The need for understanding

[Rocky]

OK, I want to continue a discussion that took over a "Type" thread...

... how is type related to trying to "understand" things (if at all)?

The discussion started with Thomson...

Introverted Thinking (Ti) is the attitude that beneath the complexity of what is manifest (apparent, observed, experienced) there is an underlying unity: a source or essence that emerges and takes form in different ways depending on circumstances. What is manifest is seen as a manifestation of something. From a Ti standpoint, the way to respond to things is in a way that is faithful to that underlying cause or source and helps it emerge fully and complete, without interference from any notion of self. The way to understand that underlying essence is to learn to simultaneously see many relationships within what is manifest, to see every element in relation to every other element, the relationships being the "signature" of the underlying unity. This can only be experienced directly, not second-hand.

Introverted Thinking leads you to relate whatever you are doing to some larger principles that you have identified. Hence, Ti is like having some kind of book in your head, which describes the inner workings of things. When interacting with reality, you are constantly writing and re-writing your book. To deal with anything, you have to be able to understand in terms of the observations in your book. Whenever you are dealing with any new system, you start writing a new chapter on it in order to attain complete understanding of it.

This approach may seem very cumbersome from an extraverted standpoint. Youd don't really need to understand how a bicycle works in order to ride one. You don't have to actually understand a subject in school if you simply cram and memorize. You don't have to understand computers to check your mail. Yet Ti leads you to desire complete understanding of whatever you are doing, instead of looking up the correct procedure, or asking your friends for help, or kicking it when it's not working. With Ti, you don't simply try to understand a system well enough to manipulate it. You try to become such an expert on how it works that you could write a book about it if you had to, even if your expertise is unusable or useless to everybody (sometimes even to yourself).

Hence, Ti is a kind of high-bandwidth understanding, because it leads you to try to understand the entire causal, aestethic, or logical mechanism of any system of interest. This kind of understanding takes much more time and effort to develop, but it is more flexible once attained, because it allows you to deal with aspects of reality that cannot be described through social norms or sets of discrete procedures.

... and phaedrus and I both said that this sounded like us...

That sounds like me, too, and the third paragraph especially resonates with me. If I'm learning something (such as math) I feel uneasy if I don't understand the principles behind it. I always think that if I don't take the effort to understand it, then I won't be flexable enough to solve problems, especially when I (of course) don't know exactly what will be asked, or what problems will come up.

That sounds like me, too, and the third paragraph especially resonates with me.

I don't know if this is really Ti or anything.

Neither do I, but this is very interesting, at least for me. How should we explain the fact that we seem to identify with the same descriptions of a way of thinking if we are ISTp and INTp? We could discuss it in another thread. Which is the best place for such a discussion, and how should we do it?

BTW, there were also other 'tangents' in that thread, such as...

I don't think Sensors are materialistic. I'm not. I think ENxx types are more likely to be materialistic than ISxx types. The thought of being ostentatious out right disgusts me.

Another crappy inference, rocky?

(linkage)


So...

@Phaedrus: I don't think this need for "understanding" things is really related to Ti. For one thing, it sounds very pop psychology-ish.

I can still see other differences in the INTP and ISTP line of thinking, however. Basically, INTPs seem to like to "predict" what will happen based on past experiences, whereas ISTPs pretty much say things like "It doesn't always work out that way".

Also, before you start to think that IxTPs are really also Ti, than consider how they differ from ExTPs. Remember the PoLR discusion? Fi PoLR versus Fe PoLR? You said Fe PoLR sounded like you (and it's the opposite of someone like Herzy with Fi). There would be no explanation for these types of differences if the MBTI were "right" in their ordering.


@FDG: What's with you? You always seem way too extreme. It's either you agree with what I (and other people) say, or you give a definative "no" or claim things are out right stupid. It would help more if you explained your line of thinking first. I gave my opinion about one specific quality, maybe you could at least give your opposing opinion so people can see why you disagree.


@everyone else: comments on the original topic are welcome.

