Te and Ti

[Beautiful sky]

… isn't empirical information necessary for cultivating one's sensibility of what is reasonable and rational? Heh. You can't accurately gauge anything about reality if all you've ever known is a vacuum.

That is Te kind of rationalism that you are using. Emperical information is read and considered but ultimately the combination of Ne and Ti shifts and picks the relevant or most likely to succeed or apply, of the information offered.
My type is where other methods (meaning reason, rather then logic) are employed.

But information is compared one by one, like line by line, to information offered in other places for accuracy. But, that's just a weak way of using Ti; Ti will eliminate contridiction, I do the same, but ultimatly decide which information offered where has a better likelyhood (statistically) to be universally correct or applicable.

[Marie84]

I've never done socionics from "reliable sources" and I really don't want to. I like to try to start with aspectonics or generally agreed-upon ideas of subjectivity, objectivity, introversion, extroversion, etc. But those terms are so wide open to interpretation that it's basically saying whatever you want to say. I mean, how are we ever going to do anything but parrot if we do nothing but explain what Gulenko meant when he said boo? I'd rather go back to interpreting Jung (with the assistance of Model A) than anything else, really. As far as I'm concerned, socionics (and MBTI) is one big literary critical project on Jung.

Being that you're an IEI, Te PoLR, this makes sense

I'm not saying that Te is above Ti, or vice versa, since they're logical benefits and downfalls to both applications and neither is necessary always right or wrong
It's just that, being an Fi, I find Ti unreliable on its own and I think that could be one of the reasons this site is predominantly used by Ti/Fe's who might feel more comfortable dabbling in self-hypothesis (that and Socionics itself being primarily Ti)

[Beautiful sky]

I thought everyone did that?

Those who base information on emperical information, will only trust information in a source. I don't trust all information in a source, only those which I see apply.

[1981slater]

Te is black, Ti is white (chess and checkers)

Se is black, Si is white (checkers)

[Airman]

Rick wrote a good summary of Ti vs Te on his blog;

" focuses on the external proof of assertions - facts, examples, illustrations, concrete data and its interpretation - while introverted logic focuses on internal proofs of the logic of statements and the consistency of logical principles applied."

(...)

This means nothing to me unless people can back-up what they say with sourced Te information, what someone personally believes to be correct in their own mind holds little weight to me

You contradicted yourself here. What someone believes to be correct in their own mind holds little weight to you, still you quote this guy named 'Rick' - who I suppose is Rick DeLong. Still, he´s just stating what he believes to be correct on his mind since Socionics is not a science at least not yet and this topic of functions is still very much nebulous and needs much more clearing, at least here in the West.

[ArchonAlarion]

Potentially useful excerpts from the Lenore Exegesis Wiki:


[Thinking] As a Semiotic Attitude: A sign locates things in a space

Whatever caused a sign to appear fits somewhere in a space of possibilities. For example, if someone's phone number appears on your caller ID, that sign indicates which phone number, out of the set of all possible phone numbers, is the source of the call. The phone number indicates which person, out of the set of all people, is calling.

Te: Without a stable space, signs would be too slippery to be meaningful. The same things must sort into the same buckets each time you apply the space. Without that, you have no basis for comparison or communication.

Ti: The space must grow organically out of direct interaction with the reality. Without that, all concepts and categories are arbitrary mental constructs. When you meet up with the concrete reality, they won't apply.


Extraverted Thinking

"The discernment of a standard, or principle, that can be pried apart from its context and applied to a new set of objects."

"As we move from one context to another, a throng of such ghosts [known causal relationships] come with us, and we assess their possibilities for tangible embodiment."

"If you can't measure something, you can't predict its behavior, and hence it isn't real."

"Hypothesis: Extraverted Thinking is the attitude of viewing the world through measurable criteria for choosing different responses. Both the criteria and the possible decisions are defined in advance of making the decision. In Extraverted Thinking, there is always a definite space of possibilities--all the possible measurements--and a defined cleavage of that space into regions that correspond to different responses.

