INTjs what does "Introverted Thinking" mean to you

[Rocky]

... tell me all about what the words "Introverted Thinking" mean to you. You seem to talk a lot about it, so you must know something about the process. And all the rest of us misunderstand it, of course, so help us out.

[Gilly]

I don't think anyone really has a good grasp on what is

IMO, = subjective logical standards. Whereas Te deals with facts and the content/"substance" of a logical construct (i.e., an argument), Ti deals with the structure/"form" of the construct.

In other words, in examining, let's say, an argument, Ti would look at the format and try to point out a logical fallacy/discrepency in the logic, whereas Te would check to see if all of the information checks out.

This is obviously just a piece of the pie. In a few words, Ti = logical structure, whereas Te = logical content.

[detail]

I'm not INTj, but i think what most people mean is that it's not because works with inner models that it will prefer models that aren't compatible with reality to facts. (Some people will prefer it, but certainly not everyone) At least that's what i mean. My personnal addition is that it is contradictory to claim that can't be consistent with reality while claiming to have and that is more spot on with reality in that the first assumption is false so it gives an example of using a false "fact" based on a generalization of it's impression of . According to 's premises, it would be to use such a false fact hence the contradiction. Note that when i refer to and as entities, i use them in a context where someone with has the opinions i stated, and not as generalizations as if i thought everyone with thinks like i described.

[FDG]

I'm not INTj, but i think what most people mean is that it's not because works with inner models that it will prefer models that aren't compatible with reality to facts. (Some people will prefer it, but certainly not everyone) At least that's what i mean. My personnal addition is that it is contradictory to claim that can't be consistent with reality while claiming to have and that is more spot on with reality in that the first assumption is false so it gives an example of using a false "fact" based on a generalization of it's impression of . According to 's premises, it would be to use such a false fact hence the contradiction. Note that when i refer to and as entities, i use them in a context where someone with has the opinions i stated, and not as generalizations as if i thought everyone with thinks like i described.

Ah! Very nice refutation.

[Rocky]

I don't think anyone really has a good grasp on what is

IMO, = subjective logical standards. Whereas Te deals with facts and the content/"substance" of a logical construct (i.e., an argument), Ti deals with the structure/"form" of the construct.

In other words, in examining, let's say, an argument, Ti would look at the format and try to point out a logical fallacy/discrepency in the logic, whereas Te would check to see if all of the information checks out.

This is obviously just a piece of the pie. In a few words, Ti = logical structure, whereas Te = logical content.

Says the ENTP... I mean INFP, no wait... I mean ENTJ...

[Rocky]

I'm not INTj, but i think what most people mean is that it's not because works with inner models that it will prefer models that aren't compatible with reality to facts. (Some people will prefer it, but certainly not everyone) At least that's what i mean. My personnal addition is that it is contradictory to claim that can't be consistent with reality while claiming to have and that is more spot on with reality in that the first assumption is false so it gives an example of using a false "fact" based on a generalization of it's impression of . According to 's premises, it would be to use such a false fact hence the contradiction. Note that when i refer to and as entities, i use them in a context where someone with has the opinions i stated, and not as generalizations as if i thought everyone with thinks like i described.

I've also been thinking... possibaly, following those kinds of assumptions or whatever is mearly using judgment, and perception is what is used when dealing with non-systematic, non-math, etc... type stuff. This would be admitting that Te/Ti differences are wrong.

[Creepy-]

I can tell right away if I will like a book or not based on how the "structure" (subjective terminology).

((aside)) (b ut that might be . ) (Also, structure has to do with how well the book fits with "the truth", and "the truth" is what I try to live by, so they are related. If I receive a greater understanding of "the truth", then I can change, almost instantly on some levels. And also as far as I am concerned, the truth is secular, but various interpretations of it - like my subjective one, can be less than correct completely. But I don't know what terms to put that in, in regard to )

If it has good "Structure", then I will like it
If it does not then I won't
If it has sporadic good structure (good then bad), then it really isn't that great a structure because there are inconsitencies.

= subjective logical standards.

Yes...
And can be very, very damaging (to everyone including the :ti: ) if these subjective standards are too skewed from reality. If a can find a good base, or reference point somewhere, then it can work out. But if it is too lost, and the development of the person does not happen - no cultivation - then it can be very dangerous.

There was a period where I made everyone in a certain situation my enemy, because I was right and they were wrong. But I was so sure of myself that I didn't look at what was going on, and didn't care to look back at what I did. There were mistakes I made, but didn't want to admit to. Eventually, I did the thing and proved how superfluous everyone and thing was. But I am lucky, because I learned (or at least am trying to learn) from that experience. And it was in a controlled enough environment where no body got hurt seriously.

