I don't know of anyone who still thinks I'm a Ti type. Let's ask.Originally Posted by Rocky
Most everyone on this forum who was here since you claimed to be entp are probably still wondering why you ever changed your mind.
a recent question: Ti vs. Te
I don't know of anyone who still thinks I'm a Ti type. Let's ask.Most everyone on this forum who was here since you claimed to be entp are probably still wondering why you ever changed your mind.
Rocky, since the search function isn't cooperating for me, we might as well have this discussion here. I'll start with some descriptions:
From Rick's site...
Ti: logical relationships between objects: systems of rules, hierarchies, comparisons of quantifiable properties, logical judgmentsFrom this site...Te: external activity of objects: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms
Ti: objective, outwardly measurable relationships between objects - laws, regulations, rules, categories, quantifiable properties, logic, analysis, belonging, authorship, hierarchy, subordination, objective judgments
Positive(short range):
Reality, detail, detailed study, carefulness, severity, place in hierarchies, laws, decisions, instructions, a choice of the best variant, logic of the organization,
Negative (long range):
abstraction, generality, universality, system, classification, typology, the general laws, objectivity, true, validity, the analysis, logic of a science, criteria.From socion.info...Te: external activity of object - actions, events (what, how, where), facts, activity or work, algorithms, procedures, logic of objects’ measurable outward behavior
Positive(short range):
Advantage, benefit, profitability, technology, the facts, purchases, accumulation, the purchase, savings, putting in order, a practicality;
Negative (long range):
Uselessness, unprofitableness, use, application, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, experiment, sale, trade, actions in conditions of chaos, an ingenuity.
ENTp by Function
Ti: The second function of the ENTp is Ti, by which objective logic substantiates itself through various thought processes. 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. Being an introverted function, Ti has an active ability to self-sustain itself and moves actively between an objective mental world located in the future and past in order to sustain itself as an active function.
Te: The eigth function of the this type is Te. Strong and lacking, it remains to the ENTp something to be loathed. Though some use may come from this function in the tracking of events, patterns, and simple gauging of current thought, this function remains the vehicle by which tradition establishes itself and the foreign get thrown out. For the ENTp, Te truly represents all that inferiority is and the uselessness of false potential, and so long as old thought is and there remains something to be cherished, traditional systematic logic stands before the new! Disloyalty to a cherished, strong, and qualified system of personal logic will never interest an ENTp!bblENTj by Function
Te: The first function of the ENTj is Te, by which objective logic substantiates itself through various thought processes. With this function, it is possible to collect multiple thoughts, modes and trends of thinking in order to register them into a structured and growing databank of strong, factual knowledge. Te also maintains an active neutral stance on all of the whole of its inputs, even if the whole of the input of one thought process conflicts with any of the other core processes it remains non-biased and registers them all as equals. Probably the most powerful aspect of Te is the power to not only stay well informed of new ideas, trends, and changing modes of thinking that may be utterly critical to survival in competitive atmospheres, but the ability to convince through logical implementations objectively designed to reorganize and even direct the thinking of others into certain modes of logical reasoning. Being an extroverted function, Te cannot derive data from within and must amass information from outside of itself and in the here and now to survive as a function or at all.
Ti: The seventh function of the this type is Ti. Strong and lacking, it remains to the ENTj something to be loathed. Though some use may come from this function in the analysis of thought, structure, and logic, this function remains the vehicle by which the old becomes abandoned and the new comes about. For the ENTj, Ti truly represents all that inferiority is and the uselessness of false potential, and so long as new ways of thinking emerge and there remains something to be considered, out with the old and in with the new! Loyalty to a strong qualified stream of thought will never interest an ENTj!
Something I wrote as an exaggerated demonstration of the difference between Te and Ti:
bblUsing the bookshelf example from Expat's thread in Gamma, Ti types have a perfect place for each bit of information which corresponds with all of the other information that's already there... a place for everything and everything in its place. If something can't be made to fit with the system that's already there (as well as it's components), it isn't added.
Te has no qualms about holding onto information that doesn't fit into a system or contradicts some of the other bits of information it has. It's willing to wait to see what new information comes along to answer the question before tossing out old information. It's okay for a Te type to entertain the information because it can easily accept it as "truth" momentarily without feeling like doing so means that it's absolutely true and a definite belief. It's not a big deal to have incorrect or contradictory information in the system because little if any of it is held onto as an intrinsic part of the system itself. If it's removed, it won't need to rebuild some other part of the system which was built around it. Information can get tossed at any point... there's no hurry to do it unless it's obvious that it's time. And even when something is thrown into the trash pile, it doesn't end up actually being discarded right away.
"Using the bookshelf example from Expat's thread in Gamma, Ti types have a perfect place for each bit of information which corresponds with all of the other information that's already there... a place for everything and everything in its place. If something can't be made to fit with the system that's already there (as well as it's components), it isn't added. "
This is indeed bullshit. Can you picture an ESTp rejecting objective reality in order not to change its Ti? Never. I just change the model.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I'm bored, so I might as well join the online sensation that is "Determine Joy's Type." And so begins the rare time I'll attempt to type someone over the internet...
