Krig the Viking & MegaDoomer, Te & Ti split from "Type changing"

[Krig the Viking]

er no, i don't, but thanks

i predicted that you might reply in this way - i figured that if you are a Te type you'd seek to correct my knowledge (which you did), and if you are a Ti type you'd try to further clarify your own viewpoint (which you didn't do.)

also compare yourself to MegaDoomer in this thread, he doesn't try to correct Maritsa's knowledge when defending his self-typing to her. he just explains why he believes he's LII "according to my own understanding, i must be LII". you take a different approach: "according to the objective data, i must be LII."

hah, this kind of thing makes me understand why Reinin calls Ti valuers Subjectivists, and Te valuers Objectivists...

Then it appears we have a fundamental disagreement as to the natures of Te and Ti. In my opinion, both Te and Ti (like Se and Si) deal with external/explicit information, which is what most people call "objective facts". Both Te and Ti focus on "objective facts", the difference is in what sort of explicit information they focus on -- explicit information on the changing dynamic state of objects in the world (Te), or explicit information on the static logical relationships between objects in the world (Ti). MegaDoomer is focusing on the static logical relationships between type descriptions and himself, while I'm focusing on the static logical relationships within the descriptions themselves, but we're both focused on static logical relationships. Neither of us is talking about how type descriptions dynamically change over time, or how to effect explicit dynamic changes in people.

In short:
MegaDoomer: My personality correlates with this type description.
Krig: This IE correlates with this description.
Both are examples of static logical relationships, not dynamic changes in how things work.

[Pa3s]

Thanks Krig, I couldn't explain it myself actually.

i know. you don't have to agree with my opinions - it's not my goal to get everyone to think the same way. i agree that will never happen.

That wasn't directed against you, it was just a general observation.

[golden]

Whatever I 'choose', the members of this forum will never fully agree.

Yes. Note my self-type is listed as Beta NF. It's just not worth the interpersonal hassle to assert a more specific type. If I say I'm IEI, many forum members continually point out that I'm not, and why; same if I say I'm EIE.

At least I'm not being pegged into more than one quadra, though.

[ashlesha]

Neither of us is talking about how type descriptions dynamically change over time, or how to effect explicit dynamic changes in people.

i don't recall ever seeing a post by a Te type that talked about the dynamic changes in type descriptions or anything - do you happen to have any examples for contrast?

i have trouble working out the differences between Te and Ti and have wondered about your type because the way you present information just "feels" really sensible to me, in the way reading expat's posts was like (in contrast to several Ti egos i have trouble understanding). but i'm aware that a "feeling" doesn't really say much and maybe you're just good at explaining things, hah... since i have trouble understanding the difference between Te and Ti conceptually, which is why this conversation and the matter of your type is really interesting to me. i hope you don't mind it.

[krieger]

Then it appears we have a fundamental disagreement as to the natures of Te and Ti. In my opinion, both Te and Ti (like Se and Si) deal with external/explicit information, which is what most people call "objective facts". Both Te and Ti focus on "objective facts", the difference is in what sort of explicit information they focus on -- explicit information on the changing dynamic state of objects in the world (Te), or explicit information on the static logical relationships between objects in the world (Ti). MegaDoomer is focusing on the static logical relationships between type descriptions and himself, while I'm focusing on the static logical relationships within the descriptions themselves, but we're both focused on static logical relationships. Neither of us is talking about how type descriptions dynamically change over time, or how to effect explicit dynamic changes in people.

My view of the notion of "objectivity" and how it relates to the two T functions is as follows:

Te is epistemically objective, i.e. it removes perspective dependence from the "how-do-you-know" part of the issue. It seeks to base knowledge on the smallest number of assumptions that are only justified privately.
Ti is ontologically objective, i.e. it removes perspective dependence from the "what-it-is" part of the issue. It renders a picture of reality that is to the greatest possible extent independent of the experiential form through which it is presented.

It is generally very, very difficult to combine the two, so in human psychology, one is usually sacrificed in service of the other. Science, I believe, is the field that tries to unite the two despite these difficulties.

[The Ineffable]

0.02c

$0.02 you mean.

It's not what type you think you are but what type you really are.

You're my friend now

... Subt is EII.
...
Subt is too ethically-minded, i think his personal feelings and sentiments towards things and people come out very easily in his communication, even if he may not explicitly state them. it's something i see as Ethical, especially Fi.

This idea is still surprising to me. I see him as an ethical person, but not an ethical type. So am I, so is hkkmr, so is jxrtes, unfortunately these are ILE examples, but LIIs are not usually so vocal in telling their principles to everyone, unless they're involved into something.

