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.
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.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Do you want justification or something?
Intuition; process, change from one state to another. With Ne, objective connection of thoughts, ideas, etc. With Ni, subjective connection of a stream of thoughts or ideas that lead to one another. With either, it is always a change from one to another; N is firmly based in this change in states and paired with T it can understand how states change logically. Te can be employed to achieve something, but independently it understands only that a series of logical steps are necessary for the objective realization of any goal; the irrational process, or the affect of a change in time, is the domain of N.
But I suppose you're more interested in why Te is also concerned with how things work? TBH Your post is far too general to give any specific rebuttal; Ti is concerned with 'explaining things'? This is difficult for me to interpret, especially since under that subsequent model of Te, the Te ego is a machine that cannot make anything of the facts.
I suppose my phrasing was also misleading, though, so I will clarify; Te has different concerns than Ti regarding how things work, but they are equal in that arena. For example, Te is primarily a function concerned with outer demonstration of logical validity; if a model can be shown to be applicable or valid in the outer world, Te is satisfied. It will no doubt accompany this demonstration of outer validity with a logical argument based in how the thing works under a set of real circumstances. In this manner it would be extremely adept at explaining how something works; the best example is found in classical physics, in the areas where we have energy inputs and assured energy outputs that can be proved through measurement and testing.
Ti is conversely concerned with inner logical validity, but that's a whole different topic and going into that would mean actually contributing to this thread and not policing it . But, to contribute minimally, I will say that if you want to talk about Ti POLR we must first speak of Fi, because it is the use of Fi that actively devalues Ti.
@Jonathan I think you're spot on in everything Te related, but your Ti description of 'how things relate' sounds N based to me, could you clarify?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
By how things relate, I just meant the validity within a structure when viewed statically. I didn't mean viewing possible connections between different things, which I agree has an N flavor. I think your view of Te and Ti makes a lot more sense than a lot of the other views I'm hearing on this thread.
...although the idea people have come up with Fi as curved relative to straight-line Ti is interesting. I think actually that idea can apply to Fe relative to Te as well.
All this talk about being anything about "the rules" is sickening (although I guess LSI's would prefer it to "laws").
Fully differentiated Filatova -PoLR Quotes: (May decide to revamp the other PoLR threads in the future)
IEE
Weak in administrative functions such as organization of work schedules, writing instructions, reports and the like.
Have trouble restraining themselves to certain boundaries.
Does not accept anything predetermined.
Difficulty in logical analysis.
Cannot sit and meticulously do what is necessary, instead preferring to bounce a multitude of ideas off those around them.
Inability to analyze things deeply
Pay attention to the many minute details while failing to grasp the big picture
SEE
Difficulty with logic
Not easy to decide what is needed and what can be sacrificed in a given system.
Reluctant to accept objective basic laws.
Cannot give themselves a reasonable explanation for their impulsive actions.
Completely sure of themselves even if doing a job that is completely unsuitable for them.
If told it is better for them to work on something else, they will either not understand, not hear, or not believe it.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I am resurrecting this thread bc I found a post on another forum that I think is a great example of Ti PoLR.
This is from a discussion on how different people price their art:
I'm not a mathematician, I'm an artist. Therefore I price my works according to what I FEEL that I choose charge.
It's all about a mix of common sense (I know that good sense is not that common) and flip of the coin.
Besides, it's all relative. What one thinks about charging now, can be something totally different tomorow.
Edit: Now I'm second-guessing myself. Maybe this is Te PoLR :blush: Any thoughts?
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
Even though it is money related which may make you think Te, I do think it is Ti polr and not Te polr. Te polr hits are more about being criticized for lacking existing knowledge. For example, if a customer started giving crap to Te polr employee for not knowing certain details about a product on the spot, that would be a Te polr hit.
What we have here however is a failure to adequately analyze something internally. Since this art was handmade and therefore unique, this person couldn't use Te to copy the price of an identical product and was forced to use internal logic to determine a suitable price. This person was clearly not able to do that very well and reacted negatively to being criticized on it, therefore it does indeed sound like Ti polr.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
I have recently been pondering the possibility that the saying we do not see things as they are but as we are applies especially strongly to XEEs.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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.
