What is in this paragraph?

[Exodus]

It's of a nature I would say. But IM metabolism is about how we take in and prioritize and seek out information... it's connected... I'm questioning how much it is connected.

It's about how we process, understand, and communicate information, too. Intelligence has a lot to do with how well people understand the more abstract aspects of reality, but type will always define their subjective reactions to it. What the information aspects themselves represent is an entirely different matter.

[Minde]

Sigh. When things are not quantifiable but felt describing them needs different words. It's I would think quite natural to use Ti to get at a Fi understanding. And I do so wish people would get the crap understanding of Fi out of their heads. It is not a lesser form of logic, it is not an irrational or more poorly thought way of approaching things, it in a way goes deeper than Ti. Both are connections - both are used to create a structure, one structure is not less than the other, but the qualities of the connections are quite different. One is the firm, "logic" of connections, the other the grasp of things without labels. That is why when speaking of things that must be grasped without measures such as between people or within yourself Fi is the element used.

But when you try to explain things, create a reproducible structure to show to others, you must use Ti. They cannot get your understanding without seeing it in Ti, or my favorite way to try to get things across is with analogy as it comes closest to my thoughts. It has to be translated in other words. Now, with the second passage you wrote, I found it easy to identify with but only you can determine whether my understanding of it was correct or not.

Yes, exactly. That's what I was talking about when I said that I was needing to put what was in my head, non-tangible things, into words, which are concrete (relatively speaking). However, I'd prefer not to put it into concrete terms as much as I can help it because it's less than ideal - it's limiting. Which is why, if it must be concrete, I want for it to be very simple and basic. I want to be able to capture the essence of something, it's heart, to be able to define that if necessary, and that way avoid having to put the rest of it into words, which would likely end up leaving parts out and not really capturing everything.

If you understand the heart of something (or someone) the rest of it makes sense and can even be predicted sometimes. (Being able to predict something kind of relates back to the stability thing.) If I can reasonably accurately predict or understand something that way, then I don't have to build the more tangible and specific structure - I don't have to get there by logic, which is actually something I tend to do after the fact, I've noticed. I'll get to an idea, which makes perfect sense to me and it works in reality, but there's no specific logic to how I got there. To get people where I am, I often feel I have to build a "road" of reasons for them. Which, again, goes back to having the heart already defined, that way I can give them the basic definition and let them build their own road if they want it.

Sometimes, as you mention, analogy is the closest I can get to making what I know visible, so I tend to use analogy a lot, too.

I don't know how much sense that all makes, though.

At times I give up trying to explain anything - and it's not because I have some great Te weakness where I am unsure of myself. I'm damn sure of myself, my ability to think, and my reasonableness, but what I'm not sure of is the ability of other people to understand. Things I do not know much about or have some insecurity in, I find out how to approach, and do not just jump in without any real knowledge or ability in those things. To do otherwise would be foolish. But I am increasingly sick of the patronizing tone so many people take as though ethical types have inferior thinking abilities. Nothing makes me more mad faster than to be lightly dismissed as not knowing what I'm talking about especially at times when it is glaringly obvious that I know far more about what I'm saying than the fool claiming otherwise.

Hm, I think that's a little bit of a difference between you and I. You are very confident in yourself and your abilities; I am less so.

I think part of the role effect is this: It's not ever going to be a "wholistic" Ti in the way that it will be for a leading Ti type. For example, I will reconcile information and theories in a Ti way in any given moment. However, I don't really "store" this information in my head long term, so the next time I am faced with a similar Ti problem I am not exactly comparing the present information to a stored structure in the way that an INTJ would. There may be remnants of a structure, but the whole thing is not maintained.
Also, I think that it MAKES SENSE for you to be strong and to value Ti. I think that the real idea is that you don't prefer it to Te in a partner. So, the idea of my dual is ideal to me because I really want him to provide me with Te so that I can be the one to Ti it. And if Ti is the weakest of his strong functions, then in terms of creating a sufficient pair it would make sense for it to be (one of) the strongest of your weak functions. (I like to think of a dual pair's functional strengths as complimenting one another.)
As a side note, I really don't like the idea that anyone would be weak in a certain function/element. I don't think, for example, that an INTJ is always going to be better in Ti than an INFJ. Natural intelligence, life experiences, blah blah all effect our development. The way in which I like to think of it is that a blah-leading type is not necc. better at blah than a non-blah-leading type. However, there is a comparative advantage of elements _within_ you. So, if you are EII, you will have better Fi than Ti. This is not to say that your Ti is weaker than an INTJs Ti. It just means that it's weaker than _your_ Fi.