As far as I can tell, unlike Subterranean, EIIs are much more empathetic, interested into people's problems and much less prone to try to impose their principles on others - an accusation that was brought to him. In fact I'm surprised how people suddenly jumped from the stereotypical Ti-Base (rules, strictness) to EII (soft, empathetic, often submissive). Maybe you people who had more contact with him (including himself) know something I don't know, but for the time being this typing sounds off to me.

also, i disagree that Ti is concerned with "precise definitions." it is Te that is concerned with objective data and information such as "precise definitions". Ti (esp. from Alpha NTs) will cut things down to the nitty-gritty, the absolute fundamentals, even to the point where it may be hard for someone who does not have enough background information to understand it, but Te will elaborate and clarify things to make sure the information being explained is "objectively" accurate and correct - which is what i see you do.

I very much agree.

In my opinion, both Te and Ti (like Se and Si) deal with external/explicit information, which is what most people call "objective facts". Both Te and Ti focus on "objective facts"

No. The definition (and manifestation) of Ti has nothing to do with facts.

: analysis, law, hierarchy, classification, understanding, order, (legal) right, system, structure, formal logic
: benefit, efficiency, action, knowledge, method, mechanism, act, work, motion, reason, technology, fact, expediency, economy

It is known that objectivity has nothing to do with empiricism, unless the consideration is factual accuracy, and IEs make no exception - the definitions/descriptions of Te and Ti are pretty clear. As you see, the attributes of Ti are totally independent of empirical evidence, Ti requires no objects but it works entirely with concepts.

[krieger]

The c stands for Canadian Dollars.

[Beautiful sky]

I think megadoom is INTp. He just seems more cautious than the average INTj and doesn't seem to have these typical ideosyncratic ideas that INTjs always hold fast to.

0.02c

Me too. I agree with you completely.

I wouldn't say that I expound upon facts so much as I seek to correctly categorize information logically. Ti looks at the world and tries to sort it into static categories. Te looks at the world and tries to keep track of the changing states of the objects in it. Consequently, Ti is more focused on correct reasoning and precise definitions, while Te is more focused on empirical data and efficient actions.

My posts tend to be purely theoretical and almost completely void of empirical data, which annoys actual Te types.

I can see the similarities between Expat and myself, but since I haven't really tried to type Expat for myself, I don't really know what to make of that. I've wondered if he might be some kind of Ti type in the past, but haven't looked into it.

As for my Fe-seeking -- I mostly post here when I'm in the mood for intellectual exercise. People here haven't really seen me in my sillier moods.

Fe is not being in silly moods; it's being in Fe atmosphere, very naturally, which I observed neither you nor megadoomer do. We don't have to see you in silly moods, all you have to do is talk silly and do silly...a lot of it as a natural indication.

er no, i don't, but thanks

i predicted that you might reply in this way - i figured that if you are a Te type you'd seek to correct my knowledge (which you did), and if you are a Ti type you'd try to further clarify your own viewpoint (which you didn't do.)

also compare yourself to MegaDoomer in this thread, he doesn't try to correct Maritsa's knowledge when defending his self-typing to her. he just explains why he believes he's LII "according to my own understanding, i must be LII". you take a different approach: "according to the objective data, i must be LII."

hah, this kind of thing makes me understand why Reinin calls Ti valuers Subjectivists, and Te valuers Objectivists...

Glam...do you see now why I also think that Dj is LSE type
And why I've been saying, feeling that he's my dual.
Megadoomer can demonstrate Ti.

Well, contrary to the wikisocion's statement about a LII's Te I'd say that I do keep track of my finances but otherwise, I think it also fits me pretty well. (Especially the sentences about 'aquiring skills based on interest instead of practicability) I don't know what I should reply to your claim you'd see more Te than Ti... it's your opinion.



As far as I know, LIIs aren't that expressive with emotion at all. And you might agree that emotional expression in a forum is not the same as irl. Your claim that I wouldn't ask enough questions or don't analyze enough looks a bit shallow to me. People of the same types may act differently, especially if one is older than the other. Anyway, this is not sufficient to rule out LII for me. At least in my opinion.



I don't understand why you put so much emphasis on this single statement. You should try to see the bigger picture there. I've 'settled' on INTj because I was switching pretty often which was caused by the lack of a 100% correlation of my personality and a socionics type. At some point, I realized there is no 100% correlations and that's why I settled on it because this seems to be the most reasonable explanation and the best fit.

Umm not according to this video...

[The Ineffable]

The c stands for Canadian Dollars.

[Beautiful sky]

Boom, let's do this? Where's your Fe valuing Boom buys?







Here's cracka on Alpha Fe...why don't I see this in either one of you :

I had ordered some ammo for my .45 a few days before I knew he was going to be here... I was actually worried that I'd get a visit based on that and my FB status that said: "I just got a bunch of ammo in the mail, anyone want to find something to shoot on Friday?" Friday was when Obama was visiting...lol.

