How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[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.

[The Ineffable]

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

I guess not. Where have you head that?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

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.

I don't know about explanations; but my LSI stepdad can talk forever.

[strrrng]

What I'm noticing here is that the coherency of a system and the good feeling are separate entities from how you described it. The status of the system causes a feeling, which isn't so much a gestalt as it is a reaction, unless I'm misunderstanding something. For Fi, or at least for me, the system and the feeling are the same thing. Points of data are taken in, and at the same time they shape the noumenal structure in whatever way. Then if you ignore the points of data and instead just take note of the structure's resulting shape, that shape would be the sort of "gestalt" feeling I'm referring to.

see, this is what I'm still trying to differentiate, because I relate very strongly to everything concerning gestalt feelings, etc.

it might even have something to do with aristocratic quadras, given that the external field complements the internal; one could only justify a feeling of congruence via an extrinsic spectrum.

from a beta pov, I often find myself reading over something and referencing the different aspects of my subjective system as it manifests its own; symmetry in the measurement then seals the boundaries for an entire process to streamline, usually in images or metaphors, as a confirmation of the structure's premises, etc.

what you're describing seems a bit more objectively located, and through a natural evolution, brought to a state of inner rest, the implicit boundaries of said process finding resonance.

As a more concrete example, I've done a bit of metacognitive analysis and came up with some interesting points. I find that whenever I stare off into space, when I'm not actively trying to process or deal with information, my eyes will subconsciously move themselves so that the information received from my entire field of vision "feels" the best. By this I mean that my eyes/brain will scan my environment for fields of colors, shapes, discernible objects, etc. Then, still at the subconscious level, it seems my brain takes all of the things in that field of vision and somehow synthesizes it all down to a "feeling," an actual emotion that I can understand.

odd, this is what I find myself doing a lot. it's some kind of peripheral monitoring of sound and form, 'not looking in order to see things moving,' and the lateral motion recalibrates the borders of my perception. internal elements are what they are, I guess lol.

[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.

[Beautiful sky]

Ti is a comparison function; it you look at what you wrote and what you're writing to eliminate contradictions, than you're doing Ti because the end result is that what you said and are about to say match, so you're not being contradictory. You also notice this in others and what they write or say. By eliminating variables or information, they make systems.

When you're Ti PoLR, you can often make contradictory statements, realize that you've done so but ignore in fixing it because you don't want to appear that way to others. Anyone pointing out your contradictory statements is using Ti and offering up information to you through that function and causing you to either feel like they are helping you in strengthening that function, or pressuring your PoLR over time.

[Skeptic]

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.

No. Ti does not have a monopoly on explanation of meaning, if I read that correctly. To me, what you are attributing to Ti is how NTs understand how things work over time, given their T and N functions. Both T functions are concerned with how things work and can be equally adept at explaining why.

[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.

No. Ti does not have a monopoly on explanation of meaning, if I read that correctly. To me, what you are attributing to Ti is how NTs understand how things work over time, given their T and N functions. Both T functions are concerned with how things work and can be equally adept at explaining why.

Well that's well explained....

[Jonathan]

Te - the information

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

Ti is good at explaining things.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics, but it's not your fault. Even the big name Socionists tend to disagree on the types of lots of famous people by flipping Ti and Te around relative to other Socionists. Jung made the distinction sound so simple, but then Socionics kind of messed it up.

Te is not raw data. It's interesting though when Joy switched from self-typing as LIE to SLE...Although I didn't follow that transition, I suspect it's related to recognizing that being good at taking in the raw data around you and responding to it is Se, not Te.

Te is a rational function; to make it about perceiving data doesn't make any sense. You can define it as such, but then you have a sort of crummy system, in my opinion.

I think a better definition to use (and let's be realistic: We're simply deciding to use definitions for things; there is nothing intrinsic...it's a matter of choice) for Te is that it's the dynamic and extraverted aspect of thinking.