Thank you, Ritella, that is interesting. You bring up some good points, worth considering. I relate with the building a structure and then not really retaining it.

I was also thinking those paragraphs posted by Minde perhaps flow out of an worldview... but the mechanics of them would be interpretted as . Without knowing the context, it may appear as a worldview, but it is only an appearance.

Yeah... That's actually close to my initial thoughts, when I first posted. Evidently others disagree.



Oh, and just for the record, I don't particularly like math. Science type stuff is fine, but math on its own was never my favorite. I rejoiced greatly at the end of my one and only required college-level math course. In case that makes any difference to the discussion.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Exodus]

Most people (of all types) have a point in math where they just can't comprehend it anymore. Although it's possible that a person loses interest before that point.

I forgot that I actually had an ESI English teacher with some kind of degree in math.

[Minde]

Also - I just thought of something - another reason I like being able to find and define the heart of something is that it means not having to follow all the possibilities while still retaining what is.

You know how a visual for Ne is like lightening or tree branches? Well, all those branches are a lot of ground to cover. It may be interesting and profitable to follow them, yes, but it's also time consuming. But, if you can correctly understand the beginning place, the seed, then, in a sense, the potentials are already covered and understood. It's a way to tie everything together, a grounding point. Which, again, kind of goes back to the stability thing - stability and simplicity.



Tereg, actually, may understand a little of what I mean. I think we've talked about similar ideas before. Not that other people won't understand, too (I hope they will), but I just remembered what he's said before about how he thinks about things.

[leckysupport]

Also - I just thought of something - another reason I like being able to find and define the heart of something is that it means not having to follow all the possibilities while still retaining what is.

You know how a visual for Ne is like lightening or tree branches? Well, all those branches are a lot of ground to cover. It may be interesting and profitable to follow them, yes, but it's also time consuming. But, if you can correctly understand the beginning place, the seed, then, in a sense, the potentials are already covered and understood. It's a way to tie everything together, a grounding point. Which, again, kind of goes back to the stability thing - stability and simplicity.



Tereg, actually, may understand a little of what I mean. I think we've talked about similar ideas before. Not that other people won't understand, too (I hope they will), but I just remembered what he's said before about how he thinks about things.

I remember Rick somewhere connecting 'simple theories of everything' to Ne (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything). I'm not sure where the stability comes in, I'm guessing you mean a absence of doubt (devalued ) or something.

[Minde]

I remember Rick somewhere connecting 'simple theories of everything' to Ne (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything). I'm not sure where the stability comes in, I'm guessing you mean a absence of doubt (devalued ) or something.

Maybe the desire for stability is connected to the IJ temperament? Or it's an IxFj thing? Or a Fi/Te rational thing? I don't know exactly where to put it, either, though.

[leckysupport]

Maybe the desire for stability is connected to the IJ temperament? Or it's an IxFj thing? Or a Fi/Te rational thing? I don't know exactly where to put it, either, though.

What do you mean by stability anyway?

[Minde]

Stability - not likely to change or fail; firmly established.

...that's what the dictionary says, anyway. I tend to agree with it.


The thesaurus gives these connected words, which I also think work well in the context - secure, solid, strong, steady, firm, sure, steadfast, unwavering, unvarying, unfaltering, unfluctuating; established, abiding, durable, enduring, lasting, permanent, reliable, dependable.

How is that?

[leckysupport]

Stability - not likely to change or fail; firmly established.

...that's what the dictionary says, anyway. I tend to agree with it.


The thesaurus gives these connected words, which I also think work well in the context - secure, solid, strong, steady, firm, sure, steadfast, unwavering, unvarying, unfaltering, unfluctuating; established, abiding, durable, enduring, lasting, permanent, reliable, dependable.

How is that?

I was wondering if you would described it as a absence of doubt or as something that is reliable and works time and time again. Avoiding a nervous feeling or wanting a kind of structure.
Basically just making sure I knew what you where talking about before I said anything.

[Minde]

I was wondering if you would described it as a absence of doubt or as something that is reliable and works time and time again. Avoiding a nervous feeling or wanting a kind of structure.
Basically just making sure I knew what you where talking about before I said anything.