[silverchris9]

er no, i don't, but thanks

i predicted that you might reply in this way - i figured that if you are a Te type you'd seek to correct my knowledge (which you did), and if you are a Ti type you'd try to further clarify your own viewpoint (which you didn't do.)

...Ti-egos don't correct people...?

How many Ti-egos do you know...?

Seriously, Krig corrected your reasoning (or attempted to anyway). That's what alpha NTs do: they look at an idea, find the spot where the idea deviates from the logical path, and shows why it is off the logical path.

On the other hand, Te-egos find the spot where the idea deviates from the facts (kinda like Ashton, with his refrain of: but that doesn't fit experience! when talking about socionics concepts, which is simultaneously really important for growing and really annoying when you think you've got a great concept going).

But both types correct people when they think they've done things wrong. ESPECIALLY beta STs.

Also, Ti is incredibly interested in "absolute truth." This differs from "objective facts" in some ways. Ti is interested in truths deduced from reason in the individual. In a Ti-ego, truth will generally be thought of in terms of general propositions: "All chairs are made of wood," "all batchelors are unmarried," "homework should be completed in the order it is received," "Ti is concerned with logical contradiction and coherence." Even SLEs can be very hardcore about the "truth."

In Te-egos are not interested in truths deduced from reason in the individual. Te-egos are interested in facts, data, information from the outside world. In a Te-ego, truth will generally be thought of in terms of particular facts "That chair is made of wood," "75% of men under thirty-five in the United States are batchelors," "of the 45 students in the class, the seven students who completed their homework as soon as they got it performed the best."

The hinge statement is "Ti is concerned with contradiction and coherence," because that is right on the border. You can either look at it deductively (derived from the External Statics of Fields definition or some such), or look at it as a fact (as the basis of inductive reasoning) about the exterior world. Also "Ti" is simultaneously general (the aggregate of all the individual uses of Ti) and specific (one IM out of eight).

Also, Ti-style reasoning is incredibly neat, and above all, that's what Krig's reasoning is. It's clean, and clear, and easy to follow insofar as the steps of the argument are laid out (unlike Ni--and possibly Ne--which is associative and leaps from thought to thought, skipping several steps in-between, as in Timeless' illustration of Ni).

Te, at least NiTe, is more like wading into a mass of data and organizing it into a narrative/story/trend. But again, it is not explicit the logical steps you take to get from point A to point B, although the gamma NT (with strong but unvalued Ti), would probably first tell you that they followed the correct heuristic, and then, if pressed, explain exactly "why" in Ti-terms, the inductive leap (from data to narrative) they made is valid. In a related notion, this is basically what economics does. It takes a few basic Ti general principles (which Smith derives in the standard Ti-style, if you read Wealth of Nations; also his argument is stolen from Plato, just expanded), and then wades into this enormous mass of data about people's purchasing habits, how markets have worked in the past, etc., and makes a story out of it that explains what we should do with our money.

Also, let me just take a minute to say how much I love Ti. Ti is like a brain bath as far as I'm concerned. It's so neat and clean and organized and I love it.

Anyway, I don't see any way to seriously doubt Krig's typing. It is hella obvious. Everything he's posted on this forum is pure Ti.

[Beautiful sky]

Then it appears we have a fundamental disagreement as to the natures of Te and Ti. In my opinion, both Te and Ti (like Se and Si) deal with external/explicit information, which is what most people call "objective facts". Both Te and Ti focus on "objective facts", the difference is in what sort of explicit information they focus on -- explicit information on the changing dynamic state of objects in the world (Te), or explicit information on the static logical relationships between objects in the world (Ti). MegaDoomer is focusing on the static logical relationships between type descriptions and himself, while I'm focusing on the static logical relationships within the descriptions themselves, but we're both focused on static logical relationships. Neither of us is talking about how type descriptions dynamically change over time, or how to effect explicit dynamic changes in people.

In short:
MegaDoomer: My personality correlates with this type description.
Krig: This IE correlates with this description.
Both are examples of static logical relationships, not dynamic changes in how things work.

Oh I see, this would make him a different type from you than. He does Te because he finds similarities between type descriptions and himself, Like saying I relate to this part and that part; that applies to me and that too. Taking what's from outside himself and applying it to his behavior. You're comparing two things outside yourself that has nothing to do with you but reflects back to your psyche making it subjective, rather then objective. He might actually be dynamic because there's nothing in the clue you've provided that indicates what he's doing is static activity.

I agree both are static, introverted, not the same though.

[Pa3s]

Fe is not being in silly moods; it's being in Fe atmosphere, very naturally, which I observed neither you nor megadoomer do. We don't have to see you in silly moods, all you have to do is talk silly and do silly...a lot of it as a natural indication.

