How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[eunice]

Examples? For instance, can we say that someone who has lack of appreciation in academics, theoretical subjects and even books in general to be weak in Ti? On the other hand, I have an ESFj friend who is very interested in Psychology to the extent that she buys extra college textbooks (no kidding!) to read even though they are not part of the curriculum. She is not particular about grades and she enjoys reading them for the sake of learning new things. Can I consider this an example of a Ti-seeking behavior?

[Slacker]

I love books, and I love reading new things. There's even a stereotype that ENFps are "professional students" because we keep getting interested in new subject after new subject, wanting to learn about them. It is not true that people with Ti PoLRs are not interested in learning or books by a long shot.

It is about internal types of logic. When I see that, and I see it often right here in this forum, it makes my hair stand on end. When people say they KNOW something and it HAS to be true because it is logically obvious, that bugs me. If it's logically obvious, then IMO it's out there somewhere and you can see and touch it, so you shouldn't need to rely on internal logic anyway.

As for schooling, it depends on the subject. I loved learning about history, language, literature, etc. I hated studying about anything math-related. Particularly geometry. This is probably a Ti PoLR thing. I also really hate rules and regulations. I also always have this need to prove that the rule isn't fair/right/the best choice, and that might be a Ti PoLR thing.

[anndelise]

Examples? For instance, can we say that someone who has lack of appreciation in academics, theoretical subjects and even books in general to be weak in Ti? On the other hand, I have an ESFj friend who is very interested in Psychology to the extent that she buys extra college textbooks (no kidding!) to read even though they are not part of the curriculum. She is not particular about grades and she enjoys reading them for the sake of learning new things. Can I consider this an example of a Ti-seeking behavior?

lack of appreciation (for?) academics, theoretical subjects, and even books in general..... sounds a lot like a simplified SF
(simplified meaning not actively pursuing dual-seeking nor hidden agenda)
(however, there are other ways that ds and ha can show themselves...soo...take it for whatever little it's worth)

ti polr manifest in a few ways, some of which are
* having difficulties accepting connections unless perceiving those connections themself
* disliking having to spell out the connections they do see, often preferring instead to let others see it for themselves
* sometimes a pointing of "the connection is there... it's there, why can't you see it???" without the ability to state what exactly it is that they are seeing
* sometimes making seemingly contradictory statements or holding seemingly contradictory beliefs

[krieger]

From what I can tell it means you are extremely critical to the reliability of information sources, and consequently vulnerable to others' expectations towards you to 'make do' with less than perfectly reliable information. It means wanting to have everything spelled out in detail.

Delta NF sets the stage for the 'perfectionist/idealist' quadra atmosphere. Alpha and beta skip steps to an understanding of matters, which basically means 'cheating' the intellectual game for personal benefit or long range considerations. In an intellectual context, Fi is all about rejecting such pragmatic jumps and trying to get at what the subject is about at it's core. Overwhelming as the whole truth is, this attitude mostly brings a sense of disappointment in ones capabilities to make sense of things, which the Te mindless-data-ordering function compliments perfectly. Together they bring about that 'perfection' which Ti/Fe deems to be unattainable. (although likewise Ti/Fe gives a deep personal understanding, which Fi/Te in turn does not believe in in the same particular sense)

From what I've been able to determine, Ti PoLR's exist on both the master and slave levels.

(to understand this better, imagine Ne as pinned between Ti and Fi, capable of progressing in either direction. left is to coding the intuition into a piece of knowledge that helps you inspire Fe based people, but is still unripe for building real 'tools' from, while right is to acknowledging the lacking quantifyable knowledge in the insight, and appealing to the Te-wielding part of society to fill you in on the details)

[Mea]

I'm not sure if what I'll be describing is Ti PoLR or anything important.
But IRL, when I ask a question, I dislike it when people don't explain it in detail, like elaborating or giving examples of what they're saying.
And it frustrates me when people just say, "blablabla, that's it, I don't know how to explain".
I'm sometimes like that, but I don't like it when people do that. It's incomplete and drives me crazy. Even worse if what they're saying sounds like "this is what I think, therefore this is logical".