[FDG]

About the first part of the thread: I am not sure as to how to link it to functions, but I feel the need to understand the principles of what I'm learning as well.

About the part taken form my post: You have not stated any reason as to why ISxx are less likely to be materialistic than ENxx, except from your observations. Mine are different: -ego-block types are generally more "materialistic" than the others; therefore, ISFjs and ISTjs are more materialistic, IME, than ENTps and ENFps; I am not sure where to place ISFps and ISTps as opposed to ENTj and ENFj. I, myself, like "materialism" AKA money just in order to have freedom. I couldn't care less about showing off brands, big cars etc etc whereas I've always seen ISFjs and ISTjs being more concerned about such things. ISTps are usually not particularly concerned IME, I don't know about ISFps because it's not easy for me to identify them.

[Rocky]

About the first part of the thread: I am not sure as to how to link it to functions, but I feel the need to understand the principles of what I'm learning as well.

There's always of course the possibility that the description is reversed and it is actually more instead. That could always make sense, since learning new things is an energy-expending activity, so types may be more aggressive in understanding "technical" or "logical" type things (and IxTJs I have heard admit that they can become intellectually lazy even).

Or there could just be nothing to it.

I, myself, like "materialism" AKA money just in order to have freedom. I couldn't care less about showing off brands, big cars etc etc

Well, that sounds EXACTLY line my thinking. Of course, since "form>function" is more of an quality, and "function>form" is , than maybe being ostentatious is just related.

-ego-block types are generally more "materialistic" than the others; therefore, ISFjs and ISTjs are more materialistic, IME, than ENTps and ENFps

This is where I disagree. I see ISxJs as basically more humble. I know an ENTP for example who bought a very very expensive guitar, and likes to show it off to people (he's also the kind of person who uses a lot of big words, "fancy" words).

Maybe this isn't more along the lines of "materialism" as opposed to "showing off" however.

[FDG]

Well ISFjs and ISTjs are indeed generally "humbler" in regard to showing off their skills, their appearance and all that - that's a standard part of PoLR too - but, in my experience, they care more about the brand of their clothes, of their car etc etc than people...of course there are exceptions, and of course my sample is limited, so let's hear if there are other opinions on this matter.

[Phaedrus]

Also, before you start to think that IxTPs are really also Ti, than consider how they differ from ExTPs. Remember the PoLR discusion? Fi PoLR versus Fe PoLR? You said Fe PoLR sounded like you (and it's the opposite of someone like Herzy with Fi). There would be no explanation for these types of differences if the MBTI were "right" in their ordering.

What do you mean? I only said that your description of yourself sounded like me, and in the MBTI model we have the same ordering of the Fi and Fe functions:

ISTP: Ti Se Ni Fe Te Si Ne Fi
INTP: Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi

[aestrivex]

Also, before you start to think that IxTPs are really also Ti, than consider how they differ from ExTPs. Remember the PoLR discusion? Fi PoLR versus Fe PoLR? You said Fe PoLR sounded like you (and it's the opposite of someone like Herzy with Fi). There would be no explanation for these types of differences if the MBTI were "right" in their ordering.

What do you mean? I only said that your description of yourself sounded like me, and in the MBTI model we have the same ordering of the Fi and Fe functions:

ISTP: Ti Se Ni Fe Te Si Ne Fi
INTP: Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi

actually, this is not totally accurate because MBTI doesn't treat these functions the same as in socionics. its been a while since i looked at the way MBTI deals with this, but the MBTI equivalent of polr is the eighth function, as this site seems to indicate.

thus an IXTP in MBTI has Fi as the worst function and an EXTP has Fe.

[Phaedrus]

actually, this is not totally accurate because MBTI doesn't treat these functions the same as in socionics.

What, exactly, is not accurate?

[Expat]

About the first part of the thread: I am not sure as to how to link it to functions, but I feel the need to understand the principles of what I'm learning as well.