Again, you're focusing on one single thing and disregard the big picture. Maybe I just don't utter everything which comes to my mind on this forum? You also don't know how I act among friends. This forum can't transport everything. Besides that, when I was still self-typing as ILI, several people told me LII would be an option because of the reason you said above. Ask CiLi. I actually think my first self-typing has fixed your idea of my type and you won't change that no matter what I do. But let's see the other side: If I was ILI, how do I show my -seeking tendencies?

You'll probably say this is irrelevant, but as I said above, I got 'Conscientious' in that Oldham types test. I took it again and got the same result. I don't think this fits to ILIs pretty well.

And as I said before: dichotomy-wise I'm INTj. The base type is rational and the Ne subtype completes the type and adds my irrational traits.

[krieger]

i'm pretty much INTP dichotomy wise, and I would never score "conscientious" on any test. (just FTR)

...Ti-egos don't correct people...?

How many Ti-egos do you know...?

I think a Ti disagreement generally sounds more like an offering of contrary opinion rather than a "correction".

[Pa3s]

i'm pretty much INTP dichotomy wise, and I would never score "conscientious" on any test. (just FTR)

Sure, because "Conscientious" mostly correlates with ISTJ rather than INTJ. You can also take the test if you're interested: Link.

labcoat, also appear very serious and dry to me (at least in your forum posts). You also don't show that "Fe valuing Boom" that Maritsa expects to see in every LII. However, I've no reason to question your self-typing. But I'm curious if Maritsa agrees as well.

[HERO]

First let me say, that a lot of this theoretical stuff is quite difficult for me to wade through. To be honest I have no problem seeing both Krig the Viking and Megadoomer as INTj's. The more information I see regarding Ti, the less I relate to it: structure, justice, laws, rules, systematizing, etc. For the most part not my forte, nor something I really like. It's kind of boring, dry, and arid. Whether or not I'm Ti-valuing or not is hard to say, yet I often find some of the stuff written by Krig the Viking and other Ti-egos to be quite difficult to read through. Comparatively, although I don't always agree with him, I find a lot of what Ashton (and other Te-egos) writes to be easier to read and understand/comprehend.
And to be honest, I can't help seeing some Ti-types as kind of harsh, cold, and rigid. They can be very moral, and my experience of a Ti-egos concept of morality (say an ISTj for example) is definitely not my cup of tea.

^ I agree

I don't understand this "Live and let live" attitude toward's people's self-typings. It's not what type you think you are but what type you really are.

Yet other people can be biased. How does one know who is right in the matter. Is the person 'changing' their type right, or is it the observer, both, or neither. Perhaps people can change their self-typing, yet objectively they can never change what their type really is. Yet maybe when a person changes their self-typing, they might actually have stumbled onto their correct type. Maybe the others are wrong. Ultimately, everyone has one true Socionics type, whether or not they type themselves correctly, and whether or not other people type them correctly. And I'd also like to add that more often than not, an individual knows themselves and their personal history as well as their type, better than a supposedly objective observer does. Such an observer might actually potentially know the correct type of the person, yet some additional data (that might not actually be very type-related) might alter his opinion to the wrong type. So we often like to think that we're right about other people's types, but I think we should try to recognize our limitations more. It's hard enough to type oneself.


I'd say I often have a tendency to over-analyze stuff. Sometimes I can't fall asleep because my mind is racing with thoughts, and thinking about stuff (including Socionics at times). I might have some idea or train of thought that I have to write down. Sometimes I even talk to myself, even at work (yet mostly at home). Perhaps this doesn't mean I'm an Extravert, although my Aunt once said that I seek external validation way too much. Maybe I do care too much about what other people think of me, to the point of deluding myself. There have been times when I could relate a fair bit to both ENFP (Keirsey and Myers-Briggs) and ENFp (Socionics) type descriptions.

Yet, regarding what Jarno was saying about being late for work -- I'm never late for work. Yesterday I couldn't find my watch, yet I still wasn't late for work. Yet I find it hard to keep track of time without a watch. I even had to ask people what time it is. I find it hard enough to keep track of time with a watch to be honest, and I don't have the best time management skills. That's why I find it hard to work at these kind of jobs (grocery stores, etc.) yet until I achieve a higher education, I don't have too many options.

So I can say I can often relate to people who change their self-typing for a type that is actually more accurate. The way Se is used by some people at work either stresses me out, annoys me, overwhelms me, etc. And it's always been like that for me. I'm definitely not Se-PoLR, yet I don't usually respond well to Se. To be honest, I think I often like the ESTj's at my work more than the Se and Ti types.