Having a Ti PoLR = not interested in reading? I think that's very untrue, 'cause I love reading, almost anything that captures my interest for that moment. And if I don't get bored of it quickly enough, I'd stay on it for a long time.
Theories attract me, any new and out of the ordinary. I don't think I have a lack of appreciation of those things.

ti polr manifest in a few ways, some of which are
* having difficulties accepting connections unless perceiving those connections themself
* disliking having to spell out the connections they do see, often preferring instead to let others see it for themselves
* sometimes a pointing of "the connection is there... it's there, why can't you see it???" without the ability to state what exactly it is that they are seeing
* sometimes making seemingly contradictory statements or holding seemingly contradictory beliefs

I think this makes sense.

[KSpin]

I don't know much about the whole PoLR or even what it stands for, but I can say that I definitely don't like being left in the dark over details. Everything must be told to me completely, otherwise I will start speculating as to exactly what it is that they are saying, and I will come up with multiple answers. Therefore I need more detail to narrow the options down to 1.

For example, if someone says "The scissors are in the drawer near the sink..." I'll usually ask which drawer exactly, rather than go rummaging through 4 or 5 drawers looking for it.

[Park]

I don't know much about the whole PoLR or even what it stands for, but I can say that I definitely don't like being left in the dark over details. Everything must be told to me completely, otherwise I will start speculating as to exactly what it is that they are saying, and I will come up with multiple answers. Therefore I need more detail to narrow the options down to 1.

For example, if someone says "The scissors are in the drawer near the sink..." I'll usually ask which drawer exactly, rather than go rummaging through 4 or 5 drawers looking for it.

I am exactly the same way.

[mikemex]

PoLR is actually very easy to understand. It is the conflict between two modes of thinking that one can exercise but that are not compatible between them. Since they are not compatible, no matter which one you use, the other will always contain invalid information.

That's why PoLR hits are so painful: we can understand right away our mistakes, but we are helpless at fixing them because that would cause a mistake in the creative function.

[eunice]

It is about internal types of logic. When I see that, and I see it often right here in this forum, it makes my hair stand on end. When people say they KNOW something and it HAS to be true because it is logically obvious, that bugs me. If it's logically obvious, then IMO it's out there somewhere and you can see and touch it, so you shouldn't need to rely on internal logic anyway.

As for schooling, it depends on the subject. I loved learning about history, language, literature, etc. I hated studying about anything math-related. Particularly geometry. This is probably a Ti PoLR thing. I also really hate rules and regulations. I also always have this need to prove that the rule isn't fair/right/the best choice, and that might be a Ti PoLR thing.

So basically Ti is like having an internal sense of logic and common sense, and taking for granted that something should be easily understood without going into details?

ti polr manifest in a few ways, some of which are
* having difficulties accepting connections unless perceiving those connections themself
* disliking having to spell out the connections they do see, often preferring instead to let others see it for themselves
* sometimes a pointing of "the connection is there... it's there, why can't you see it???" without the ability to state what exactly it is that they are seeing
* sometimes making seemingly contradictory statements or holding seemingly contradictory beliefs

I have never thought that there would be others who would be bothered by such issues. If those with Ti PoLR hadn't told me how they felt, I wouldn't have noticed it. I posted blog entries of my ENFj friend a while back, and I was surprised that it got negative reactions, presumably due to strong -seeking. I was like reading his entries again thinking, "what had he written to get such a strong reaction?"

[FDG]

An example of a Ti polr hit I involuntarily gave to an ENFp friend lately.

We were discussing about holidays.

He said about 3 minutes apart the following sentences:

"Rimini is mundane"
"Jesolo is like Rimini"
"Jesolo is only for families"

And I told him "You said Jesolo is like Rimini and Rimini is mundane and Jesolo is for families, but cities that are for families are not mundane, so there is a logical contradiction here"

[anndelise]

An example of a Ti polr hit I involuntarily gave to an ENFp friend lately.