That is, Ti and Te are basically the same thing, but Ti is static (about a fixed timeless reality) and more concerned with the extent of systems and how everything relates, whereas Te is dynamic (about a progression, such a series of steps, ways to accomplish something, for example) and tends to relate more immediately to the specific external objects under discussion.

There are, interestingly, a number of people whom other's have typed LIE who seem to be good explaining things. When Expat was on the forum, people used think he was good at explaining things. A lot of Socionists think Richard Feynman is LIE (although the MBTI folk usually type him as ENTP). He was great at explaining things.

And a lot of the people on the forum who are typed by others as LII may have great ideas and make interesting statements, but I wouldn't say that they excel above others at explaining things.

No, actually most people are confused by Ti vs. Te, but it's not surprising and one can't really blame them.

[silke]

When I ask my IEE roomate "why" sort of questions it seems to stall her and throw her into confusion. I like to understand how things work and she apparently doesn't think much of this. I've noticed that asking IEEs to provide their reasoning has a similar effect.

That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated.

Fi has it's own set of "rules" or "values" which it subjugates the world to. This is not just a Ti conception.

[Words]

Te - the information

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

Ti is good at explaining things.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics, but it's not your fault. Even the big name Socionists tend to disagree on the types of lots of famous people by flipping Ti and Te around relative to other Socionists. Jung made the distinction sound so simple, but then Socionics kind of messed it up.

Te is not raw data. Everything thinks it is. It's interesting though when Joy switched from self-typing as LIE to SLE...Although I didn't follow that transition, I suspect it's related to recognizing that being good at taking in the raw data around you and responding to it is Se, not Te.

Te is a rational function; to make it about perceiving data doesn't make any sense. You can define it as such, but then you have a sort of crummy system, in my opinion.

I think a better definition to use (and let's be realistic: We're simply deciding to use definitions for things; there is nothing intrinsic...it's a matter of choice) for Te is that is the dynamic and extraverted aspect of thinking.

That is, Ti and Te are basically the same thing, but Ti is static (about a fixed timeless reality) and more concerned with the extent of systems and how everything relates, whereas Te is dynamic (about a progression, such a series of steps, ways to accomplish something, for example) and tends to relate more immediately to the specific external objects under discussion.

There are, interestingly, a number of people whom other's have typed LIE who seem to be good explaining things. When Expat was on the forum, people used think he was good at explaining things. A lot of Socionists think Richard Feynman is LIE (although the MBTI folk usually type him as ENTP). He was great at explaining things.

And a lot of the people on the forum who are typed by others as LII may have great ideas and make interesting statements, but I wouldn't say that they excel above others at explaining things.

No, actually most people are confused by Ti vs. Te, but it's not surprising and one can't really blame them.

Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts, and Ti as skirting round facts.

Ones to know, ones to understand. I stand by my post, it works for me, cheers.

And I don't use the forum members for my typing purposes, I covered the why in my second last post (which isn't exhaustive).

[Galen]

rantedy rant rant wheeeeeeee

Things I've noticed about Ti-PoLRs are: a love of pointing out exceptions to the rule

Absolutely yes. 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. What really pisses me off is when people try to assert how their own self-made "rules" actually work in the real world, then when I point out the discrepancies between how the world works and what their rule stipulates they weasel their way out of it. People can become so painfully attached to the rules that they create about the world, and it's like they can't bear to give them up and instead have to force data into it, straining their spider web so hard until it rips apart although the person never knows that it's broken.

What else annoys me about Ti valuers is that they like to build their own world in their head from the ground up, affixing their own basic starting points and situations to create an argument. This works fine so long as the system stays inside the individual's head, but when you try to apply it to the real world, there's always some way in which it doesn't quite fit. The issue then becomes that they don't even see how it doesn't fit: they just go along with the bias they have for their own head.