So can be misaligned, especially in certain situations. But what needs is to be forced to look at the practical things, so there can be truth in what is basing it's subjective logics on. But of course, you cannot force this on , because if you do it will automatically be rejected. I am reminded of reading how the ESFj is supposed to induce the INTj into work, into doing something - not by direct orders, but by making unneccesary movements, fussing about. So perhaps it is imperative to allow the to see the mistake in other situations, outside, and then let it reprocess inside of itself.

I think there also may be an inherent aspect of trial and error in terms of . If the extraverted second function stays on it's toes and constantly brings in new information, then can be okay, as it is humbled. but if the dominates, and no outside information is considered, then things get stagnent, overconfident, and corrupt.


Those are my 'thoughts' at this moment.

[Gilly]

I don't think anyone really has a good grasp on what is

IMO, = subjective logical standards. Whereas Te deals with facts and the content/"substance" of a logical construct (i.e., an argument), Ti deals with the structure/"form" of the construct.

In other words, in examining, let's say, an argument, Ti would look at the format and try to point out a logical fallacy/discrepency in the logic, whereas Te would check to see if all of the information checks out.

This is obviously just a piece of the pie. In a few words, Ti = logical structure, whereas Te = logical content.

Says the ENTP... I mean INFP, no wait... I mean ENTJ...

-_-

I'm ENTp.

[Rocky]

Hmm...

There was a period where I made everyone in a certain situation my enemy, because I was right and they were wrong. But I was so sure of myself that I didn't look at what was going on, and didn't care to look back at what I did. There were mistakes I made, but didn't want to admit to. Eventually, I did the thing and proved how superfluous everyone and thing was. But I am lucky, because I learned (or at least am trying to learn) from that experience. And it was in a controlled enough environment where no body got hurt seriously.

ExTJs do this too.

I think there also may be an inherent aspect of trial and error in terms of . If the extraverted second function stays on it's toes and constantly brings in new information, then can be okay, as it is humbled. but if the dominates, and no outside information is considered, then things get stagnent, overconfident, and corrupt.

And this applies to all Introverts.

[Ms. Kensington]

I'm not INTj, but i think what most people mean is that it's not because works with inner models that it will prefer models that aren't compatible with reality to facts. (Some people will prefer it, but certainly not everyone) At least that's what i mean. My personnal addition is that it is contradictory to claim that can't be consistent with reality while claiming to have and that is more spot on with reality in that the first assumption is false so it gives an example of using a false "fact" based on a generalization of it's impression of . According to 's premises, it would be to use such a false fact hence the contradiction. Note that when i refer to and as entities, i use them in a context where someone with has the opinions i stated, and not as generalizations as if i thought everyone with thinks like i described.

I've also been thinking... possibaly, following those kinds of assumptions or whatever is mearly using judgment, and perception is what is used when dealing with non-systematic, non-math, etc... type stuff. This would be admitting that Te/Ti differences are wrong.

Rocky, do you mean that rather than judging functions having dichotomies (extraverted/introverted), one's psyche would be scaled with something like a continuum between the t/f and one between s/n? I think you posted something like that before?

btw this post sounds perceivery but not a certain kind of perceivery. (in which case the judging functions might seem more blurred)?

[detail]

I once wondered if the "engine" of functions came before introversion and extraversion when i was working on a interfunction relationship system, then i did something else. I guess i will spend some time thinking about it.

[Rocky]

Rocky, do you mean that rather than judging functions having dichotomies (extraverted/introverted), one's psyche would be scaled with something like a continuum between the t/f and one between s/n? I think you posted something like that before?

I did? What are you talking about?

[FDG]

Hmm...

There was a period where I made everyone in a certain situation my enemy, because I was right and they were wrong. But I was so sure of myself that I didn't look at what was going on, and didn't care to look back at what I did. There were mistakes I made, but didn't want to admit to. Eventually, I did the thing and proved how superfluous everyone and thing was. But I am lucky, because I learned (or at least am trying to learn) from that experience. And it was in a controlled enough environment where no body got hurt seriously.

ExTJs do this too.

From a purely Junghian standpoint, only dominants are prone to the described behaviour. dominants are likely to err on the side of excessive easy-going-ness.

[Creepy-]

Hmm...
...

ExTJs do this too.
...

And this applies to all Introverts.

Heh, so perhaps I am xNTj?

(just kidding)

...

[detail]

@Rocky: I saw in another thread that you were asking if Herzy was more competitive in mode which made me think you might be interested to know that one of the most competitive person i know is INTj.