We were discussing about holidays.

He said about 3 minutes apart the following sentences:

"Rimini is mundane"
"Jesolo is like Rimini"
"Jesolo is only for families"

And I told him "You said Jesolo is like Rimini and Rimini is mundane and Jesolo is for families, but cities that are for families are not mundane, so there is a logical contradiction here"

now see, i might have noticed that in someone else (not necessarily in myself!!)

i might have said something like "so you think Rimni is only for families?" or "so you think mundane is only for families?"
or made some kind of narrative for/against Rimni being for families or something for/against munande being for families
these questions/stories would come seemingly out of the blue to the other person...
but for the life of me, i would not have been able to actually state it in one sentence
(or if i did finally get around to stating those connections, it would only have been after trying some...more roundabout, less direct..approach...like the questions/narratives above) (not intentionally being roundabout on it...just that it takes a lot of time/energy to figure out how to be more direct about it...and being EP my first thoughts are likely to pop out)

[Joy]

I said this about SEE's in another thread:

They also use me as a resource for information. If there's something they want to know about, they ask me because they know that even if I don't know anything about it, I'll dig up a bunch of information, sort through it and find what's useful and most likely accurate, and then organize it for them in a manner which makes sense to them.

I'm generally good at finding and sorting through a bunch of information from various sources, getting a feel for the subject/concept, which sources are most reliable, and which information makes the most sense. I find that SEE's (and a couple of people who are either SEE or IEE) tend to ask me to do this for them more than any other type. I find out what they're trying to accomplish with the information, then find whatever information would be useful to them. If I give them a lot of information, I generally summarize the information and give them an example or analogy.

Is this how ILI's fulfill their hidden agenda while covering for their PoLR?

[Joy]

Actually, the more I think about this, the less applicable to ISTp/ENFp duality I realize it is.

[Logos]

How would this necessarily be different from an IxTj being asked?

[Joy]

The way the information is presented.

[Ms. Kensington]

Im not sure if a summary or example is a distinguishing factor between how Ti and Te leading types give information, but I do know that an SEE wants reliable information on call. I also notice that if my ENTj dad gives my ESFp sister information she'll get annoyed. It has to be that the giver of information is at her beck and call; I could see an INTp fitting that description more than an ENTj.

[liveandletlive]

I said this about SEE's in another thread:

They also use me as a resource for information. If there's something they want to know about, they ask me because they know that even if I don't know anything about it, I'll dig up a bunch of information, sort through it and find what's useful and most likely accurate, and then organize it for them in a manner which makes sense to them.

I'm generally good at finding and sorting through a bunch of information from various sources, getting a feel for the subject/concept, which sources are most reliable, and which information makes the most sense. I find that SEE's (and a couple of people who are either SEE or IEE) tend to ask me to do this for them more than any other type. I find out what they're trying to accomplish with the information, then find whatever information would be useful to them. If I give them a lot of information, I generally summarize the information and give them an example or analogy.

Is this how ILI's fulfill their hidden agenda while covering for their PoLR?

My boss is ENTj and she is amazing at explaining stuff... it's truly a talent, i think.

Ya know, I'm glad you brought this up because a lot of the i've seen is not sufficient enough for me. this is not the case with the ILIs on the forum.

[Raver]

I feel like I need to know more about this. I'm sure I do it enough times and hardly notice it. I find Ti PoLR in my case usually means saying something that I feel to be right and may even be correct, but logically makes little sense or has little backing. It's kind of annoying too because sometimes I feel it's an interesting idea or point, but because of my Ti PoLR I cannot explain it sufficiently in concrete terms so it is immediately discredited. At least that's how Ti PoLR appears from my point of view. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

[Words]

I don't know if it is as easy as that, PoLRs vary in strength, life experiences and such.

ESFps I've known have no structure to their work environment, esp as supervisors (in the non socionic sense). I want to give them structure (probably socionic related).

ENFps have wild ideas that change without a structure.