Although there's a good chance I am actually INFp, and those who think so might actually be right... as you can see I can relate to those people whose self-typings are questioned... and for me it's easier to type myself INFp, because it doesn't really bother me if that self-typing is challenged or not, since I don't feel too attached to it. As much as I might appreciate some Beta music, it can tire me, or bore me, and sometimes I have to wonder what's so great about (some of) it; it's kind of overrated. There are people here who can appreciate some 'Beta' music, yet they usually don't get typed Beta. So it's kind of arbitrary why some people think that one person should be placed in a certain quadra and the other shouldn't. Way too many quadra stereotypes abound here.

Regarding Ni and Ne, to be honest if I didn't have to worry about exact time at work I'd be happier. But I have to work on a schedule, yet I prefer the concept of general time. I have to rush (and often even run a bit) to make sure I get to work on time; I worry about getting late, with or without a watch. And I often leave a bit later than I should, or maybe I'm just too worried about being late so I rush.

So it's safe to say that I don't like when people pressure me or criticize me or question my work ethic or what I was doing, when I was actually working. And I agree that logical types can be ethical people, perhaps even more so than a lot of Fi and Fe egos. To me, Ti (strictness, rules) kind of leaves me cold. It's so antithetical to the kind of world I'd prefer to live in, although I think that some rules are important, and I know I have to improve on more of my ethics and consistency, etc. I could easily see myself being criticized by a Ti-type. They might say I'm unpredictable, etc. And I'd totally feel that our views of the world are at war with each other.

Anyway, since I'm kind of tired, and a lot of this theoretical stuff is too much for me (partially because my education is so fractured and incomplete), I'll conclude this with something my Aunt once wrote:

"I do not know practically anything about Socionics and frankly speaking I am not very much attracted to it, maybe I have not had time to look deeply into it or maybe the attempt to classify personality based on such a mathematical sounding method does not appeal to me.... I like to contemplate the exception, the unusual, uncanny and rule-breaker, the abnormality and the singularity in people. The way people act or react cannot be imagined outside dramatic shifts in what goes on in their lives. And when something completely weird, dangerous or sublime occurs one may react in ways unexpected. Perhaps it is a poetic approach, less scientific or rigourous, more probabilistic than static or linear."

[717495]

This topic makes me want to eat lemony and crisp things.

[plotter]

I've always thought of it like Te is efficiency, and Ti is accuracy.
So if you want to describe something to someone...
... would focus on getting another person to understand something as quickly as possible.
... would focus on explaining it as accurately as possible.

And then someone would say that isn't true in either case, so I'll add that

would focus on how the information is going to be used, and determine “what level of understanding”/”what type of information” is needed to use it effectively.

would focus on the integrity of the information, and determine how precise a concept needs to be defined to accurately determine its relation to other concepts.

Neither one would actually be about uncovering objective truths or anything.
The workings of Ti doesn't need something to be objectively true. Ti only need the information to not contradict any other information used in the same context.
For example you could say: “Blue=Red”, and Ti would reply “Under what circumstances?”
Can't really say about Te here, but it's all about pragmatism. Te-people I know seems to resonate that if something is accepted by most people/most “experts”, that is the truth, and objective is a word.

This is just how I've interpreted it though. With this in mind I don't see why they can't be LII:s both. If I ignore what I've said and just base my conclusion from the things stated in this thread, I still don't see why they both can't be LII:s.

[golden]

The more information I see regarding Ti, the less I relate to it: structure, justice, laws, rules, systematizing, etc. For the most part not my forte, nor something I really like. It's kind of boring, dry, and arid. Whether or not I'm Ti-valuing or not is hard to say, yet I often find some of the stuff written by Krig the Viking and other Ti-egos to be quite difficult to read through. Comparatively, although I don't always agree with him, I find a lot of what Ashton (and other Te-egos) writes to be easier to read and understand/comprehend.

Mm, this is somewhat true for me as well. What I find with RL Alpha NTs is that to some extent, one on one, we can communicate pretty well "in the moment," because they speak more directly to my knowledge level (usually low, not always) of whatever subject they are mentally systematizing. My guess is that the more they get some Fe, which I modulate a bit to their particular light-hearted take on Fe, and they are motivated to interact with me as I am, and without talking down to me. It's usually pleasant.

Get them talking among one another about a subject they're into--as on this forum--they can become wonkish and I find myself more or less excluded. Te types are less apt to do this. So I do find myself appreciating Te in the short term, often more than Ti, even if I admire Ti.

An example, though: My most important college professor, from whom I learned an incredible amount over three semesters, was clearly a Ti type. The first course I took with her presented the most difficult material I'd ever faced, and her way of presenting it as a closed system, at a very advanced level, gave me little point of entree initially. But over time, I found my way in and discovered I had begun to master the system of thinking. I was more or less obliged to rise closer to her level ... and I was so glad that I had the chance to do that. So in a way, Ti thinkers give me something to aspire to.

