Can we talk about Ti please?

[Joy]

See, all people here at the 16types are a little bit crazy. No one of us is normal. We must accept that.

Being crazy is the only thing that keeps me sane.

[Gilly]

In the enneagram you'd definitely be 6w5. The inquistitor.

No. He doesn't have the shaky, compensatorily aggressive feel that people like you and discojoe exhibit in confrontation. He's much more like a 7w8: blithe, seemingly totally un-invested in conversation unless it serves either for his entertainment or ego, bluntly refusing to question himself in any manner, never giving any signs of giving ground even when confronted with the obvious truth, and deflecting everything he can't actually respond to with humor.

[Gilly]

Ephemeros, the fact of the matter is, not everyone agrees on their interpretation of Socionics even when it comes to typing people in real life, so positing that you can know someone's type who you not only have never met in person, but also don't know a lot about generally, and don't even speak their same native language (not only just something to do with your skill in the language, but the simple barrier that arises as a result of you not being as attached or subjectively attuned to a language other than your own, and thus not as able to interpret nuance, context, or general meaning as precisely), especially when your motives are right out in the open, makes it kind of hard to take you seriously. You're just too overtly overconfident with insufficient information or input, in my opinion.

[Gilly]

Being crazy is the only thing that keeps me sane.

...wow, didn't see that coming...

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[matilda]

making sure what you will be saying is in fact true (by learning more about it)

is this Ti?

[redbaron]

He's much more like a 7w8: blithe, seemingly totally un-invested in conversation unless it serves either for his entertainment or ego, bluntly refusing to question himself in any manner, never giving any signs of giving ground even when confronted with the obvious truth, and deflecting everything he can't actually respond to with humor.

I like this description of the 7w8. heh.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[ArchonAlarion]

Pinocchio is concerned with intents, loyalties, authority, lies, etc far too extremely to be anything other than 6. Arguing with him is like constantly trying to prove you aren't a sneaky lying bastard lol. His self-righteousness is very strong, but I don't mind it really. At least you know that he does really care about the truth even if he is stubbornly wrong.

6w7 then, sp.../so I'd say.

Back to Ti...

Ti's learn a set of rules previously which guide them in decision-making, so they usually make their mind easily, Te's, on the other hand take all knowledge about something as a endless refinement.

Anyway, it is not related to either Te or Ti the habit of telling something knowing or not knowing enough about it, in my observations that Ti just tend to be extreme: I know or I don't know.

This is true. I like to say that Te is the "rules" and Ti is the "rules of rules".

A Te ego has to work through each problem as a unique puzzle. This is because they are inducting the rules, "learning the ropes" as they go. They can do specific skills very well, but when introduced to a new skill they take longer to learn it.

A Ti ego is always figuring out how "rules" function as abstractions, rather than specific concrete imperatives, that complete a task. I reduce things to as simple an abstraction as I can get (whilst retaining the "idea"). If, when I reduce the process, it turns out to be the same as another process, then I will view them as conceptually the same thing (This is Ne as well). It's like simplifying two equations and finding out that they are the same equation when reduced. I don't see it as necessary to know all the detailed steps (rules), because I'm more focused on connecting the current ruleset to other rulesets.

I have noticed that saying that two different concrete tasks might as well be the same because they can be reduced to the same abstract rules, really irritates Te egos's. Obviously, anyone can be abstract or use simplifications mathmatically, but to actually see complex situations in this way is another matter, only for the Ti-er.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

Back to Ti...



This is true. I like to say that Te is the "rules" and Ti is the "rules of rules".

A Te ego has to work through each problem as a unique puzzle. This is because they are inducting the rules, "learning the ropes" as they go. They can do specific skills very well, but when introduced to a new skill they take longer to learn it.

A Ti ego is always figuring out how "rules" function as abstractions, rather than specific concrete imperatives, that complete a task. I reduce things to as simple an abstraction as I can get (whilst retaining the "idea"). If, when I reduce the process, it turns out to be the same as another process, then I will view them as conceptually the same thing (This is Ne as well). It's like simplifying two equations and finding out that they are the same equation when reduced. I don't see it as necessary to know all the detailed steps (rules), because I'm more focused on connecting the current ruleset to other rulesets.

I have noticed that saying that two different concrete tasks might as well be the same because they can be reduced to the same abstract rules, really irritates Te egos's. Obviously, anyone can be abstract or use simplifications mathmatically, but to actually see complex situations in this way is another matter, only for the Ti-er.

This is dead on IMO. It relates to a general concept I had been toying with recently, regarding Te and Ti pertaining to left- and right-brain operations, respectively. Te is linear, sequential and separate from the observer; structure is seen as something embedded in reality that must be mapped out with exaction in order for understanding to be complete ("These are the objective standards"). Ti's structure is integral, thus reality is formatted in a more present-based, holistic manner; underlying relations either meld or discord with the subjective 'feel' of this structure, and can vary, build or recede according to the interrelations of all aspects in a situation (synthesis produces more general solutions).

What you said about Ti with Ne... how do you think it varies with Se (or Ni)? I usually find that with alphas, we can instinctively find similar parameters to operate within, but that I can never communicate perceptions in readily complete form without them being dissected and seemingly compartmentalized. In this way, beta Ti seems more condensed and based on external effect, while alpha Ti seems more open-ended and determined by a mutable subjective perspective.

[redbaron]

this is really good guys, thank you!

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

In case you find my opinion useful: I agree, if I understand you correctly. I find Betas too limited to the human dimension, while we (at least me) try to explore options even if there are no reasons to think they will be of some use, because, even if this (the immediate reality) is the only thing which can be experienced, I find it a particular case.