Males tend to be more logical and either want to or want help to create a system that works.

Good people skills, which also are important.

[Marie84]

I feel like I need to know more about this. I'm sure I do it enough times and hardly notice it. I find Ti PoLR in my case usually means saying something that I feel to be right and may even be correct, but logically makes little sense or has little backing. It's kind of annoying too because sometimes I feel it's an interesting idea or point, but because of my Ti PoLR I cannot explain it sufficiently in concrete terms so it is immediately discredited. At least that's how Ti PoLR appears from my point of view. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

Yeah pretty much, I think Ti PoLR's are very reluctant to speak and act in absolutes about things without sufficient sources to verify their points, and even than there's a feeling of reluctance towards classification as it counteracts with their more chaotic way of thinking (and in SEE's case, living).
They're, along with Fi bases to a point, extremely bothered when someone nit-picks at their illogical "errors" and "flaws", especially about things they regard as lacking significance to what they might be trying to accomplish.

[silverchris9]

They tend to regard arguments that are not based firmly in concrete reality with suspicion, I think. And they hate it when you cut up their arguments. They think it's cheating or something. I think they tend to ask "how do you know that" a lot.

They don't like absolutes, yeah, or at least, it's an explicit/implicit thing. They don't like explicit absolutes. Implicit absolutes are less absolute-y. They follow a rule, but the rule, being implicit, looks more like it conforms to each situation individually, when in reality it is internally consistent, just on a micro-level; it follows rules invisible to the naked eye.

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

Ti likes straight lines, and mature Ti-valuers will accept a line with a few slope changes as necessary. But Fi-valuers hate straight lines. They like curves.

What else about Ti-polr? They have trouble with theoretical entities where you have to think about it as a series of lines that change their slope. They don't like sets of rules (If x, y or z? z. If z, a or b? b) used to organize information.

Ever seen those charts where it has a set of outcomes at the bottom, and a series of boxes and each box has a choice where you can go like left or right, and the various choices lead you to different boxes? I'm not making sense, but they're hard to describe. Anyway, Ti is like those things, very binary thinking, very clean, very explicit. And Ti-polrs can't stand it, and can't stand systems that are organized that way.

Also, they probably can't stand this post? Why? Because it was built using top-down thinking. It was made using lines of reasoning like "Since Ti has characteristic X, it will manifest in thought pattern Y. Since Ti-polrs don't like Ti, they will dislike thought pattern Y." That's a poor example. But throughout this post, I reached all of my conclusions not by generalizing from my experience, but by taking general principles and working out where their conclusions "must" lead. Ti-polrs don't like that kind of thinking.




EDIT:
@Marie,

Deep. Ti wants coherence of the total system; each piece, "significant" or not, needs to fit with the whole, especially since Fe considers every aspect of communication, even the subtle and implicit ones, as part of the communication (good fit between Ti and Fe there). But Fi doesn't require coherence of the total system, and it naturally weights things with different significance or weight, which is a good fit with Te, which, as it appears, prefers to have thing in discrete sections (which can therefore obviously have unequal weight). This is also a good example of two ways of thinking (Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi), both of which completely make sense and are justified, but which are mutually exclusive.


Also, Ti = "as it appears" for that which has been experienced by not "justified" through deduction. Te = "theoretically" for that which has not been "proven" by experience.

Ti is a highly idealistic function, by the way. (Which is part of why Alpha Ti includes Ni id.) Just read Plato for a good example of Ti over Te: what we experience is totally irrelevant (devaluing Te and Se) 'cause it's constantly changing. What's important is unchanging knowledge arrived at via deduction. It's about what you can trust.

Ti = straight lines; Fi = curves; Te = arrows; Fe = hints (or, in someone else's metaphor--I can't remember who--either you highlight the path or you highlight everything around it. Either way you see the path; either way you see the things around it, but it's about what you focus on, what's positive; what's negative).