[Pa3s]

I've always thought of it like Te is efficiency, and Ti is accuracy.
So if you want to describe something to someone...
... would focus on getting another person to understand something as quickly as possible.
... would focus on explaining it as accurately as possible.

That's an interesting explanation.

[Park]

er no, i don't, but thanks

Ouch! PoLR hit? Loosen up and have a beer. My opinion? Krig might as well be your conflictor. How does Te-LSE sound?

And as it usually happens, labcoat makes the most sense in this thread. No, but wait. How is that possible? Labcoat uses Ti. I don't seek Ti, I seek booty.

Anyways, my £0.50.

[ashlesha]

Ouch! PoLR hit? Loosen up and have a beer. My opinion? Krig might as well be your conflictor. How does Te-LSE sound?

And as it usually happens, labcoat makes the most sense in this thread. No, but wait. How is that possible? Labcoat uses Ti. I don't seek Ti, I seek booty.

Anyways, my £0.50.

lol, what is this?

[Jarno]

So if you want to describe something to someone...
... would focus on getting another person to understand something as quickly as possible.
... would focus on explaining it as accurately as possible.

this is very good, the Te description is perfect, but I would call Ti maybe thouroughly instead of accuracy. It's like they don't want to miss out any detail.

I'm curious what MegaDoomer would choose from these 2 descriptions.

[EyeSeeCold]

Can't really say about Te here, but it's all about pragmatism. Te-people I know seems to resonate that if something is accepted by most people/most “experts”, that is the truth, and objective is a word.

It's not about majority rule or consensus. has no time for the "science". For example, once I find that there is at least some useful consistency when it comes to reality correlating with a theory, I deem that theory not "true" but applicable. They are two different things. The truth is relative, but application is irrefutable: either something is or it isn't.

Also because doesn't have time for the science, it would prefer to make applications that are the most applicable to reality the standard. From a Socionics perspective, MBTI is heavily flawed and riddled with misconceptions. Egos would prefer to make Socionics the standard instead of presenting arguments to every person that logically shows how MBTI is a crap system. It's a waste of time when Socionics is obviously more applicable than MBTI, but not necessarily "truer".

[Pa3s]

I'm curious what megadoomer would choose from these 2 descriptions.

As I said, I like them, too. However, it's pretty hard to choose. People who know me would probably say it's Ti because they often call me a stickler for details. (I'd see your explanation of Ti rather as an addition, Jarno. Thoroughness generally also means more accuracy of the definition.) I actually get irritated if terms are used incorrectly or if people don't want to know everything about an issue and are satisfied with shallow information. On the other side, I'm thinking about how I explained things to others when I was still in school (and partly also in my studies). My colleagues told me they would understand me much better than the teacher because I said things much clearer than he did. But maybe this is related to my perspective as a student. It's probably Ti after all.

[glam]

I think a Ti disagreement generally sounds more like an offering of contrary opinion rather than a "correction".

Ouch! PoLR hit? Loosen up and have a beer. My opinion? Krig might as well be your conflictor. How does Te-LSE sound?

And as it usually happens, labcoat makes the most sense in this thread. No, but wait. How is that possible? Labcoat uses Ti. I don't seek Ti, I seek booty.

Anyways, my £0.50.

yeah, i thought it might have been a PoLR hit also.

@ the rest of the post: you're such a weirdo Parkster (i'll have wine instead of beer, thank you)

[Jarno]

However, it's pretty hard to choose.

Te is accurate too, that's why its better to differentiate on the part of thouroughness.

I'll give you a real life example between me and my dad (LSI) when someone stops the car and asks for directions.


Me: oh just go straight on, at the traffic lights to the right and you'll find it on your left

Dad: You could go straight on etc.... but there is also an alternative route, if you go left here etc.... oh and there is another alternative route, you will pass that beautiful church they build in 1906 etc...

That's whats meant with "accuracy, thoroughness and details". It's Ti and it's annoying.
Te is straight to the point, and exact. no clutter no nonsense.

[Pa3s]

Te is accurate too, that's why its better to differentiate on the part of thouroughness.

Ah, okay. But I think plotter wanted to say that the focus of Ti might be accuracy rather than speed while he didn't mean that Te is necessarily imprecise.

I'll give you a real life example between me and my dad (LSI) when someone stops the car and asks for directions.


Me: oh just go straight on, at the traffic lights to the right and you'll find it on your left

Dad: You could go straight on etc.... but there is also an alternative route, if you go left here etc.... oh and there is another alternative route, you will pass that beautiful church they build in 1906 etc...