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.
Fi has it's own set of "rules" or "values" which it subjugates the world to. This is not just a Ti conception.
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.
They are both subjective and they both try to fill in holes where information is incomplete. I remember my sister asking my LSI brother-in-law who was the president of the US at a certain time, which is a fact, but since he didn't really know, he didn't say "I don't know" instead he assumed, and was wrong.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I HATE this sort of thing...misinformation... I've found that Ti-HAs are the WORST about doing this. I'm like hey if you dont know, just say you dont know and i'll go look it up or ask someone else, why give me bad info??
Then, when I am asked something and i dont know the answer, such people look down upon me for saying "i dont know", but how else will i find out, i mean i wont learn if i keep going around pretending like i know everything...
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
the typical written material about this is basically spot on for me.
I think every polr is a preference for the mobilizing. They misunderstand the polr as the creative or the mobilizing.
I don't acknowledge "authority" on information. The correct authority to me is whoever can give the best explanation for how to do something properly. I completely reject the notion that any logical structure can be proven or taken as true. If I like you, I care about your values. If I don't know you or care about you, I do not care about your values. I'll listen to them but I won't treat it seriously. I'll validate it as correct for you but don't expect me to take that on myself unless it effects you personally, and effects our relationship.
I do build models of thought and compare models but I forget which connections I made and cannot explain them in a sane way. I would never look at a chart that I didn't need for drawing conclusions. I like it if I need it but it saps my energy so I need to find the most important information and leave the rest.
People who are Fe Ti, support the integrity of the structure, Ti, or put another way, you emote in the great crowd with the Fe, and hold that tack in value direction. It is never taken as an absolute truth, rules, it is to support harmony with the rainbows for the in the moment structure. Fe in people is changeability in the self, ala group consensus value, to hold an integrity wherever that might lie, in the given sail in the ship. The rule is in the crosshair of the Fe.
Black & white is a shallow divide ∕∕division is the color that multipliesx
Taking things at face value is good only for a spell⛧
Abstract builds a soul, a house can never become a home without it ♀
A little better makes better more>
♦♦
Yes, this is a common source of disconnect with IEE I have. They seem to be always looking for someone that quietly solves the problem of analyzing information and then patiently teaches them step by step how to perform tasks, and unfortunately I just don't find that interesting. Instead I prefer to explain principles of operation, how something works on the inside, like which physical principles guide a machine's operation down to the finest details, how I make clear distinctions between things. Classification and categorization.
If there's a task that needs to be performed, I prefer just to do it myself instead of teaching myself an "apprentice" to help me perform that task. If I need assistance with something (I rarely do or ask for it), then I just tell them what to do in that moment and let them go as soon as I don't need the help anymore.
The "apprentice" thing is more for analyzing things, I like to point people to sources of information and then let them analyze it themselves and later discuss with me if there are things they need clarified. I do like clarifying things and reducing them to the most atomic components so that there are no ambiguities and the distinctions are crystal clear. It's done in the moment though, more like an instinct and I don't attach importance to being absolutely right about these, they are more malleable and open for discussion. I enjoy hearing the insights they may have to the material.
When it comes to methods and ways of doing things, I'm less interested in discussions and pointers. Typically I shut down suggestions from others on how to do something differently (the Te mobilizing seems to be very eager to give these suggestions) unless I know the one making the suggestion is an expert on the task at hand. The problem usually is that these suggestions from a Te mobilizing person contain some flaws that would need to be discussed and refined and I just find it uninteresting and a waste of time to do.
I do think to myself quite a bit about the most efficient way of doing things but often end up just doing it the simplest "brute force" way as there's a great impatience of just getting things done instead of doing "work preparations" that I don't derive any joy from. This translates into a lack of interest in discussing these job preparations either. It's much more rewarding to discuss observations and analyze the inner workings of things.
You could summarize this as preferring to just solve Te problems instead of discussing them and preferring to discuss Ti problems instead of just solving them.
Phrased as a request from Ti polr / Te mob it would be "analyze this information for me and discuss with me on how to perform this task"
Conversely for Te polr / Ti mob it would be "analyze this information with me and perform this task for me"
So yes, I kind of see the creative -> mobilizing relationship as "teacher and apprentice" type of relationship.