[Galen]

They don't like absolutes, yeah, or at least, it's an explicit/implicit thing. They don't like explicit absolutes. Implicit absolutes are less absolute-y. They follow a rule, but the rule, being implicit, looks more like it conforms to each situation individually, when in reality it is internally consistent, just on a micro-level; it follows rules invisible to the naked eye.

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

Ti likes straight lines, and mature Ti-valuers will accept a line with a few slope changes as necessary. But Fi-valuers hate straight lines. They like curves.

I thought about this a lot last night, and I kinda came to conclude that not only does Fi not have lines like Ti does, but Fi doesn't even have a shape of its own. As an internal IE, the form of an Fi structure can't be explicitly known, but it can be hinted at depending on the information it's dealing with. In a strictly literal sense, the only thing absolute about Fi is impossible to know because its shape is constantly determined by the data it's taking in.


(Massive Ne/Si dump coming up, sorry in advance)

Say we have a rubber band. For the sake of comparison, let's say that this rubber band has no true shape of its own. Sure it has a couple specifics to it, like the material or whatever, but it's such a malleable entity that you can't really say that it's of one specific shape. If you lay this rubber band on a table, then you take a finger or a foreign object and push the rubber band on one side, you change its current shape. You can pull it, twist it, tie it in a knot, and its curves will be different depending on each physical iteration. But the rubber band doesn't change at its core every time something new is introduced, since the material doesn't inherently change.

I've come to see Fi as something akin to this rubber band in that it has no shape other than the shapes that everything else makes of it. Depending on what external phenomenon/data are present in the Fi mindset, the "shape" that the framework takes changes to fit the existence of the new points. This is what seems so inconsistent about Fi to Ti valuers because it's a malleable system that can't be directly looked at, which means it has no measurable consistency other than to the individual who experiences it.

This is the kind of "squishiness" that I associate with internal IEs in general. Ne/Ni/Fe/Fi data/structures don't really have shapes of their own, and they can only be determined by the external data/structures that they deal with.

If we think about Fe information as having the same sort of "squishiness," then it makes sense that Fe datum can be fitted into external, lined-out Ti frameworks depending on how malleable each datum really is. It seems to me that points of data for Fe/Ti valuers have no inherent shape to them, kinda like a chunk of Silly Putty that can be shaped around at a whim. Since a lot of (all?) Fe data as it exists by itself without an extrinsic classification doesn't have a strict form, it can be shaped and molded (within its perceived limits) to fit the external classification system of one's own choosing.

In a sense, Ti gives staticness to Fe by fixing it with a form, and Te gives dynamics to Fi by constantly changing its form. I haven't thought more about this point, something I just came up with and like the sound of it. May expand on it later.



I would love to hear from other people what they think of this analogy/description.

[Suz]

The way I see Te vs Ti wrt to explaining things:

Both Te and Ti egos like explaining things (in particular Te/Ti doms), but in different ways with different emphasis. A Ti-type's explanation has historically been difficult for me to understand and usually does not address key issues I am waiting to hear about. I do a lot better with Te-types' explanations.

[Galen]

The way I see Te vs Ti wrt to explaining things:

Both Te and Ti egos like explaining things (in particular Te/Ti doms), but in different ways with different emphasis. A Ti-type's explanation has historically been difficult for me to understand and usually does not address key issues I am waiting to hear about. I do a lot better with Te-types' explanations.

Uhm, naturally.

[plotter]

I find that Ti-POLRs are unable to conceptualize properly.

Instead of creating a rule that accounts for variations that may be encompassed by the concept/rule, Fi-valuers create an "inferior" rule
and instead constructs a lot of exceptions when the rule doesn't apply "because the reality is always different"...
Well in reality they just suck at understanding and creating rules/concepts that includes all necessary information.
People say of Ti-egos that their explanations are long and full of useless information. Sorry but if you would care to understand its importance in relation to the conceptualized form you would be able to use rules as proper rules and not just abstract statements.

[FDG]

Then Te types come and act like assholes until the Fi type bitches about it, without constructing any kind of Ti framework.

[Galen]

I find that Ti-POLRs are unable to conceptualize properly.

