Purpose of this thread:
Ti definition:Many users wonder if having Ti not valued means automatically being illogical, unsuitable for science or other subjects. They then use these characteristics to type themselves or others. However, Ti function is not always well understood, in my opinion. Ti is very often considered as connected to profound Intelligence, "rationality" in the most common sense of the term. It leads to a general misunderstanding. I don't even think my interpretation is necessarily true. I'm just looking for a comparison with other users.
- The basic definition of function considers it as the tendency of the individual to package information, synthesize them, and consider them in their consequentiality, often starting from "small pieces" of information, to build a personal reconstruction of an "object", whom varies according to the configuration of the function of that type.
- It also allows the individual to be truly confident about his structure, by virtue of the fact that he gives value to that consequentiality, because every little piece of the structure he creates has a weight and force of self-determination. "2 + 2 = 4 , I have no reason to doubt this result". This confidence is almost always carried by the individual even in what cannot be proved mathematically. As if he had invented an objective "mathematics" (or "physics") for the phenomena that surround him. Each piece of his machine has its own function in that large structure, and he is sure of it. It doesn't matter whether their structure is right or wrong (objectively speaking). They will believe it as if it were objective and the others were blind. "Confidence" (of this structure) is a keyword of the function under consideration, which solves most of the doubts related to this function.
The thesis in question is that the individual with high use of this function does NOT have the most rational logic of all. It's just that to understand things he needs to reconstruct a structure of those in his own way, ignoring the pre-existing models (plus LII / LSI), or bending them to his own idea (plus ILE / SLE). Therefore, a structure that is the manifestation of what is rational for him (not what is more rational per se or recognized as such from others).
This works well with mostly "objective" subjects, such as mathematics, and often individuals are more interested in these subjects than others.
I will show concrete examples using people I've analyzed for years and towards which I have no doubt about their sociotype. They are individuals who have extremely stereotyped characteristics of their type, and which I have found in many other individuals of the same type. For now I want to focus on the opposite poles of Ti: those who have Ti as the first or second function, and those who has it as PolR. Other cases will be exposed later.
Ti Lead- INTj
I (IEE) was talking to a LII friend about the criminals and the punishments that should be given to them.
I argued that, in the absence of a punitive law, no one is afraid of the judgment of the court, since in similar cases the penalties are few (in Italy). A few years in prison, or probation, even for serious facts. By intensifying penalties, the perception of crime would be different, and fewer people would choose the path of crime because of the risks it would entail.
Conversely, LII argued that every criminal is mentally ill, because if he were not ill he would not do what he does. For him there is no lucidity in brutality or thievery. There is always a state of mind that must be treated not with jail, but only with social help and psychiatric consultation: "Jail should not exist".
In my opinion, this was a completely irrational thought, but it made perfect sense to him (due to his own logical structure).
I totally took a stand against this idea, and the next day I brought him a psychiatry textbook, kindly lent by my medical student friend, where they stated exactly that crime is not itself to be attributed to a psychiatric problem, since many of they show lucidity in committing the crime. The document listed various reasons why this analogy could not be made (although I thought it unnecessary to even consult a manual for such a thing).
His answer was that this is not the case and that sooner or later it will be discovered in his opinion that it is as he said. He literally ignores the thought structures of others in favor of his own. He appears inflexible, with an innate confidence of an extremely subjective thought.
His family owns an association that cares for the sick and disabled, and he is very interested in that. The problem from my point of view is the use of quasi-mechanical models in his understanding of human problem solving (he studies engineering). However, this is ineffective both with others and with oneself.
He openly expresses heavy personal judgments about people in front of them, regardless of the anger that the listener may feel. He does not consider his opinion, but truth. Therefore he often judges acts that are also very normal and not negative, just because they do not follow his logic. According to him, all people are like machines and his standardized method of resolution applies to everyone equally. When he finds himself in the same problems that he criticizes others, he cannot use the extreme coldness that he suggests to others, since the emotions (which he claims to hate so much) are awakened in him.
XLE (ESTp, Se-Ti):
Regarding SLEs and ILEs, the construction of these structures is a mobile becoming, which means that these same thought patterns can vacillate and be modified or radically changed even in a short time, leading to an apparent irrationality to the outside, which he tries to hide or just explain with the use of a demonstrative Te (showing through a more accepted filter their idea).