No... not works time and time again - it is regardless of time. So that when I come back to it after an absence it's still the same. Does that make any sense? I would like you to be sure of what I'm saying so that I can listen to what you have to say.



...I just realized something - While I crave stability from the world, from others, I don't always provide it. I want the world to be clear and unambiguous.* And, yet, I'm not always like that myself. Sometimes I just can't be straightforward. Honest, yes, but not uncomplicated and obvious (not to myself, anyway - I'm not entirely sure what others think). I want everything to be not only explicable but explained. And, yet, I can't do that myself. Hypocritical? Weak? Or natural?


* By that I mean founded on something solid, not that everything should immediately appear like that. That would be rather boring.

[UDP]

No... not works time and time again - it is regardless of time. So that when I come back to it after an absence it's still the same. Does that make any sense? I would like you to be sure of what I'm saying so that I can listen to what you have to say.



...I just realized something - While I crave stability from the world, from others, I don't always provide it. I want the world to be clear and unambiguous.* And, yet, I'm not always like that myself. Sometimes I just can't be straightforward. Honest, yes, but not uncomplicated and obvious (not to myself, anyway - I'm not entirely sure what others think). I want everything to be not only explicable but explained. And, yet, I can't do that myself. Hypocritical? Weak? Or natural?


* By that I mean founded on something solid, not that everything should immediately appear like that. That would be rather boring.

That's my vote.

It might also be why your dual is ESTj



edited out out everything else.

[tereg]

I've got another lengthy post upcoming here...

I'm not sure at the moment how I want this post organized, and I'm a bit unclear where I want to start, but I'll try the best I can.


I do often find that there are things that I can seem to "grasp" and understand the essence of something, yet cannot translate those sentiments into words and into spoken or written language. This can be about an insight I have about people, relationships, connections I make in my mind, subtleties and a host of other things.

This is one of the most internally frustrating and tumultuous things I think I can experience. It hits a core so deep within me that I think is so deeply rooted because I yearn to be able to communicate and express these wordless sentiments and thoughts to others -- and do it correctly. It doesn't manifest stronger than outwardly frustrating or suffocating things (like discomfort and awkwardness, for instance), so it might not in magnitude seem the most internally frustrating and tumultuous, but I think it's overall big-picture effect is more than other ephemeral things. Sure, I try (and I continue to try) to communicate what it is that I'm thinking, and there are very few times that the words I use fit the sentiment I'm wanting to express.

Sigh. When things are not quantifiable but felt describing them needs different words. It's I would think quite natural to use Ti to get at a Fi understanding. And I do so wish people would get the crap understanding of Fi out of their heads. It is not a lesser form of logic, it is not an irrational or more poorly thought way of approaching things, it in a way goes deeper than Ti. Both are connections - both are used to create a structure, one structure is not less than the other, but the qualities of the connections are quite different. One is the firm, "logic" of connections, the other the grasp of things without labels. That is why when speaking of things that must be grasped without measures such as between people or within yourself Fi is the element used.

But when you try to explain things, create a reproducible structure to show to others, you must use Ti. They cannot get your understanding without seeing it in Ti, or my favorite way to try to get things across is with analogy as it comes closest to my thoughts. It has to be translated in other words. Now, with the second passage you wrote, I found it easy to identify with but only you can determine whether my understanding of it was correct or not.

Yes, exactly. That's what I was talking about when I said that I was needing to put what was in my head, non-tangible things, into words, which are concrete (relatively speaking). However, I'd prefer not to put it into concrete terms as much as I can help it because it's less than ideal - it's limiting. Which is why, if it must be concrete, I want for it to be very simple and basic. I want to be able to capture the essence of something, it's heart, to be able to define that if necessary, and that way avoid having to put the rest of it into words, which would likely end up leaving parts out and not really capturing everything.

If you understand the heart of something (or someone) the rest of it makes sense and can even be predicted sometimes. (Being able to predict something kind of relates back to the stability thing.) If I can reasonably accurately predict or understand something that way, then I don't have to build the more tangible and specific structure - I don't have to get there by logic, which is actually something I tend to do after the fact, I've noticed. I'll get to an idea, which makes perfect sense to me and it works in reality, but there's no specific logic to how I got there. To get people where I am, I often feel I have to build a "road" of reasons for them. Which, again, goes back to having the heart already defined, that way I can give them the basic definition and let them build their own road if they want it.

