Gilligan's PoLR

[Joy]

With this function, it is possible to deconstruct and disassemble various levels of thought, concepts, and ideas in order to gauge a sense of their inner workings or how they habitually function. Probably the most powerful aspect of Ti is an active ability to remain focused on tenacious analytical or logical task of a specific theme and the ability to break down, refine, and index it into sub classified fields for ready access, assessment, consideration with direction back to the main point or original theme if needed; other important features of this function include the ability to express ideas in the most concise and logical manner that could be implemented to appeal to the logical processes of others.

I was going to write an explanation of why I am not Ti... but having quoted this, I find that there's not much left to say.

Too bad mcn00dlebrain wrote that. Otherwise you might have a point.

What is incorrect about it?

Also, can you link me to, or describe in your own words, what Ti looks like in practice (not just an abstract description of it)?

What is incorrect? Well, pretty much all of it, lol. It's a bunch of convoluted nonsensical mumbo jumbo. That doesn't describe anything.

As for Ti, well, read Phaedrus's posts

You're making a pretty convincing case for a Te PoLR in yourself.

And how is that?

Gilligan sometimes demonstrates weak Fi and is very sensitive to being told what to do when it comes to things that could be considered Fi related. A lot of you may remember the cocaine thread... I can see an arguement though that it isn't Fi that he's responding to when he flips out. My interactions with Gilligan sometimes remind me a hell of a lot of my interactions with krae, which is why I originally wondered if Gilligan has a Te PoLR (*waits to get bitched out*). Other times though, when he was calm, it seemed that he was ENTp and merely acted INFp if he was in a bad mood or messed up. This, of course, makes him difficult to type.

Inspite of the fact that he understands Socionics rather well (and he does, at least from Jung's perspective), he rarely demonstrates this knowledge. He accuses other people of not making sense, but rarely will he provide any type of description of functions in action (other than very general statements used in his arguments). He did in the thread about my being an ISTp, but that type of post seems somewhat rare for him, and in the chat, he likes to go on and on about how other people don't make sense (lol and by "other people" I mean me) but generally doesn't use Ti to elaborate on the reasoning behind his statements. My conversations with him are not like the conversations I have with Ti types, which I described in another thread:

Basically, I know I'm not a Ti type because in conversation with Ti types, they are more focused on how my individual points fit into their structured thought patterns than the point of what I'm saying. If you take each statement individually and don't look at the point and contenxt of what I'm saying, it's not difficult to find inaccuracies or inconsistancies... it very often has to do with how I word things. I often don't disagree with what they are saying but get frustrated because I have little interest in their structured thoughts (which seem needlessly detailed to me)... I just want to show them what I'm seeing. At the end, we often find that we agree. A lot of times I knew in the beginning that we agreed but because it's not generally possible to state a point without listing at least a few individual points, I cannot communicate my main point with them without them having to pick apart the individual points before even being capable of hearing the main point.

He doesn't come back at me with Ti like many other people do... more like Fe and Se. In trying to think of posts he's made (or cconversations he's had) demonstrating the use of Ti... there isn't a whole lot that qualifies, at least from my perspective.

In a conversation we were having in the chat this moring, an onlooker said that she thought we interacted as conflictors. It sorta got me thinking about this possibility of a Te PoLR again. I posted the bolded part above to see if he'd come back at me with Ti, but again, he didn't... he just criticized mcnew's description of Ti (which was written imo from an "external dynamics of objects" perspective) saying that it simply didn't make sense.

Well, I realize that most of this is pretty subjective because it involves observations made from my own perspective, but I encourage you to think about Gilligan's interactions that you've witnessed and think about which functions he uses and how he responds to others and their use of various functions.

Understand that regarless of his type, Gilligan is a very intelligent person. He's definitely bright... let's not forget that very intelligent people often test and appear to be NTs, regardless of their type.