Can someone tell me if this is Ni-Ti or Ne-Fi?

[Edwalle]

Essentially, I am very motivated by defining the boundaries between abstractions and distinguishing abstractions from each other. I see abstractions themselves as finite, though they repeat themselves in many domains, where they are given different names, and these names are 'concepts'. For example, I think of a 'system' as an example of an abstraction, and there are systems in each field, whether it be neuroscience or computer science or sociology, and I am foremost interested in the similarities between the behavior and function of these systems because I ultimately like finding the similarities between them and determining possible new patterns. My goal is to be able to explain how the abstractions themselves are linked together by understanding more tangible systems and their concepts. I really like philosophy and computer architecture because these explanations occur at a higher level and are formally defined. However, I'm a lot better at/interested in independently reasoning about people/social/ethical systems than technical systems. Though I gain plenty of enjoyment from reading about both, I ultimately draw the insights I gain back to people systems. Though this may just be lack of experience with technical systems, because I've only recently began working in computer architecture.

I am motivated to explore pretty much any academic field that makes formal distinctions, particularly those that deal with systems that are presumably 'complete' systems of thought. I am not interested in learning new concepts for their own sake, but rather to fulfill this goal. For example, I don't learn about neural networks because they are cool and do cool/useful things, I am just interested in how they contribute to my own understanding and my own worldview. For this reason, the things I am interested in are entirely unique to me and my understanding, and I go through bursts of interest in seemingly random things that may offer new explanations that I might find useful to my uniquely-formed understanding of the world, like the structures of East Asian languages (because it feeds my model of linguistic systems) or how the nuclear arms race played out (because it feeds my model of social systems). I have no interest in learning everything at once because then it doesn't sink in and I can't conceptualize its form. I don't get a lot of enjoyment out of small facts/trivia unless they somehow contribute to a higher understanding of the relationships between abstractions. But if such a relationship exists, I trust myself to one day 'perceive' it (which leads me to believe this is either Ni or Ne).

So what I'm thinking is that it could either be Ti directed by Ni (an interest in concepts directed by an interest in abstractions/perceptions/explanations for behavior) or Ne directed by Fi (an interest in concepts directed by an interest in social/ethical systems). But I don't really understand the boundaries between the information elements so I don't know which combination is at play here.

[Adam Strange]

Ti-users are typically interested in systematically arrangable facts. Te-users are interested in facts as parts of a process.

Ne-users tend to bounce from one topic to another, while Ni-users tend to settle into one focus.

From your description of your interests, I'd say you are Ti-Ne, or LII.

[Sol]

your text is about Ti. if your ego functions have it and 2nd is N - it's Ne
you mb LII

you may make a videointerview to give more info to type you
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1096450

[Exodus]

Ti-users are typically interested in systematically arrangable facts. Te-users are interested in facts as parts of a process.

Ne-users tend to bounce from one topic to another, while Ni-users tend to settle into one focus.

From your description of your interests, I'd say you are Ti-Ne, or LII.

^ this

The fact that your interests apply to people is incidental. After all, socionics is about people but it is still Ti.

[Pookie]

The first sentence is all Ni, no Ne

[HolyKnowing]

The first sentence is all Ni, no Ne

The demonstrative function is the second most powerful function in Model A. The demonstrative function is used for mocking. For example, an ENTj who thinks paper personality tests are a sick joke would use his ▲ demonstrative to make the test output any result he wants. The hacker who subtly breaks a website by injecting malicious code is also using ▲ demonstrative.

The OP is probably LII, so he is using his demonstrative function △ to mock something that is attacking his PoLR ● in his first sentence. I don't know exactly what that issue is, but it's something.

[idontgiveaf]

Ti Ni

[para]

Sounds like a pretty on-point description of LII. LII is usually called the ''abstracting'' type afaik. I agree with posters that it is the focus on comparative systematicity that defines your lead, not the particularities of the subjects that you focus on. Ethical systems are also systems. Kant (often typed LII) was very interested in ethics, but in a very different way from, for example, Marcus Aurelius (often typed EII).

I'm very interested in the boundaries between abstractions as well, but i think my focus is more on what this reflects about the world. I'm keen on watching myself define/abstract (to analyse what it means that i do this) moreso than the abstractions themselves. This has driven me a bit away from the LII typing i used to agree on.

[The Reality Denialist]

Makes me wonder the Fi part more than just in mere sphere of interest which seems externally oriented. Just interested.

[Number 9 large]

fyi Ni and Ti dont go together, Ne and Ti do or Ni and Te.

[Beautiful sky]

Ni-Ti

[Blue]

This is pure Ti. I don’t see Ni.