How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[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....

[Skeptic]

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....

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?

[Jonathan]

@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?

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.

[Crispy]

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.

[strrrng]

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.

I see what you mean, but I think this is more related to alpha . Beta on the whole seems to work a bit more holistically, in the sense that separate systems can be merged if their premises are symmetrical; whereas alpha is more fixated on the content in these systems (abstract statics are weird kinds of boundaries).

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.)

I definitely agree about the F function thing, because most of my conclusions stem from apperception and momentary impressions; it's just the core premises of my ideas that keep things aligned.

"Ti = rules" irritates me because to me, "rules" implies externally imposed strictures which can be applied without consideration of the overall logical structure of the system.

yeah, I figured this could yield conflicting views. see, when I think of "the rule" or whatever, it isn't something that exists out there; it's inherent to the laws of thought, the design and intent of any system; and the fluid expression of said system defines "the rule" to me. I don't think external structures should be imposed, that's a contradiction anyway.

overall, I've found this attitude prominent in beta groups, as far as social rules go. it's tacit, like the personal/moral boundaries of delta, and governed by the energy field of each person; so you either 'get' what to do or not.

[Raver]

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.

Sounds about right, both the IEE and SEE parts.

[SongOfSapphire]

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?

[Muddy]

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?

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.

[Contra]

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?

I think it's weak/devalued Te but it's way too late for me to explain myself so just take it with a grain of salt.

[SongOfSapphire]

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.