School of Associative Socionics: Absolute and relative types of thinking (Te and Ti)

[Psyhence]

Well I just read that article again, and still cannot see how the description added relevant information. I don't know whether my type is ILI, but I rarely use capitals, in my country that would be perceived as Fe rather (I.e attention whore writes her feelings in capitals to increase drama), so I ain't sure if what you are suggesting is consistent.
what I am sure of is that what you are describing in absolut vs relative is exactly the same information (at least statistically seen) as that contained in objects vs fields.

Here a problem with your description of dynamics: not only Te is concerned with them. So why or how would an Si or Ni dominant, which is also a dynamic, focus on one object at a time if their Dom function which is also focal is concerned with fields?

A problem with ENTJ: according to gulenko they have Voryical-Synergetic cognition which process doesn't resemble the use of Te as you depicted in the article. Real life examples of TeNi have supported the fact that their thinking process they cannot follow, they are simultaneously weighting the importance of information (not consciously selecting) and they intuitively know which way is more reliable.

I'm not totally against your theory, it just seems not to to fit other model explanations, and it won't offer me interesting data which would help me develop my typing skills.

[mikemex]

Real life examples of TeNi have supported the fact that their thinking process they cannot follow, they are simultaneously weighting the importance of information (not consciously selecting) and they intuitively know which way is more reliable.

That's essentially how the intuitive process works. It is amplified by Fi/Te, as it widens the extension of the data set compared to Ti/Fe, which restricts it to a more specific criteria.

[Olga]

Well I just read that article again, and still cannot see how the description added relevant information. I don't know whether my type is ILI, but I rarely use capitals, in my country that would be perceived as Fe rather (I.e attention whore writes her feelings in capitals to increase drama), so I ain't sure if what you are suggesting is consistent.
what I am sure of is that what you are describing in absolut vs relative is exactly the same information (at least statistically seen) as that contained in objects vs fields.

Thats ok, I am glad that you see at least some sense in the article.

Here a problem with your description of dynamics: not only Te is concerned with them. So why or how would an Si or Ni dominant, which is also a dynamic, focus on one object at a time if their Dom function which is also focal is concerned with fields?

Misunderstanding. One thing at a time can be interpreted as a sign of rationality. What I suggested may be was not a very good analogy~comparison at the end. I understand about the fields but we are talking about the process of thinking/judging and not about perception. That is why dichotomy rationality - irrationaliy is irrelevant. Yes?

A problem with ENTJ: according to gulenko they have Voryical-Synergetic cognition which process doesn't resemble the use of Te as you depicted in the article. Real life examples of TeNi have supported the fact that their thinking process they cannot follow, they are simultaneously weighting the importance of information (not consciously selecting) and they intuitively know which way is more reliable.

Gulenko had absolutely different criteria for his description of cognitions of different types. I am not sure what exactly his criteria were and how he came to his classification of cognition. We are taltking about very different perspective on the process of thinking and describe it from different perspective. I don't think it is a good idea to compare my and his approach. And if we want to do it - we need to look at the criteria and to understand how it came to shape.

I'm not totally against your theory, it just seems not to to fit other model explanations, and it won't offer me interesting data which would help me develop my typing skills.
I understand it - if it does not make sense to you - you cannot use it. We all process information differently and different things make sense for us. Thank you for comments.