Though only the current location is known, over time a specific direction becomes clear. This path is the "essence" of the car's movement, and is not focused on the details of "how" the movement takes place.
    • External - - The car has specific processes that must work together in order for it to function correctly. These include the fuel intake, the oil being pumped, the camshafts running, etc. Si does not break these things down, but sees them as part of a whole process, and is sensitive to the manner in which the car runs, as this indicates how well the processes are functioning together.

I don't think that crude example perfectly captures internal vs. external, but I hope it gives a general idea.

[liveandletlive]

Internal and external can be compared to time and space, but only within the context of general relativity. They are decidedly not time and space in the conventional sense. It's a tricky little dichotomy, but like each of the three information dichotomies, it is an exceedingly important part of IM theory. It's easier to grasp if we understand that the focus dichotomy (body/field) is based on how we view an object or subject; i.e., we can view an object as a whole even though it could be further subdivided. Take the example of a car, which is a complex object:

• Bodies
  • Statics
    • Internal - - The car has a multitude of inner parts, and there are specific, discrete elements that make it work; each one of these elements can be manipulated in a variety of ways to make the car work in different ways. Each attribute allows the car to perform a specific task.
    • External - - The car has a gas pedal, a brake pedal, a clutch pedal, a steering wheel, 4 tires, etc.; Each one of these discrete elements speak to the cars abilities and what items allow it to interact with the operator and the world.
  • Dynamics
    
    • Internal - - The car has an ongoing process of combustion that keeps it running. Fe will keep tabs on the state and strength of this combustion, as well as how it is consuming fuel (related to Ne) or producing exhaust (related to Se).
    • External - - The car is moving in a specific direction at a certain speed. Te will track the speed, and any elements of the movement of the vehicle among other things.
• Fields
  It gets a little trickier with field elements, because an external field element can deal with relationships that are essentially "inside" an object and internals can deal with relationships that are "outside." The difference is much more subtle. The best summary I can think of is that externals tend to be about position, whereas internals are about angle and orientation.
  
  • Statics
    • Internal - - The car's internal structure gives rise to specific orientations, and maintaining a proper relationship with other objects is necessary for correct functioning. Many fields affect the car in specific ways, such as gravity that holds it to the ground, or the wind that creates resistance. These things are important because they effect the car's ability to work and go places (Te).
    • External - - The car sits in position relative to other things in the world. It has a specific extrinsic structure that either give rise to it's inherent attributes (Ne) or allow it to be used and mobilized in specific ways (Se). These things are important because they affect the cars ability to become and remain active (Fe).
  • Dynamics
    
    • Internal - - The car is traveling along a specific path. Though only the current location is known, over time a specific direction becomes clear. This path is the "essence" of the car's movement, and is not focused on the details of "how" the movement takes place.
    • External - - The car has specific processes that must work together in order for it to function correctly. These include the fuel intake, the oil being pumped, the camshafts running, etc. Si does not break these things down, but sees them as part of a whole process, and is sensitive to the manner in which the car runs, as this indicates how well the processes are functioning together.

I don't think that crude example perfectly captures internal vs. external, but I hope it gives a general idea.

thats an awesome post

[krieger]

To make matters worse, the + and - signs are also read out loud as "concrete" and "abstract" ... (at least under the interpretation through which I got acquainted with them, which would be that of user smilingeyes... I do not know wether he borrowed these from Russia or just began using them out of the blue).

[JRiddy]

Yeah, it's kind of a mess... words like "abstract" and "concrete" can cover a lot of things and can be seen in light of many possible meanings.

As for abstract and concrete I find it tends to work best with N/S. For instance, vs. ... can be seen as being about concrete properties of objects, while is more the abstract realm of properties of objects (potentials). With F/T though, it starts overlapping into other things.

Tools have their limitations.

Indeed. In some sense, all these things are "abstract" because they are thoughts, not physical objects. While I agree with you that N is more abstract than S in general, and that this is a good shorthand way to understand it, there is more to the distinction than that. It's difficult for me and everyone else to fully grasp, so it's fun and useful to keep working together like this toward an understanding.