That's whats meant with "accuracy, thoroughness and details". It's Ti and it's annoying.
Te is straight to the point, and exact. no clutter no nonsense.

Haha, this seems pretty biased to me, sorry. I guess you want to show why Te is superior.

My dad is LSI too and I can't imagine he would add so much unnecessary stuff. I think Ti really adds more information, but only related things, so to speak. In this particular case, both answers (Ti + Te) would probably sound very similar because there is nothing more which should be known about that issue.

Let's imagine a Ti and a Te type are asked a question like: "What's the difference between a normal motor with a propeller and jet engine?" The Te type would probably speak about the fundamental different construction of both engines and that they use different fuels, ect. (aka the basics, things you would tell a novice). The Ti type at the other hand would use a lot of special terms (used correctly but unknown to the listener) and might explain where the air and the kerosine is mixed inside the engine and why it is dangerous to fly into a bunch of birds. Then why the radial engine always has a odd number of cylinders and so on. So yeah, it's a lot more, but it's all related and intersting stuff. I like this example better.

[HERO]

A lot of this is stuff people already know or have read --
INTj's and INTp's are quasi-identicals and have some things in common, including: they are both Negativists (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...st#Negativists), Obstinate (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...bstinate_types), Farsighted (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...rsighted_types), Democratic (http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ic#Democrats); and in addition they are both Introverted NT's (Researchers) that dualize with Extraverted SF's (Socials), so it can be easy to confuse them with each other.

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

"Secondary extraverted intuition (the types Analyst and Humanist, XXX-intuitive introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Critic and Lyricist with the dominant introverted intuition) for their being modest intellectuals who do not strive “into the center of events”, their certain idealism. However, the difference is remarkable: both Analyst and Humanist are consequent in their thoughts, often have well-structured speech (and often prefer to communicate in written than in spoken). They are rigid in their everyday life: while Critic and Lyricist can well adapt to changing circumstances, Analyst and Humanist rather suffer when plans change. And they both believe that people are full of positive potential, which should be discovered and developed."

'Secondary extraverted logic (the types Critic and Craftsman, XXX-logical introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Analyst and Inspector with the dominant introverted logic) for their calm logical emotionless manner of explaining their views, and for certain vital conservatism. However, the difference is, that they do not strive for being consistent and systematic in their thoughts – on the contrary, they strive for adaptation to ever-changing situation, and thus their sayings often look incomplete or vague. Carl Gustav Jung, although some typologists think he was an Analyst, not Critic, wrote in a very vague, ambiguous way, often left his ideas uncompleted, and even his typology was for him just a “by-product”. Often the facial expression of Critics and Craftsmen is skeptical, with a characteristic grin (Critic: Meg Ryan, Woody Allen; Craftsman: Meryl Streep, Harvey Keitel). They prefer not to present their own concepts but rather to criticize our people for imperfect, contradictory concepts. These two types may be also called “anti-enthusiasts” – they like to warn other people against insufficiently considered, unreasoned spontaneous actions, and hate very much excessive emotions.'

And here are some other links (I'm sure a lot of people have already read the last one):

http://www.socionics.com/articles/on_being_intj.html

http://www.socionics.com/articles/intjorintp.htm


And I think I was probably a bit too negative in some of my interpretations of Ti. Most Ti-egos are probably not like that. And I guess when I start continuing my education I'll be able to appreciate more.

[plotter]

Te is accurate too, that's why its better to differentiate on the part of thouroughness.

That's whats meant with "accuracy, thoroughness and details". It's Ti and it's annoying.
Te is straight to the point, and exact. no clutter no nonsense.

I agree with that Te can be accurate. the main difference (as I see it) is that Te wouldn't concern itself with accuracy when it doesn't increase how efficient the information is for its intended purpose.

Ti on the other hand would focus on the accuracy the information needs to have in order to maintain integrity. The amount of detail would probably depend on what level of accuracy the Ti-ego think is needed to not be misunderstood.
So a Ti road description could probably be something like "20 miles in that direction" while pointing at a building. (Edit: Saying that it doesn't necessary have to be very precise, as long as its accurate.)

If it's very important that I got somewhere I would probably don't like a Te description, because I would wonder stuff like "is this road big enough to be the big road he meant or will I get to a bigger one ahead?"

[EyeSeeCold]

http://www.socioniko.net/en/articles/lytovs-intro3.html

"Secondary extraverted intuition (the types Analyst and Humanist, XXX-intuitive introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Critic and Lyricist with the dominant introverted intuition) for their being modest intellectuals who do not strive “into the center of events”, their certain idealism. However, the difference is remarkable: both Analyst and Humanist are consequent in their thoughts, often have well-structured speech (and often prefer to communicate in written than in spoken). They are rigid in their everyday life: while Critic and Lyricist can well adapt to changing circumstances, Analyst and Humanist rather suffer when plans change. And they both believe that people are full of positive potential, which should be discovered and developed."