For Fe HA, I seem to find many of the memes and things IEIs say as hilarious and often recycle their jokes and appropriate funny phrases and sayings. IEI have a very irreverent sense of humor which I find funny to "take public" as they usually keep it to private trusted conversations, being wary of being judged for it in public.
Another thing is how I like to troll for reactions from people and Fe creatives often have the most amusing of reactions of being horrified and bemused but not actually offended.
Last edited by Northstar; 09-21-2024 at 09:02 AM.
I very much agree with your observations. Excerpt from SEE: https://imgur.com/a/tpvjS04 I like solving that kind of issues, but I can imagine someone like you going crazy having to deal with it on daily basis
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).
Really? Where does he say this? I'd be curious on the quote. It's clear from the Jung essay that I read that he thinks of extraverted thinking as a form of thinking, not as raw facts.
In fact, he seems to associate facts with extraverted sensing:
I was just using forum members as a convenient example. My argument that Te <> facts does not rely on the typing of any forum members.Originally Posted by Jung
Anyhow, I didn't mean to make this into a personal issue; it's just a have a pet peeve with this thing people keep bringing up that "Te = facts." So I guess I automatically come out strongly when people say that. Nothing personal.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Would this be a good example of Te?
The Way in which he describes my actions and what they could mean indicates Te: external dynamics of objects
My boyfriend observed a very interesting thing in me while reading my online posts. He said, "honey, it seems as though that when you write, you do so from the place of authority; you drop your introvert's mask and the screen is like a buffer and a safety zone for you; I am the safety zone for you behind the screen because I have the ability to find the words to say what I want and sound how I want."
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
This is the right track, Vois! However, here's my opinion:
Se: This is a car. This is red. This is movement.
Te: The car is moving at 100 km/hour. This car is red.
The idea is that Static is analytic and Dynamic is synthetic, not necessarily movement, but a temporary fact (something that does not make part of the idea, it depends on time). Read Kant's distinction between analytic/synthetic and you get the idea, both Aushra and Gulenko (at least) recognized this distinction in Static/Dynamic, in case you need some official backup.
"The car is red" - it's Dynamic, synthetic. It is a phenomenon, that color is neither inherent nor mandatory in the car, it is so in the moment of observation. A different thing is when you say "this is the red cross" - that's identification again, Static and Se: the color makes part of the concept of the subject, you can't have the red cross in blue. To exemplify you further:
- time 0, a red car: Se: the red car; Te: the car is red;
- time 1, the car is repainted: Se: not the red car; Te: the car is not red.
See the difference? Te deals with the changes, not with the identity with the objects, therefore the car may remain the same, but Se does deal with the identity based on specific properties, if they change, the identity is not the same anymore, it can't work in time.
---
I once used an example (perhaps express slightly differently): two horses, a poor skinny one that won all contests so far against normal horses, and a strong and healty steed that you know nothing about. Which one is gonna win the contest?
- Se: the steed, the strength is in itself, it is impossible for that jade to win since it is weak by construction;
- Te: the jade, it always won, facts speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how they look, there's no such thing as strong and weak, but how they perform (facts), thing that you can't tell in advance.
If you're implying that Te has more in common with Se than it does with other IM elements (because they're both "external...objects"), or equating "external...objects" with facts, I think that's a bit misleading. External/internal is really just a convenient grouping of ST vs. NF so that Augusta could uniquely define each IM element via three dichotomies. Abstract vs. involved (NT vs. SF) would work just as well.
These are basically the same kinds of information. The only differences are that one uses units of measurement, and one happens to be describing something that's moving. That has nothing to do with dynamic in the Socionics sense. We could also remove the units of measurement: "That car is going fast!" That doesn't make it Te or dynamic either, anymore than noticing "It just stopped" causes a transition from dynamic to static IM elements. This is getting silly, but it bears pointing out.
Yes!
I agree with this. I don't think I agree with your way of looking at it all the way (mainly in that I think the IM elements have to do with some sort of patterns or aspects of reality, which could have relevance in computer science, not just biology, and that I think our brains are probably more alike than different, and thus capable of simulating the experiences of others if we really try), but this far I agree with.