There's always of course the possibility that the description is reversed and it is actually more instead. That could always make sense, since learning new things is an energy-expending activity, so types may be more aggressive in understanding "technical" or "logical" type things (and IxTJs I have heard admit that they can become intellectually lazy even).

Or there could just be nothing to it.

I, myself, like "materialism" AKA money just in order to have freedom. I couldn't care less about showing off brands, big cars etc etc

Well, that sounds EXACTLY line my thinking. Of course, since "form>function" is more of an quality, and "function>form" is , than maybe being ostentatious is just related.

-ego-block types are generally more "materialistic" than the others; therefore, ISFjs and ISTjs are more materialistic, IME, than ENTps and ENFps

This is where I disagree. I see ISxJs as basically more humble. I know an ENTP for example who bought a very very expensive guitar, and likes to show it off to people (he's also the kind of person who uses a lot of big words, "fancy" words).

Maybe this isn't more along the lines of "materialism" as opposed to "showing off" however.

I agree with this. First, I also have the need to understand the principles of what I'm learning -- this got me into trouble when studying Quantum Theory -- so I'd say is more related, indeed.

And yes, I think the examples on "materialism" that you provided are more about "showing off", but I'm not sure that they are only about since ESFps do this kind of thing as well. I agree with FDG that ISXjs do not like showing off -- although ISTjs may well judge people on their appearance are hence "materialistic" in that sense.

[Rocky]

Also, before you start to think that IxTPs are really also Ti, than consider how they differ from ExTPs. Remember the PoLR discusion? Fi PoLR versus Fe PoLR? You said Fe PoLR sounded like you (and it's the opposite of someone like Herzy with Fi). There would be no explanation for these types of differences if the MBTI were "right" in their ordering.

What do you mean? I only said that your description of yourself sounded like me, and in the MBTI model we have the same ordering of the Fi and Fe functions:

ISTP: Ti Se Ni Fe Te Si Ne Fi
INTP: Ti Ne Si Fe Te Ni Se Fi

I mean, in MBTI, IxTP and ExTP have the same Feeling function, but in socionics it's different. If you look at Herzy's "Fi PoLR" thread, you will notice that it is the opposite of our Fe PoLR. In MBTI, we both just "sort of" have a weaker Fe function.

[Creepy-pokeball]

The defines are different. It'd be like doing math when 2 now means 5 and 5 now means 3. Also, POLR would be like polar, shadow or opposition (which is similar) but there also different names associated with functions throughout like Witch.

Here is a chart that is fuzzy but it shows some.


http://www.greatlakesapt.org/uploads...s/beebemap.jpg

On Beebe's, I would test borderline between INFJ and ENFJ. I could easily see myself within both of these. On both APA approved MBTI and Socionics, I would test ENFJ/P (exactly, every time). They never made sense. However, one INFj description that is in Russian does make sense.


To be honest, I think tests and functions should be deleted from memory =p I like the idea of scenarios and desciptions better. I think it would be awesome if there was a book or a series of volumes where patterns, pros, cons, variations, descriptions, relations etc. were unified without all the useless mental masturbation of systemized subjective variables like functions and VI. lol it could be like DSM where it changes over time to meet cultural change! Diagnostic of Temperament and Relations- I! lol

[Ms. Kensington]

if ti is a need for understanding the subject at hand entirely as an essence that is manifested in the items to be understood, i could see how it could seem similar to Ni in its holistic quality. Rocky aren't you Te sub making your Ni and Si sort of "closer"?

Maybe i dont need to say this, but maybe a need for understanding isn't specific to a type but I think the extent and way it is done very well could be.. Isn't that what we mean by type anyway (these very differences).

[Rocky]

Rocky aren't you Te sub making your Ni and Si sort of "closer"?

Yes.

Maybe i dont need to say this, but maybe a need for understanding isn't specific to a type but I think the extent and way it is done is type very well could be.. Isn't that what we mean by type anyway (these very differences).

Well yeah, but we were talking about the first quote from Thomson I posted.