That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated. I've always been under the impression that the outer world is really just a giant playground of chaos where each infinitesimally small little part does what it does, and these small parts compound into larger parts and everything just grows out of an extrinsically unstructured environment. An ENFp friend of mine one said "truth is temporary," which I think is a good summary of everything here.

[tcaudilllg]

rantedy rant rant wheeeeeeee

Things I've noticed about Ti-PoLRs are: a love of pointing out exceptions to the rule

Absolutely yes. 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. What really pisses me off is when people try to assert how their own self-made "rules" actually work in the real world, then when I point out the discrepancies between how the world works and what their rule stipulates they weasel their way out of it. People can become so painfully attached to the rules that they create about the world, and it's like they can't bear to give them up and instead have to force data into it, straining their spider web so hard until it rips apart although the person never knows that it's broken.

What else annoys me about Ti valuers is that they like to build their own world in their head from the ground up, affixing their own basic starting points and situations to create an argument. This works fine so long as the system stays inside the individual's head, but when you try to apply it to the real world, there's always some way in which it doesn't quite fit. The issue then becomes that they don't even see how it doesn't fit: they just go along with the bias they have for their own head.

That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated. I've always been under the impression that the outer world is really just a giant playground of chaos where each infinitesimally small little part does what it does, and these small parts compound into larger parts and everything just grows out of an extrinsically unstructured environment. An ENFp friend of mine one said "truth is temporary," which I think is a good summary of everything here.

The rule may be correct, but it is tied up with assumptions that require a lot of work to extinguish. Notably, most of these assumptions are untested Ti postulates offered by weak Ti people. Strong Ti people are driven to eliminate these assumptions, in part due to a sense or responsibility and in part, due to a sense of personal guilt for not knowing better. To be sure, the stronger your function, the more guilt you feel over its misuse.

[Blaze]

rantedy rant rant wheeeeeeee

Things I've noticed about Ti-PoLRs are: a love of pointing out exceptions to the rule

Absolutely yes. 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. What really pisses me off is when people try to assert how their own self-made "rules" actually work in the real world, then when I point out the discrepancies between how the world works and what their rule stipulates they weasel their way out of it. People can become so painfully attached to the rules that they create about the world, and it's like they can't bear to give them up and instead have to force data into it, straining their spider web so hard until it rips apart although the person never knows that it's broken.

What else annoys me about Ti valuers is that they like to build their own world in their head from the ground up, affixing their own basic starting points and situations to create an argument. This works fine so long as the system stays inside the individual's head, but when you try to apply it to the real world, there's always some way in which it doesn't quite fit. The issue then becomes that they don't even see how it doesn't fit: they just go along with the bias they have for their own head.

That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated. I've always been under the impression that the outer world is really just a giant playground of chaos where each infinitesimally small little part does what it does, and these small parts compound into larger parts and everything just grows out of an extrinsically unstructured environment. An ENFp friend of mine one said "truth is temporary," which I think is a good summary of everything here.

^Ti polr in action.

seriously, this is what i notice about them. they totally overreact to Ti...this is the main characteristic of Ti polr. they claim that Ti is rigid....when really it's that they don't understand what Ti egos are talking about.

[Galen]

^Ti polr in action.

seriously, this is what i notice about them. they totally overreact to Ti...this is the main characteristic of Ti polr. they claim that Ti is rigid....when really it's that they don't understand what Ti egos are talking about.

Well to be fair, Ti is rigid lol. At least when compared to Fi. You're right though, if a Ti ego (well, Ti subtype really) and I agree on something there's not going to be much difficulty in communicating, and vice versa.

[Blaze]

^Ti polr in action.

seriously, this is what i notice about them. they totally overreact to Ti...this is the main characteristic of Ti polr. they claim that Ti is rigid....when really it's that they don't understand what Ti egos are talking about.

Well to be fair, Ti is rigid lol. At least when compared to Fi. You're right though, if a Ti ego (well, Ti subtype really) and I agree on something there's not going to be much difficulty in communicating, and vice versa.

it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.

it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.

like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.

get it?