"Secondary extraverted logic (the types Critic and Craftsman, XXX-logical introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Analyst and Inspector with the dominant introverted logic) for their calm logical emotionless manner of explaining their views, and for certain vital conservatism. However, the difference is, that they do not strive for being consistent and systematic in their thoughts – on the contrary, they strive for adaptation to ever-changing situation, and thus their sayings often look incomplete or vague. Carl Gustav Jung, although some typologists think he was an Analyst, not Critic, wrote in a very vague, ambiguous way, often left his ideas uncompleted, and even his typology was for him just a “by-product”. Often the facial expression of Critics and Craftsmen is skeptical, with a characteristic grin (Critic: Meg Ryan, Woody Allen; Craftsman: Meryl Streep, Harvey Keitel). They prefer not to present their own concepts but rather to criticize our people for imperfect, contradictory concepts. These two types may be also called “anti-enthusiasts” – they like to warn other people against insufficiently considered, unreasoned spontaneous actions, and hate very much excessive emotions."

These are new, thanks. I really do think the functional differences should be stressed and compared in Socionics, because the practicality is left open to interpretation.

[The Ineffable]

In a Ti-ego, truth will generally be thought of in terms of general propositions: ... "All chairs are made of wood," ... "homework should be completed in the order it is received,"

Certainly not Ti. Both are based on experience. "The chairs are made of wood" (or any hard material) is based exclusively on observation; as a concept, the chair can be made out of thin air - doesn't matter, anything that can be sit on, moved and so on is a chair, but what can be sit on - including materials - belongs to empiricism.
The homework conviction may be based on a convention or belief, too (basically it can be either Te or Fi); the time it is started or finished is not included in its concept and from a Ti POV the association is nonsensical, absurd, stupid.

"All chairs have a place one can sit on" and "homework is expected to be completed" would do.

Anyway, I don't see any way to seriously doubt Krig's typing. It is hella obvious. Everything he's posted on this forum is pure Ti.

You base you conclusion on your preferences and the assumption that you're IEI. I agree that your reasonings fit very well together, though considering that I type you as IEE, our views radically diverge. In fact you make the mistake to take yourself as an absolute reference, while other Ti valuers have a hard time grasping his information, it looks like a headless barely intelligible amalgam of facts, but the the rules for its consistency fail to emerge. Saying that means that you retype these people who don't process what you call "pure Ti" as Te valuers.

The workings of Ti doesn't need something to be objectively true. Ti only need the information to not contradict any other information used in the same context.

Yes!

For example you could say: “Blue=Red”, and Ti would reply “Under what circumstances?”

Hmm Ti doesn't not "reply". There is Ti and there are Ti types, besides, that sounds to me as Logic + Intuition. Maybe "under what definitions?" would do.

Under no circumstance Blue=Red to Ti, because by definition they have some different properties. That proposition can be true only in synthetic judgments: "Red=Akai because all Japanese use 'akai' for all red objects". Ti can't use this information, "akai", as it is not yet defined, but when akai is defined as "red" then it can't mean anything else (Ti).
Though I agree that your question may refer to the completion of the definitions, eg "under what circumstance" = "in what languages each", the full meaning being rather "English Red = Japanese Akai". In other language akai may mean something else.
---

I also think a flawed idea floats around this forum, that ILIs are practical people, while in fact they're often highly theoretical. People quit considering the descriptions of types, using the functions as a replacement. ILI is primarily an Ni type, so is IEI, which is Te-PoLR.

[plotter]

Hmm Ti doesn't not "reply". There is Ti and there are Ti types, besides, that sounds to me as Logic + Intuition. Maybe "under what definitions?" would do.

Under no circumstance Blue=Red to Ti, because by definition they have some different properties.

Meant Ti-types And you're probably right about the +. It might have been a bad example. I thought something like: "If someone says that Red and Blue is the same thing, then the person saying it must have given the words a different (less precise) meaning, for example that they are just words describing colors." But didn't give it that much thought.

[Park]

you're such a weirdo Parkster

I know, right? Wine is good.

[Park]

Why do red wine bottles traditionally have punts on the bottom and white wine bottles do not?

With white wines, no punt was indented.

[Park]

How Merlot can you go?

[Pa3s]

 

I Krig and Doom.

Yeah... and we you, which is funny because if you're IEE that would probably drive you insane.

[krieger]

i hate this forum. everything is so goddamned wrong.

[Pa3s]

i hate this forum. everything is so goddamned wrong.

Maybe you're wrong. You're part of this forum after all.

[krieger]

i'm not the one taking positions.