How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[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.

[Galen]

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.

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.

[Beautiful sky]

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.

[Suz]

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.

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...

[Ozz]

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...

In my experience, if you challenge some obviously wrong Ti belief in a Ti-HI person, they feel really hurt or they start grasping at straws trying to explain why they are right, then the explanation doesn't make sense and we start going around in circle.

[Suz]

In my experience, if you challenge some obviously wrong Ti belief in a Ti-HI person, they feel really hurt or they start grasping at straws trying to explain why they are right, then the explanation doesn't make sense and we start going around in circle.

yeah i get that, but it makes me so mad when i find out it was bad info. I feel betrayed because i was counting on the info being true, since they say that they are so sure about it. I feel lied to and i dont see their self-pride as a good excuse for spreading misinformation as if it were true.

[Crink]

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.

[Distance]

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.

[Northstar]

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.

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.

[qaz00]

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.

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

[Northstar]

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

Yeah this kind of intellectual laziness combined with a pushy attitude is deeply annoying.

An IEI might make a spreadsheet to compare options if you just help them along a bit. They might instead just never get around to fixing things in utter disrepair in their home but I would just gladly fix it for them immediately.

[Crink]

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.

I also find my mobilizing to be hilarious. Fe polrs humor hits the spot for me

[Northstar]

I also find my mobilizing to be hilarious. Fe polrs humor hits the spot for me

How would you describe it? In my experience it looks like IEE/SLI humor may include self-depreciating humor, people and animals failing things in funny ways, stories of other people's incompetence but also of their own failures.

[Crink]

How would you describe it? In my experience it looks like IEE/SLI humor may include self-depreciating humor, people and animals failing things in funny ways, stories of other people's incompetence but also of their own failures.

Yeah all this is true. I find it funny when they make fun of ti stuff, including making fun of me and other people for drawing hasty conclusions and just being illogical in general. It's like of my fing gawd that's so true and I didn't notice till they said that. An example would be pointing out contradictions in an ideology, but at the perfect moment, which is usually bordering on inappropriate timing ie when someone might get annoyed at them. Maximum disrespect to dumb assumptions but reeled in just enough not to cause problems.

It's definitely a mixture of strong logic, geared toward what's useful and what's not, and low ethics. I find that other logical types also have this kind of humor (LIE, LSE, SLE etc) but the fe polr types deliver it in such a nonchalant 'idgaf' manner that you kinda have to laugh to avoid being so uncomfortable. Why I enjoy that, I do not know.

[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).

[Jonathan]

Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts

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:

No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experience with concrete objects, and the more pronounced he is, the less use does he make of his experience.

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).

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.

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.

[Beautiful sky]

Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts

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:

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).

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.

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.

Te is facts; Se is only sense perception which is then conditioned by a judging function; a sense perception perceives objects as they are and the more attractive an object the more sense perception will want to acquire it.

[Beautiful sky]

Te is facts; Se is only sense perception which is then conditioned by a judging function; a sense perception perceives objects as they are and the more attractive an object the more sense perception will want to acquire it.

I think Te and Se are both about "facts," in a way.
Te: external dynamics of objects
Se: external statics of objects
they are just different kinds of facts. For example:
Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).

Now, for on topic discussion...
I know a guy who is (I'm 99.999% positive) SEE. He hates labels (like preppy, emo, etc), categories, and he flipped shit when I explained to him what socionics was, thinking that by describing someone with a type, you are putting them in a box that limits their personality, etc. etc.
I see where he's coming from with all this, but I don't think he understands that labels exist to describe, not box you in (though they can do that if taken too seriously).
EDIT: he also throws around the words "in which" and "therefore" in his sentences when he talks about politics, and doesn't seem to understand that there are only certain places where those words belong (structure of sentence = Ti, no?).

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."

[The Ineffable]

I think Te and Se are both about "facts," in a way.
Te: external dynamics of objects
Se: external statics of objects
they are just different kinds of facts. For example:
Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).

Now, for on topic discussion...
I know a guy who is (I'm 99.999% positive) SEE. He hates labels (like preppy, emo, etc), categories, and he flipped shit when I explained to him what socionics was, thinking that by describing someone with a type, you are putting them in a box that limits their personality, etc. etc.
I see where he's coming from with all this, but I don't think he understands that labels exist to describe, not box you in (though they can do that if taken too seriously).
EDIT: he also throws around the words "in which" and "therefore" in his sentences when he talks about politics, and doesn't seem to understand that there are only certain places where those words belong (structure of sentence = Ti, no?).

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.

[Jonathan]

Te: external dynamics of objects
Se: external statics of objects
they are just different kinds of facts.

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.

Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).

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.

Eh, I'm going to keep being wary of this " = facts" carp. It's patently obvious that everyone uses 'facts', just in different ways towards different ends—this is the crux that you all keep missing. To relegate 'facts' to 1 (or 2) IEs is nonsensical and uninteresting.

Yes!

It's the cognitive orientation that matters—the way 'facts' are thematically put together by an individual's mind to illustrate a phenomena or convey an idea, etc. That's where IE distinctions lay.

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.

[krieger]

i associate J functions with facts... Je is about epistemically unprobematic facts whereas Ji is about epistemically challenging facts (i.e. questions or theses that require mental effort to be answered)... the epistemic challenge is what invites a person to make a shortcut to an answer through "subjective" reasoning.

however, in another sense the following holds:
Accepting: epistemic challenge is not confronted
Creating: epistemic challenge is confronted

when the challenge and the confrontation don't coincide, the function is Diffuse, i.e. an agent of arbitrarity and chaos.

Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).

i'd say it's more like:

Se: the car
Te: is moving at 100 km/hour

the P function signifies the entity that the fact is expressed of.

[Blaze]

Se: the car
Te: is moving at 100 km/hour

yes!

[silke]

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.

I conceptualize it differently with neither Ji element being more explicit or implicit. For me there is symmetry inherent to the model and Ti and Fi accomplish essentially same task. I call Fi "personal" and Ti "impersonal" rather than static or more explicit. May be because Ti is impersonal it gives you this sort of colder, more rigid, static-like feeling? While Fi being personal seems more squishy and formless? I don't think of Ti as static because whatever a Ti-valuer considers true will evolve with life experience. The internal worldview that Ti builds is constantly being structured and restructured (at least for all healthy Ti types).

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.

I've had more issues in classes taught by Te professors. I always had a feeling that they won't re-adjust the course material to fit the understanding of their students. They would tell you what you need to know but not really concern with helping to shape your understanding of it.

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. ... 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 don't think this forming a model then trying to fit observables into it has anything to do with Ti in itself. If you read through Aleksei's thread you'll see several Beta posters arguing with him that this approach is wrong, though Beta is Ti-valuing too. The gestalted "feeling" I can relate to as well. When everything is coherent and making sense it actually makes the Ti-user feel good, but I think if anything this feeling might have to do with the reward system of the brain and is probably not related to the jungian F functions.

All this talk about being anything about "the rules" is sickening (although I guess LSI's would prefer it to "laws").

Yes, I don't like this description too and find it can be highly misleading as the word "rules" has other connotations. Next thing you know it is equated to "laws" to then prescribe Ti-egos some sort of administrative/legalistic flair which has nothing to do with reality.