People often struggle to understand the "why" of the actions of an SLE or the words of an ILE etc.
For them, experience becomes a testing ground, where they can understand what works and what doesn't work to win the favour of others, both in terms of personal advantages/hierarchy(SLE) and in the construction and external validation of one's own logical idea/structure (ILE). It's a kind of game with small goals at a time to reach a more general point.
An SLE I knew enjoyed creating contexts in which he put everyone else in a state of misunderstanding and tension state.
He left one girl and took another one, and then he said did to make her fall in love with him and then leave her, just for revenge (which is unmotivated because she hadn't done anything to hurt him), then he returned to his ex, then again he left her and returned to the previous one. Meanwhile, he told many people invented dialogues about the only friends who supported him to make them be considered weak and envious of him. His were dynamics of power and conquest. The desire to be above the hierarchy and wanting to make everyone think they are the best at expense of others.
So many small goals that changed in place of his impulsiveness to prove it. He tried to give the impression that his actions were perfectly logical and cohesive, explaining that he was acting for a well-defined reason, at times almost shakespearean (Te demonstrative), but in the end he was betraying himself in practice. Demonstrative Te of the type tries to use or bend external structures for the explanation of its own personal structure, without there being any real interest in this source.
Apparently there is an intention to rationalize with Te a structure that is only theirs.
Ti polR SEE / IEE
In this position, the individual lacks the confidence of his own structures, as well as the interest in considering the consequentiality of events in short time, ignoring it.
He may know clearly that by saying or doing certain things he may lose the future benefits defined, for example, by a friendship or partner (SEE) or he may miss any opportunity of various kinds (IEE), but in the present moment he is not valuing it as a future vantage (SEE), or they don't consider advantage per se (IEE), being moved by Fi.
The world is full of advantages and opportunities, and this allows them to detach themselves in the present. Still, repentance is not uncommon, because they have not taken into account that he may still need it, as perhaps no further opportunities have actually arisen the next days.
This happened with the same EII twice, with two different SEEs.
The SEE insistently asks an EII friend to let her go out with her group of friends (where the ex-boyfriend and / or people, who hate her for the manias of protagonism, are present). EII says it cannot do this, because she has to preserve the mood of the group. SEE goes crazy and instead of thinking about all the benefits she would get from keeping her friendship with the one person who can stand her, she decides to scold her and blame her for things that never happened and then vanishing and making ghosting to the EII.
The advantage that the SEE wants to obtain in the immediate present is perceived as a necessary need. There is no interest in the consequentiality of the actions. She doesn't think "If I argue with her I won't be able to go out (having not so much friends) / I won't be able to make her change her mind and let me go our with her if I insult her." or others possibilities.
He preferred to lose everything immediately. She regrets it and tries to become friends with EII again, which she accepted the first time, but not the second.
For the second SEE it happened the same thing with just a few variations. Also, I have tons of others SEE cases registered in my notes which are similiar to this.
A IEE friend often has arguments with his friends. He generates very often ideas and logical concepts. They align a lot with general objectivity even when he doesn't use external sources (often they are only used to confirm his ideas at a later time).
Yet when someone else shows him a different structure of thought, even if it is wrong, he is very afraid of it. His belief in his own idea seems to waver, despite the quality of the information and structure. Despite the calm tone of the conversation, he immediately tries to argue and make it clear why the other is wrong, making a speech into which he throws bits of information that are disconnected (or that needs a lot of analysis to be properly reconstructed), until the whole argument seems to lose its meaning and the IEE appears very nervous. He falls in his Se role overreacting state.
He begins to feel a sense of shame, because for fear of the collapse of his structure he has exaggerated in behavior.
When he argues with a SEE friend they both "fight" using seemingly unrelated pieces of information relating topics. At the same time, they are both capable of logical thoughts, often very "objective" (as much as a thing may be). They often manage to stand up to ILE arguments. The problem still remains the confidence in their structure. In general, statistically they are found less in the study of scientific subjects, but they do not appear at all illogical or incapable. Their interest could simply be low and not allow them to cultivate those subjects fully and with enough concentration, but if they are passionate enough, anything is possible.
[Thread will be edited and improved soon]