[leckysupport]

A process of getting to the clearest possible understanding. Absolutely no confusion, everything must be understood, no ambiguity, there must be an explanation for everything and the explanation must be completely and utterly clear.

Even if you don't have the right tools (and evidence) to come to the clearest understanding you must come up with an explanation or theory regardless because everything must be clear.

Categories and classifications are used a method of reducing ambiguity and possibly as a way of comparing one 'thing' with another thing (this may fall under Ne), by giving these 'things' names.
To understand one 'thing' you need to know the relationship between that one 'thing' and other 'things' and the only way to tell the difference between different 'things' is to give them names.

Ti explanations appear overly complex due to the amount of 'things' in the real world you can classify and all the possible relationships between the classified things.

Examples of reducing ambiguity:

*Relationship protocol: Everybody knows exactly what they have to do (and sometimes how to feel) and when.
*Military Hierarchy: Everybody knows exactly who is in charge of whom. Note: Particularly useful in dangerous, urgent and focused environments.
*Science fields: Coming to the clearest understanding of a phenomenon. Getting to the 'truth'.
*Organisations and groups: People who feel this way wear this badge, people who value these are here, and this sort of work is done here. A feeling of belonging.

[implied]

A process of getting to the clearest possible understanding. Absolutely no confusion, everything must be understood, no ambiguity, there must be an explanation for everything and the explanation must be completely and utterly clear.

Even if you don't have the right tools (and evidence) to come to the clearest understanding you must come up with an explanation or theory regardless because everything must be clear.

Categories and classifications are used a method of reducing ambiguity and possibly as a way of comparing one 'thing' with another thing (this may fall under Ne), by giving these 'things' names.
To understand one 'thing' you need to know the relationship between that one 'thing' and other 'things' and the only way to tell the difference between different 'things' is to give them names.

Ti explanations appear overly complex due to the amount of 'things' in the real world you can classify and all the possible relationships between the classified things.

Examples of reducing ambiguity:

*Relationship protocol: Everybody knows exactly what they have to do (and sometimes how to feel) and when.
*Military Hierarchy: Everybody knows exactly who is in charge of whom. Note: Particularly useful in dangerous, urgent and focused environments.
*Science fields: Coming to the clearest understanding of a phenomenon. Getting to the 'truth'.
*Organisations and groups: People who feel this way wear this badge, people who value these are here, and this sort of work is done here. A feeling of belonging.

this seems really good, btw. i like the military hierarchy example. maybe slightly more beta-geared, but i agree on the whole goal being the reduction of ambiguity in some form.

[Ms. Kensington]

A process of getting to the clearest possible understanding. Absolutely no confusion, everything must be understood, no ambiguity, there must be an explanation for everything and the explanation must be completely and utterly clear.

Even if you don't have the right tools (and evidence) to come to the clearest understanding you must come up with an explanation or theory regardless because everything must be clear.

Categories and classifications are used a method of reducing ambiguity and possibly as a way of comparing one 'thing' with another thing (this may fall under Ne), by giving these 'things' names.
To understand one 'thing' you need to know the relationship between that one 'thing' and other 'things' and the only way to tell the difference between different 'things' is to give them names.

Ti explanations appear overly complex due to the amount of 'things' in the real world you can classify and all the possible relationships between the classified things.

Examples of reducing ambiguity:

*Relationship protocol: Everybody knows exactly what they have to do (and sometimes how to feel) and when.
*Military Hierarchy: Everybody knows exactly who is in charge of whom. Note: Particularly useful in dangerous, urgent and focused environments.
*Science fields: Coming to the clearest understanding of a phenomenon. Getting to the 'truth'.
*Organisations and groups: People who feel this way wear this badge, people who value these are here, and this sort of work is done here. A feeling of belonging.

i think this is pretty good coming from an ISTp (Te quadra) with sort of knowing what the motivation of the behavior comes from. The oversimplification is not offensive to me because a Ti type does not think categories are threatening. Ti is comfortable with this while knowing that data may change. Ti dominants are not oblivious to Te, it is just less priority.