Sometimes, as you mention, analogy is the closest I can get to making what I know visible, so I tend to use analogy a lot, too.

I don't know how much sense that all makes, though.

And I feel exactly the same way about this. Whenever I'm faced with a situation in which I want to express or communicate something that I cannot put into words, the words just naturally feel like they can never do it justice. And it's infinitely frustrating to live with this fact.

But, as I read the above part, I thought about one very notable exception. And it's something that I have only experienced in my life on very rare occasions. Recently it has happened when talking to my identicals on the forum.

There have been very rare occasions when I'm talking with an identical of mine, and there's something.... that again, I can't quite express in words... that makes it such that I don't feel like I have to do as much explaining as I normally would with any random person. It's basically this sentiment that I just sort of know that they know exactly what I'm talking about. I feel like they can almost gaze into my mind and see exactly what I see from the exact same vantage point. And it's through this feeling that I suddenly feel like I can explain something in very few words -- less than what I would normally use -- and it would be sufficient and sufficient to a degree that they really would understand. They don't need to ask for clarification or elaboration, they just don't ask. They've got it. It's an exceptionally special feeling.

Also - I just thought of something - another reason I like being able to find and define the heart of something is that it means not having to follow all the possibilities while still retaining what is.

You know how a visual for Ne is like lightening or tree branches? Well, all those branches are a lot of ground to cover. It may be interesting and profitable to follow them, yes, but it's also time consuming. But, if you can correctly understand the beginning place, the seed, then, in a sense, the potentials are already covered and understood. It's a way to tie everything together, a grounding point. Which, again, kind of goes back to the stability thing - stability and simplicity.

Tereg, actually, may understand a little of what I mean. I think we've talked about similar ideas before. Not that other people won't understand, too (I hope they will), but I just remembered what he's said before about how he thinks about things.

This pretty much explains why in those rare moments I don't need to explain as much as I normally would. The branches and gaps that I normally would need to pave and draw and lay out for others.... they are filled without needing to say a word. There's just... I just know that they've been understood. It's such a calming feeling, knowing that I can just... relax.

At times I give up trying to explain anything - and it's not because I have some great Te weakness where I am unsure of myself. I'm damn sure of myself, my ability to think, and my reasonableness, but what I'm not sure of is the ability of other people to understand. Things I do not know much about or have some insecurity in, I find out how to approach, and do not just jump in without any real knowledge or ability in those things. To do otherwise would be foolish. But I am increasingly sick of the patronizing tone so many people take as though ethical types have inferior thinking abilities. Nothing makes me more mad faster than to be lightly dismissed as not knowing what I'm talking about especially at times when it is glaringly obvious that I know far more about what I'm saying than the fool claiming otherwise.

Hm, I think that's a little bit of a difference between you and I. You are very confident in yourself and your abilities; I am less so.

I think this feeds this fundamental frustration I have -- this universal truth that I cannot control other people's understanding. When I cannot make the connection necessary through language, I feel like I go through lost opportunities. The more of these that I go through, the less confident I am about my ability communicate like I'd want to. Now, I'd say a good amount of the time, I can salvage it and I can get across enough understanding to where maybe there's stuff missing, but it was still just good enough to work. I think that keeps me afloat.


continued in the next post...

[tereg]

I think part of the role effect is this: It's not ever going to be a "wholistic" Ti in the way that it will be for a leading Ti type. For example, I will reconcile information and theories in a Ti way in any given moment. However, I don't really "store" this information in my head long term, so the next time I am faced with a similar Ti problem I am not exactly comparing the present information to a stored structure in the way that an INTJ would. There may be remnants of a structure, but the whole thing is not maintained.

I can especially resonate with this, thinking back to my college days in a variety of subjects. Like, say, in physics, storing theories and how to do solve particular problems using a well-defined procedure. Usually I had to memorize the procedure (using the process I use to memorize anything, really) and keep it long enough to use it for a small window of time. Later when I'd need to solve similar problems (like if I was reviewing for the final exam, say that was a few months after the initial memorization, and I had to work through similar problems, I can see the remnants of the structure, but it feels like it's crumbling. So, I slowly work through the procedures again, using problems to reinforce the concept, and the structure thus becomes reinforced.