For example, you might specify to a sporting-goods shop that your tennis racket be strung to a tension between 55 and 57 pounds. If you measure it and it's not within those parameters, you send it back; if it is within those parameters, you accept it and pay the amount specified in the contract. The "space" is string tension on the racket. It's cleaved into three regions that correspond to distinct responses: 55-57 lbs. maps to "accept"; less than 55 lbs. maps to "reject"; and more than 57 lbs. maps to "reject".

From the Te perspective, anything for which you can't give an operational definition in terms of measurement (an "objective test") doesn't exist. The decision criteria are defined not exactly in terms of the things: they're defined in terms of observations of a sort that anyone can do and get the same result. You put the totality of the real-world situation onto your scales, so that all causal factors come into play--both known and unknown. What's accessible to you is the reading on the scale: that and only that is the basis for your decision."

"As a dominant function, Te typically leads one to pursue and collect reliable ways of making decisions to get predictable results. The repeatability of a process becomes one of the main criteria for finding it valuable. Repeatable processes are valuable from a Te perspective because they enable you to make agreements with other people, where there is no doubt as to whether each party has fulfilled its part of the agreement. Making and delivering on promises is often how a Te attitude leads one to understand ethics."


Introverted Thinking

"When we're Thinking in an Introverted way, we're coordinating our behaviors with the variables in a situation related to our intended effect. This is a matter of logic, limitation, and goal orientation--all the things we associate with a rational approach to life."

"As a right-brain function, Introverted Thinking is not conceptual and linear [contra Extraverted Thinking]. It's body-based and wholistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically."

"This kind of awareness is not only impersonal: it's graphic, immediate, and wholistic. It prompts no predetermined categories of good and bad. Variables that have unusual or perverse potential are accorded the same consideration as variables that assure a socially appropriate outcome."

"Introverted Thinkers understand reality only in terms of their ability to 'converse' with it, to take part in its 'becoming'."

"Unless the man had direct involvement in the unfolding process and could exert some effect on its logical outcome, he didn't know how to relate to it."

"In contrast to other attitudes, especially left-brain and Feeling attitudes, Ti does not lead you to experience a sense of self. There is no "you" who is separate from the process in which the material takes on the form that is natural to it. Whether people find the way the parts want to arrange themselves into a harmonious whole offensive, whether you find it pleasant or painful, whether you personally like it or not--you see these as distractions. Your job is to get yourself in harmony with it. The Idea of the whole must become real, and it must be necessitated by the nature of the parts. What "you" create must already be there, as form latent within the material, already yearning to exist. You bring no notion of self to your work except perhaps that of midwife to Nature."

"As a Dominant Function, Ti leads ITPs to follow a quest of figuring out the workings of the world firsthand. ITPs want the world to make sense. If they lack the power to command nature to follow its own harmony and rules, at least they can make sure that their actions make sense (at least to themselves). Whether their actions please anyone else, or follow social custom is simply irrelevant. Social rules usually appear arbitrary and meaningless to ITPs, because the goal of those rules is to meet human needs, not to follow the principles of how the ITP thinks the world should work. For ITPs, the world is a set of systems that are governed by certain underlying rules and principles (physics is an example of such a system). ITPs seek to grasp an inductive understanding of the system as a whole though firsthand observation. For an ITP, humans (even oneself) are simply represented as another set of variables in the system."

"Unlike Extraverted Thinking, which is conceptual and generalized, Introverted Thinking motivates strategic action in a specific situation. When ENTPs use it, they don't start with abstract rules and apply them, step by step, to bring about a goal. They recognize themselves as part of an ongoing process, and they keep adjusting their behaviors in terms of the whole picture."

[Airman]

here´s my short and concrete description:

Te: reasoning through facts.

Ti: simple logic.