Instead of creating a rule that accounts for variations that may be encompassed by the concept/rule, Fi-valuers create an "inferior" rule
and instead constructs a lot of exceptions when the rule doesn't apply "because the reality is always different"...
Well in reality they just suck at understanding and creating rules/concepts that includes all necessary information.
People say of Ti-egos that their explanations are long and full of useless information. Sorry but if you would care to understand its importance in relation to the conceptualized form you would be able to use rules as proper rules and not just abstract statements.

lol so are Ti egos then, because I find exceptions to their rules all the time.

[Suz]

People say of Ti-egos that their explanations are long and full of useless information. Sorry but if you would care to understand its importance in relation to the conceptualized form you would be able to use rules as proper rules and not just abstract statements.

Actually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

[Skeptic]

...

Ti = a president Te = a TV Fi = an apple Fe = an apricot

I like this game, I think the way you use words that only have personal metaphoric meaning is really cool

[strrrng]

I don't even really care for "the rule" to begin with, because no single rule I've come across has ever really encompassed everything it tries to do, no matter how hard people try to bend it.

it's hard to clarify the difference between 'the rule' and all the rules in a sense. to me, the former is some kind of implicit form (pretty sure Ni influences this) that governs every manifestation of the latter. it's like, you could look at every linguistic rule of the sentences here, then abstract them into an algebraic form whose premises would give a shadow of 'the rule.'

I get how Ti-polrs can find these exceptions, because EPs view experience as compiled moments, with the Te sequence never being complete, so the behavior is more of a necessity than a weakness/strength.

Well of course, but the nature of the rules in question are very different. The "rules" that I find myself creating/noticing about the world are much more based intrinsically, having a more implicit and less tangible staticness and order rather than the order being, uhm, I guess more tangible. The difference here would be perceived externality vs perceived internality, if that makes any sense. Like, the kind of consistency I associate with Fi can't be measured in any real tangible way. It can only be felt, or something.

could you give an example of one of these rules being formed?

It must be frustrating when the lines won't admit that they can't fit life's curves. I don't understand how Ti works with Ni.

like I alluded to above, I think Ni gives Ti a more standalone form. alpha NTs are very contextual with their systems, they acknowledge the rule, but are more focused on the proportion between different aspects of the moving picture of involved dynamics. Ni and Ti are tracking involved objects, nodes of vibration that imply something about each other and must be removed from their given context to be properly defined. the governing system is platonic, because the validity of its rules doesn't hinge on what object manifests at this or that time; merely that their interactions possess absolute symmetry. 'you follow the script whether you understand it or not.'

[Galen]

could you give an example of one of these rules being formed?

Well, Socionics itself works as a Ti system formation (whenever I say "rules" in this context I really just mean a system constructed out of thought that's meant to be a representation of the world in some way). Both Aleksei, and here Skeptic I suppose, are alluding to the idea that Socionics as a construct is made before anything is actually fitted into it, and phenomena that are observed as being part of this classification somehow are placed in after the fact. This later classification eventually builds to the idea that all this talk of Fe and Ti and everything only has meaning on a personal level, where the meaning is dependent on whatever system you're using. So they (seemingly artificially) create their own definitions for things, then place the observed phenomena into those definitions afterwards.

Bringing this back to the Ti PoLR talk, this whole process of system > phenomena/noumena seems wholly backwards to me. My preferred means of thinking about Socionics, or anything else I guess, is for the observed phenomena themselves to take center stage, and have any means of externally classifying or systematizing the phenomena come after the data has been (sufficiently) gathered. What does happen, though, is that as more data comes to me, my mind will create a sort of gestalted "feeling" that comes as a consolidation of all the various data points in question. I'd hypothesize that the nature of the internal IEs as being more "noumenal" than "phenomenal" would result in the F function information being interpreted as feelings (information not received through/pertaining to the physical senses.)

[EyeSeeCold]

I already ejected him. He can go join the omega quadra leper colony with his boy ESC.