Other classes I took where memorizing rote procedures were useless felt a bit... hmm... freer. Classes where in order to solve problems properly, the concept must be understood, instead of memorizing some step-by-step procedure of how to work a problem. I liked these classes. Anytime I felt like I needed to hard memorize a procedure in order to be able to work problems, I actively tried to avoid that and would try to be able to arrive at the procedure naturally through conceptual understanding if it was possible.

The way in which I like to think of it is that a blah-leading type is not necc. better at blah than a non-blah-leading type. However, there is a comparative advantage of elements _within_ you. So, if you are EII, you will have better Fi than Ti. This is not to say that your Ti is weaker than an INTJs Ti. It just means that it's weaker than _your_ Fi.

I definitely agree with this.

I was also thinking those paragraphs posted by Minde perhaps flow out of an worldview... but the mechanics of them would be interpretted as . Without knowing the context, it may appear as a worldview, but it is only an appearance.

Yeah... That's actually close to my initial thoughts, when I first posted. Evidently others disagree.

Oh, and just for the record, I don't particularly like math. Science type stuff is fine, but math on its own was never my favorite. I rejoiced greatly at the end of my one and only required college-level math course. In case that makes any difference to the discussion.

So, I'd like to give my math history.

I grew up with math being my strongest subject. Throughout elementary school and middle school, math was by far my most favorite subject. I enjoyed it so much because I was quick with it, and solving math problems just sort of came to me very smoothly.

In high school, the math strength continued, but other subjects caught up with math that interested me.

But I remember in trigonometry -- vividly -- the frustration I'd feel with proofs. And here's why I felt frustrated. I'd need to do some trig proof... ok. So I'd have an idea of what direction I'd want to take in order to complete the proof. I'd start off on my merry way, showing my work in a very thorough fashion. And then, I'd hit a point in which I'd realize that the direction I just took will not complete the proof. Ok, now I have two options. 1) Go back through my work and find the... ... mistake in my work or 2) Start from scratch. *sigh* I'd go through my work. Can't find the mistake in all 15 steps I just wrote out. So, I'd take my gum eraser and erase every bit of my work, maybe ripping a hole in my paper and smearing pencil since I wrote so hard. Fantastic. I start again, this time taking a slightly different path. 10 steps later, I get a different result, but I hit another dead end.

There something so deflating .... it's like digging down a rabbit hole only to find out 40 feet in that it's actually some other hole I need to be going down. And that empty feeling of looking up out of the hole through the opening the size of a pin to a blue sky. It was just so... deflating. But, I have to do it, so ... off we go. Oh, what's that? I went down another wrong hole. Ok. I need a break.

Anyways, high school calculus was not as... tedious?

Then I got to college. I did just fine in Calculus I and Calculus II. Then I got to Discrete Mathematics and Differential Equations and Linear Systems and Signals. Then I started to really struggle. I was just getting by. It just became a chore.

Now there were a lot of factors that went into that, but around my junior year, I was getting burned out, but still forcing myself through. But there would be good days of math, and then horrible days when the concepts just would not stick.

Ok, so, enough of that.

I was wondering if you would described it as a absence of doubt or as something that is reliable and works time and time again. Avoiding a nervous feeling or wanting a kind of structure.
Basically just making sure I knew what you where talking about before I said anything.

No... not works time and time again - it is regardless of time. So that when I come back to it after an absence it's still the same. Does that make any sense? I would like you to be sure of what I'm saying so that I can listen to what you have to say.

...I just realized something - While I crave stability from the world, from others, I don't always provide it. I want the world to be clear and unambiguous.* And, yet, I'm not always like that myself. Sometimes I just can't be straightforward. Honest, yes, but not uncomplicated and obvious (not to myself, anyway - I'm not entirely sure what others think). I want everything to be not only explicable but explained. And, yet, I can't do that myself. Hypocritical? Weak? Or natural?

* By that I mean founded on something solid, not that everything should immediately appear like that. That would be rather boring.

And I'd like to use this paragraph to illustrate two things.

First, the procedures I'd try to remember for classes... I'd return to it later in time, and it wouldn't look the same to me. Sure, the procedure itself wouldn't change. But in my eyes, it would feel deteriorated. It was unstable. I felt unstable. I felt unstable about leaning on it and using it.

Secondly, there is a constancy in how I approach things that... they're like my bread and butter things. There are certain things that I do, in which I approach things, in which the outcome can (for the most part) be predicted. I'm thinking about how I approach technical support. There are core principles that I hold that are... they are principles that I don't feel like I can quite explain in words (there it is again), but in which I follow because I've found it to work for a very long time. It just... works. And maybe it's different than how people visualize the position, not the "norm". But, I choose to do things this way because I consistently see good come of it.