Se: strength and territory defense and marking

Si: sense of own and others´ physical state and aesthetics

that´s it.

[Airman]

Thanks ArchonAlarion.

Others may also want to go here:

Socionics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

for a description of the functions which I particularly found useful.

[Airman]

You´re right but we´re not actually babysitting people who got to know socionics today. Everyone can read Archon´s description or go to the link I posted in Wikipedia where functions are better described. That came out just out of some impatience with all this mental masturbation with difficult words going on here.


:wink:

[Marie84]

You contradicted yourself here. What someone believes to be correct in their own mind holds little weight to you, still you quote this guy named 'Rick' - who I suppose is Rick DeLong. Still, he´s just stating what he believes to be correct on his mind since Socionics is not a science at least not yet and this topic of functions is still very much nebulous and needs much more clearing, at least here in the West.

It's not so much contradiction but a bias on my part towards Te information, that is, I view what is excepted as the meaning for the IE's in classical Socionics to be *the* meaning, so I have a preference towards information that favors that side rather than the more speculative Ti concepts in the Socionics community
Compare to, say, Betas who feel comfortable formulating and breaking apart the information and than using what they've figured out to be fact, or less so, Alpha who tend to develop new theories but are less likely to impose them

I find that the source of contention between Ti/Fe and Te/Fi valuers tends to stem from both sides viewing their preference for filtering information as more truthful and logical. I really do think the post by Expat on the Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi approach to information is spot on in explaining why that is

I'm not trying to state that Te/Fi's and Ti/Fe's can't agree with one another; communication can be very smooth and clear between the two if they both are able to agree with the others conclusions *through* their preference for filtering information.
For instance, I don't have difficulties discussing Socionics with a lot of the Ti/Fe's here whose own understanding complies with, what I regard as, the general accepted understanding of Model A

btw I think that the descriptions on the IE's at Socionics.org are one of the more reliable sources for learning about them (since I've been asked to provide sources...). Socionic-light is another good one IMO
From the English community I think Socionics.us and Socionics.ws ones are reliable

btw I'd just like to say that none of us would be here if it wasn't for a Ti, so I do admire it's benefits

[Airman]

thanks for the links Marie.

your contradiction was blatant though. you said basically that what others write don´t mean much to you then you give a link to what another guy who´s not you has written saying it´s very good.

[FDG]

It's not so much contradiction but a bias on my part towards Te information, that is, I view what is excepted as the meaning for the IE's in classical Socionics to be *the* meaning, so I have a preference towards information that favors that side rather than the more speculative Ti concepts in the Socionics community
Compare to, say, Betas who feel comfortable formulating and breaking apart the information and than using what they've figured out to be fact, or less so, Alpha who tend to develop new theories but are less likely to impose them

I find that the source of contention between Ti/Fe and Te/Fi valuers tends to stem from both sides viewing their preference for filtering information as more truthful and logical. I really do think the post by Expat on the Ti/Fe vs Te/Fi approach to information is spot on in explaining why that is

I'm not trying to state that Te/Fi's and Ti/Fe's can't agree with one another; communication can be very smooth and clear between the two if they both are able to agree with the others conclusions *through* their preference for filtering information.
For instance, I don't have difficulties discussing Socionics with a lot of the Ti/Fe's here whose own understanding complies with, what I regard as, the general accepted understanding of Model A

btw I think that the descriptions on the IE's at Socionics.org are one of the more reliable sources for learning about them (since I've been asked to provide sources...). Socionic-light is another good one IMO
From the English community I think Socionics.us and Socionics.ws ones are reliable

btw I'd just like to say that none of us would be here if it wasn't for a Ti, so I do admire it's benefits

Wouldn't it be better to develop your own views, rather than always trying to find "good sources"? That's the beauty of a "science" that it's still in its developmental stage.

[jughead]

Like you in your "discussion" on socialism.

The te/fi vs fe/ti divide rages on.