Well, you're right, Ti leading and accepting should be different in essence despite the global result would be similar. It's not the same "understanding" reality through Ti than deducing "logical rules" (internal consistency) from it.
But this still does not explain accularety our big disagreement, which is more in method than in conclusion. For example, he tends to seek for a single valid solution whereas I consider the existence of multiple valid solutions. This is better explained, IMO, by the negative (divergent thinking) Vs positive (convergent thinking), which correspond to Holographical-Panoramic (LII, etc) and Dialectical-Algorithmic (ILI, etc) cognititions; Causal-Determinist (ILE, etc) and Vortical (LIE, etc) cognitions. This fits in him being ILE (CD) and me LII or ILI (HP or DA).
Your analysis seems to be a bit conditioned by your positive opinion of HP cognitionYou also made a comment about him being morethan you, which stuck in my mind a lot - his cognitive style (and mine, for that matter) is Causal-Determinist, and due to its directness and straightforwardness, it can make a person come off more "T" or "J" than they should... if you were LII, yours would be Holographical-Panoramic, which has the most openness and the most breathing room of them all - such differing ways to interpret such similar perspectives can be absolutely frustrating...
. The fact that HP "sees" from diferent point of views/angles does not make it automatically more "divergent" than DA, I mean, more capable of generating multiple solutions.
What you have probably observed in my way of reasoning is the big inclination for considering multiple options. But this is equally valid for HP or DA. The difference should not be how many options could be achieved, but HOW they're achieved.
Thanks. Assuming this is true, this could help for determining my subtype once I become reasonably confident about my type. But that's another question.Whatever specific NT Intratim you are, you certainly have a good command of your Id functions![]()
I'll comment about cognitive styles, which one I think better represents me and why.



than you, which stuck in my mind a lot - his cognitive style (and mine, for that matter) is