[Begoner]

it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.

it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.

like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.

get it?

On the contrary; despite being a -ego, I believe I use quite rigidly. That is, I construct a framework for interpreting the world based, to the extent possible, on basic, a priori principles. Given the logical, rather than empirical, foundation of my framework, I rarely need to re-evaluate it; instead, I can simply trust any inference which can be logically derived from that framework and apply it in a real-world situation. Similarly, when confronted by a novel issue, I never rely upon my intuition, but instead construct a logical framework which can deal with that general group of issues. In both cases, my conclusions will be rigid because they are based on a rigid logical system; I need no flexibility because of the correctness of that system.

[Blaze]

it is only rigid when used by people who don't understand it.

it is quite flexible when used by Ti egos.

like, i would say that Fi is rigid....but mostly because i don't really get it.

get it?

On the contrary; despite being a -ego, I believe I use quite rigidly. That is, I construct a framework for interpreting the world based, to the extent possible, on basic, a priori principles. Given the logical, rather than empirical, foundation of my framework, I rarely need to re-evaluate it; instead, I can simply trust any inference which can be logically derived from that framework and apply it in a real-world situation. Similarly, when confronted by a novel issue, I never rely upon my intuition, but instead construct a logical framework which can deal with that general group of issues. In both cases, my conclusions will be rigid because they are based on a rigid logical system; I need no flexibility because of the correctness of that system.

Ti is the framework itself, and it is the tendency to use frameworks. pointing out that not everything fits into frameworks...they are only guidelines. furthermore, there are lots and lots of frameworks, they intersect, overlap, and sometimes are in opposition. the working of all these frameworks is a flexible process.

the process of using frameworks interchangeablely and being to apply multiple frameworks to various phenomena is inherently not a rigid process by any means. if one is familiar with a lot of frameworks, then the person has quite a bit of understanding to work with. to me, the word rigid is better associated with static than it is a specific information element.

Ti polr focuses on the framework itself instead of the process...and chooses Fi, since it is better understood by the person. so Ti polr doesn't really understand multiple frameworks nor does it want to. the main aspect of Ti polr is discussing how Ti concepts are rigid. Ti polr thinks they're rigid because of their limited understanding.

also, some frameworks are crap.

[plotter]

On the contrary; despite being a -ego, I believe I use quite rigidly. That is, I construct a framework for interpreting the world based, to the extent possible, on basic, a priori principles. Given the logical, rather than empirical, foundation of my framework, I rarely need to re-evaluate it; instead, I can simply trust any inference which can be logically derived from that framework and apply it in a real-world situation. Similarly, when confronted by a novel issue, I never rely upon my intuition, but instead construct a logical framework which can deal with that general group of issues. In both cases, my conclusions will be rigid because they are based on a rigid logical system; I need no flexibility because of the correctness of that system.

Maybe this is about the difference between being Ti-base and Ti-creative, but I would never be able to have that conviction to any belief/framework/rule. Then again I'm not certain I am the type I claim I am either...

You've "all" said stuff about Ti-polr not liking categorizations or something like that, but I think that would apply to more people than just Ti-polr. Maybe it's just about Fi>Ti.

One thing that came to mind just now was a recent conversation with a friend of mine that I think is pretty strong on the Fi.
It started with a discussion about "sexual deviations" and suspecting such things of people and went on to general categorization.

Well, basically this guy told me that it is devaluing to X if you think X belong in category Q (that is established by "objective" criteria), when said category is thought less of by "the general public"*.

I on the other hand said that the fact that you suspect X of belonging to category Q could never in itself be devaluing. The devaluing of X must be seperate from the categorization according to me, since the categorization is just an aknowledgement that X fulfills these criterias that we've established makes category Q.

So what do you Ti-polr think of this? Or maybe Fi-valuers in general

*not sure if he actually meant that or he just meant what he thinks less of.