Not sure if that made sense, but there's sort of an intangible stability of going back to things that don't change that I know... just works. That doesn't sound quite right now that I've written it out, like I'm missing something else, but I suppose this will do.


Ok, those are my thoughts.

[leckysupport]

No... not works time and time again - it is regardless of time. So that when I come back to it after an absence it's still the same. Does that make any sense? I would like you to be sure of what I'm saying so that I can listen to what you have to say.

I think I understand what you mean by regardless of time, I guess you mean the whole concept or feeling of time is just left out of the equation even though theoretically it should be there. Like some sort of a blind spot.

That may have been a bad explanation.

...I just realized something - While I crave stability from the world, from others, I don't always provide it. I want the world to be clear and unambiguous.* And, yet, I'm not always like that myself. Sometimes I just can't be straightforward. Honest, yes, but not uncomplicated and obvious (not to myself, anyway - I'm not entirely sure what others think). I want everything to be not only explicable but explained. And, yet, I can't do that myself. Hypocritical? Weak? Or natural?


* By that I mean founded on something solid, not that everything should immediately appear like that. That would be rather boring.

This is confusing to me, you seem to be talking about Ti but something seems off. I'm wondering if you're talking about a IJ thing or a Te thing or maybe something else all together.

Things I'm wondering:

*You're valuing Ti despite you being a EII.
*You're really just talking about Te dual-seeking and I need to change what I think Ti is.
*The IJ temperment is forcing you to be strict in your thinking (requiring Ti, just the nature of IJ) but since Ti is not your dominate function you're having trouble.

Edit: If you mean what tereg means in this these paragraphs than that would be how Rick describes Te at times.

First, the procedures I'd try to remember for classes... I'd return to it later in time, and it wouldn't look the same to me. Sure, the procedure itself wouldn't change. But in my eyes, it would feel deteriorated. It was unstable. I felt unstable. I felt unstable about leaning on it and using it.

Secondly, there is a constancy in how I approach things that... they're like my bread and butter things. There are certain things that I do, in which I approach things, in which the outcome can (for the most part) be predicted. I'm thinking about how I approach technical support. There are core principles that I hold that are... they are principles that I don't feel like I can quite explain in words (there it is again), but in which I follow because I've found it to work for a very long time. It just... works. And maybe it's different than how people visualize the position, not the "norm". But, I choose to do things this way because I consistently see good come of it.

[Minde]

I think I understand what you mean by regardless of time, I guess you mean the whole concept or feeling of time is just left out of the equation even though theoretically it should be there. Like some sort of a blind spot.

That may have been a bad explanation.

Yeah, that might have been a bad explanation on my part. No, I don't mean time is or should not be there. I just mean that time has no permanent effect because whatever is real or important is going to last. Although, that's not strictly true. There are important, real things that come and go, like storms. But I don't want to invest myself in a storm, or anything else that's ephemeral (to borrow tereg's lovely word). Ah, I think I'm digressing here...

Anyway, no, I don't necessarily mean time should be left out of the equation, only that I want to find things that time has no power to change.

This is confusing to me,

Thank you. Welcome to the club.

you seem to be talking about Ti but something seems off. I'm wondering if you're talking about a IJ thing or a Te thing or maybe something else all together.

Things I'm wondering:

*You're valuing Ti despite you being a EII.
*You're really just talking about Te dual-seeking and I need to change what I think Ti is.
*The IJ temperment is forcing you to be strict in your thinking (requiring Ti, just the nature of IJ) but since Ti is not your dominate function you're having trouble.

Excellent. Keep wondering. I'm wondering, too.

Edit: If you mean what tereg means in this these paragraphs than that would be how Rick describes Te at times.

I relate with most of what tereg said, and if not relate then at least comprehend and can visualize. In everything he said, I knew what he was talking about. So take that for what it's worth.

[Blaze]

Minde: ok this is out of left field since i haven't been keeping up on this thread but here's what i think is going on.

you're lookin like your lookalike, LII.

i did the same thing with doing stuff that looked like SLE.

you're trying to develop your Ti/role function. people typically do this with some success.

but ya know you are so effin Fi .... you can't be LII/Ti leading.

howszat for an anti-Fi post? lol