What do you mean by "the human dimension"? Perhaps it's an issue of democracy/aristocracy, somewhat related to the meat/soul metaphor from the other thread (alphas seeing individuals evolve naturally, betas seeing evolution as a guiding force for individuals).

[Exodus]

making sure what you will be saying is in fact true (by learning more about it)

is this Ti?

Good question - "learning more about" something implies extroversion, seeking something external. would be involved in making sure what you will be saying is true by virtue of how it follows from other, already established premises or things you know. What you're talking about can usually be attributed to .

[Exodus]

@redbaron, IMO the difference between creative and base is usually pretty clear. base people like perfecting and refining existing knowledge and systems, creating a sense of certainty, whereas creative people tend to either work outside of existing systems or blatantly go against them, creating chaos. Examples would be rules or procedures of any kind. leading people also tend to be more straightforward, in the sense of saying exactly what they are thinking -- kind of like an internal monologue that can be turned on or off (this has to do with introversion). Behavior-wise, creative people respond and adapt more to the situation around them (irrationality + extroversion). leading people are also way more cautious/neurotic about social etiquette, e.g. saying the wrong thing to someone ( role).

The "dinner time" example B&D gave is perfect - I think EXEs in general are just looking for certainty about things, like they know they can count on you to be level-headed and consistent no matter what the situation is. I generally have an idea about how things should be, and ESEs appreciate that. (Along the same lines, sometimes dual-seeking turns into dogmatism.)

They also like attention, and in return offer entertainment

[717495]

You may worsen your progress in the creative in order to get the mode right.
-Guy Smiley

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

Hmm I mean the focus on what's useful. For example a debate with someone about a common future endeavor - and you are sure what you say is right. As an Alpha you have to make sure you convinced that person to genuinely make his/her mind and try to investigate if he adopted your view, while as Beta you are not so concerned about that, it's not really important if something else made him agree, your appearance, a certain goal, wish for peace, etc, as long as he's on the good path.

Your phrase (bold) seem to denote exactly what I am talking about now, although I don't know how you deduced it from the soul/meat example. Cool but weird .

Yeah, that makes sense to me. Alphas seem much more inclined to first relativize and then organize an entire breadth of perspectives; so that, when it comes time to agree or disagree, the important issue is what context you are operating from, how all your viewpoints tie together, etc. (implicit assumption: everyone is in it together, though they act as individuals with respectively differing goals). With betas, the context and perspective is taken as implicit for each person, with the consequent attitude of ideological certainty that prompts directed action; agreed-upon ends presuppose alignment of perspective (implicit assumption: people operate on their own, but are bound to those with whom they share the same goal).

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

So it seems that, because S is blocked with T, Aristocrats tend to feel absolved of investigating things that just work, while the Democrats need to know why they do, even if that's of no use. Makes sense with what we concluded previously that Aristocrats separate "fantasy" things from "real" ones and they submit things where "they belong".

Yes. The ST aristocratic values seem to carry an inclination towards condensing things. The NF axis is much more divergent, essentially refining conceptions and vision through ambiguity without ever coming to a concrete conclusion; this breadth of perspective reassures STs of the correctness of their imposed structures.

I can see what you mean about democrats wanting to know the "why," as they are more concerned with how things naturally manifest, and don't want to overlook information for the sake of implementation.

The interesting thing is that this shows that Gammas also hairsplit, which I was doubting so far. But if I think again, while the Alphas hairsplit the past (eg. "why have you done this?" - even if a solution was found) the Gammas hairsplit the future (eg. "what are you going to do in the future?"). Basically Alphas are inclined to punish the guilt even if the events have passed - assure that it would not happen again, while Gammas ask for official commitment - assured reliability. Basically two types of assurance, this assurance is an Internal nose smelling External affairs .

hm, interesting. Gammas' hair-splitting is probably more internal, almost like a distillation through Ni+Fi. From there, Se+Te seals off objective boundaries, while remaining open to additional information that could be refined, etc.

Imo this makes sense with the association I make between political parties and quadras:
- liberals Alpha: total freedom, harsh punishments
- social-democrats Gamma: regulations and obligations to direct people's actions, but mild punishments.

I suppose I could see this. Gammas seem to assume less potential for a correct conceptual viewpoint to be arrived at and act as a beacon for action; in this way, they are probably more lenient of flaws in action, if only because the main goal is tangible efficacy, which doesn't require ideological-based punishments for slip-ups. It is ironic that alphas' open-ended, idealistic attitude would lead to harsher punishments, but makes some sense.

[Brilliand]

It is ironic that alphas' open-ended, idealistic attitude would lead to harsher punishments, but makes some sense.

Well yes, if any punishment is to actually be dealt out, all benefit from the infraction has to be eliminated; given that we don't often know for sure what the benefits were, the penalties have to be rather draconian. as opposed to to keep people in line means that the "wrong" behavior has to be made impractical, rather than ethically discouraged. Beta, I suppose, does this as a constant maintenance, whereas Alpha tries to realign the universe when it crosses a (much looser) boundary - trying to counteract the potential benefits of a misdeed rather than the immediate benefits.

Also, almost unrelated: Chaotic gods are harder to appease.

So it seems that, because S is blocked with T, Aristocrats tend to feel absolved of investigating things that just work, while the Democrats need to know why they do, even if that's of no use. Makes sense with what we concluded previously that Aristocrats separate "fantasy" things from "real" ones and they submit things where "they belong".

Expanding this further...

NT=Exploring facts [things that work]
ST=Recognizing facts [things that work] at face value
NF=Exploring feelings [ambiguities]
SF=Recognizing feelings [ambiguities] at face value