Get off my case and stop namedropping me. Just stop dude.

[silverchris9]

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

This seems like it explains the "Fi is a bitch" thing I get from Alphas/Betas.

Indeed.

It's because we can't process your curves as anything but really fucked-up lines. It's not that curves are bad. It's just that they're not lines, fucked-up or not. So trying to understand them as lines will just result in misunderstanding and frustration.

The analogy works for this purpose. I'd say I feel the line is leaving out some information.

I'm sure. Lines are not very curvy, and if the line doesn't fit you because you've got curves, the line doesn't give a shit, which leaves you uncomfortable and constricted. On the other hand, if you've got a humongous hunk of dough, it's a lot easier to stamp it all out into equally sized linear figures (squares), and if you miss some because you didn't have a complicated enough shape, well... oh well!

It must be frustrating when the lines won't admit that they can't fit life's curves. I don't understand how Ti works with Ni.

[Gilly]

Actually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

If Info Were Gluttony

= A buffet line. (More food than you need, but quick and easy to pick and choose what you want.)

= A full-course dinner. (Exactly the food you need, but you've gotta sit through the whole thing.)

IMO this is a really good metaphor for extroversion vs introversion in general.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Chris: I'm not sure that Te is an 'arrow' exactly. It just probably feels that way to you cause you have Te polr. =p

But I liked most of what you said in your post.

[force my hand]

Not sure if this post has much use, but I suspect one of my thesis advisors was Ti POLR; it was often difficult to have a satisfying meeting with him.

For example, he seemed to have a fundamental distrust for classification schemes. I had a suite of igneous rocks that I wanted to correlate with a broader (aerially) assemblage on the basis of petrology; that is, the type of rock (i.e. tonalite, granite, granodiorite, etc.). It's a pretty straight-forward task, but it relies on making an accurate determination of what the rocks actually are. For that, you plot the normalized proportions of three end-members - quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase - on a ternary diagram, and the sample will fall into one field or another.

Complications arise when metamorphism or alteration changes the chemical composition of the minerals. Alkali feldspar and plagioclase are end members, but form a solid solution series - so removing calcium and adding sodium or potassium can change your tonalite into a granodiorite, which is a problem if you are doing correlations. Additionally, each rock type has a different origin, so you want to make sure you're effecting the classification scheme to its full potential.

When I brought this problem to my advisor, his response was, "it doesn't matter!" What do you mean it doesn't matter? He refused to acknowledge there was any point in distinguishing between one type from another, and when pressed about it, couldn't explain why it was important to make any distinctions at all. It almost seemed like he wanted to rewrite the entire philosophy behind the practice of classification itself. He did not want to face the particulars of where hard data, arbitrary distinctions, and simplified approximations collided.

When I went to my other advisor, he saw right away what my problem was, and gave me a plan of attack in less than two minutes, no fuss, no muss (which was determine the protolith through metamorphic grade, relict textures, and geochemistry). Not even a mention regarding the classification scheme.

[Trevor]

I'm pretty sure we need to pay attention to difference between Absolute vs Relative weaknees of a function.

[Words]

I'm pretty sure we need to pay attention to difference between Absolute vs Relative weaknees of a function.

Well this is Te if it's Te vs Ti, no?

[Trevor]

I'm pretty sure we need to pay attention to difference between Absolute vs Relative weaknees of a function.

Well this is Te if it's Te vs Ti, no?

What's Te if it's Te vs Ti, Words?

[Words]

Well this is Te if it's Te vs Ti, no?

What's Te if it's Te vs Ti, Words?

It's just a sentence, but hey, you're quoting facts like it's all that's important. Ti types tend to explain what it actually is rather than just the names.

Te - the information

Ti - the explanation of what it means, perhaps backed up with the names.

Ti is good at explaining things.

Easily disputed as it's just a sentence by you, but that sentence was Te.

Lost the will to debate it BTW

Thing is, with this forum, it's full of rather intelligent people, so I'm sure a lot of normal observations don't apply to these internet posts.