In order of frequency of manifestation, I perceive>
=
>
Her primary theme of communication when not discussing her type (with which I imagine even she's getting a bit annoyed) seems to be ethical in nature. She likes to talk about herseems practically ignored (fitting for a PoLR should
@FDG I'd say it's more of an immaturity thing thing than a type thing. Anyone rejecting objective reality and sticking with some theory invented in his/her mind isn't expressing a different function, he or she is being close-minded and remaining willfully ignorant. Any mature person should change his/her beliefs when those beliefs prove to be inaccurate,
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
My bookshelf model was intended to describe two functions fighting within the same individual, not actual behaviors.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
That's more reasonable. It does seem rather extreme, but I suppose that's just the nature of the style of the description.
I suppose I should go find this thread and read it in its original context.
That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this. (A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.) - Friedrich Nietzsche
The problem is that I clearly write of Ti and Te as functions, and somehow people read it as Ti and Te as types, or even individuals, which is beyond me.
That's the key there.... it's not that Te will except any bullshit it's presented with or that Ti is incapable of considering new information or changes in reality... it's more of a matter of tendencies when considering that new information. Te is able to more easily "accept" it (more on that later) without having to reject contradictory information. Ti can learn something new and either accept it into it's existing structured logical structure of information or alter the existing logical structure of information in order for it to fit.
When Te "accepts" something, it is not in a solid or absolute manner. It sees the new information as a probability, something which appears to be the case.
When Ti accepts something, it truly accepts it. Ti is like a tree... any new branch is connected to existing branches and will sprout new branches from it. It's all interconnected. If it needs to get rid of a branch, it can be a problem because all of the branches going from it are dependent on it. This is why it is hesitant to accept something as fact... if it later needs to remove it, it's not that simple because all of the branches growing from it will need to go, too.
Te is more like a pile of branches. New branches can be added and taken away pretty easily. Even if an existing branch has other branches piled on it, it's relatively easy to rearrange those branches so that they can stay if that branch is removed. However, it won't accept any old crap into the pile; it has to be useful.
Now, both Te types and Ti types have a tree(s) and a pile, but Ti's focus is on the tree. Te's focus is on the pile, and there are many, many trees that the pile derives it's branches from trees (often other people's trees), and it understands the trees reasonably well. As Expat said, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that a person is pure Ti or pure Te or think that any of these descriptions are all that there is to a person or describe the only way a person could ever behave.
How does this apply to irl? Ti types have a logical structure of information and if it hears/reads something new, weighs it against that logical structure and makes a decision based on that. If it's presented with enough evidence to show that the new information must be true, then it starts the long process of changing it's logical structure of information.
A Ti type is more likely to say, "I trust my understanding of socionics, and that description does not fit into it. That type description is wrong." It would have to see pretty strong evidence to the contrary in order to start changing its understanding of socionics.
A Te type is more likely to say, "Interesting... there's something in that type description that doesn't fit with other things I've read. I'll keep that in mind," and then when considering a person's type, it will recall and consider that description as well as other descriptions that it's read. It will weigh various triats that the person possesses and decide what that person's type most likely is... for now. It's open to change at any point if new information suggests differently.
Te is more practical. It's about how things get accomplished. It's about exactly what's happening around it. It concerns itself with efficiency.
Ti is more of a mind thing. It's internal. It takes in information through it's corresponding percieving function and then anaylzes it's meaning and places it into the structure of it's logic (or discards it).
That's a very interesting observation. I'm not sure how to respond. That could very well be. The problem is that I definitely need more Fi from my partner than Te. I also definitely need more Se than Ni. Ni is my strongest function, imo. My logic is not as "structured" in a Ti fashion as a logical subtype ENTj, but it is my second strongest function as far as I can tell. I know I value Fi, but I don't see myself as having strong Fi. I often don't really understand the depth or meaning of my relationships with others, and I defitely don't have well defined morals and likes and dislikes. I often don't really know how I feel about others much of the time, and I certainly don't know how they feel about me. Even if they express their feelings about me in one way or another, it's not something I easily understand or know how to respond to. If someone asks me how I feel about a person, I often have an "I dunno, they're okay" response, and in conversations about whether something is right or wrong, good or bad, I often respond a similar way, "I dunno."She likes to talk about her
Looking at the recent drama on the forum... if an ESFp was attacked the way I was, how do you think she'd respond? The ESFps I've known get right back in someone's face if they're directly attacked. They see that person as an "enemy" and do a lot of "nasty" things to hurt that person. It becomes sort of a war... it doesn't matter why the other person is attacking as much as it does that they have a new enemy. The ESFp doesn't laugh it off and certainly doesn't let it go all that easily unless there's a change in the relationship between her and her enemy. The only reason that any of that happened was because I didn't simply ignore an attack the way I usually would because I was having a very bad day... and then things escalated that day and the next. By that time I was fine again, at which point I was like "oh brother, this is ridiculous... can we just forget about this please?" Even during the bad day though, I never "attacked" the way a Se type would. I calmly criticized what was said and laughed at the situation. And through the whole thing, none of it was ever personal. I never saw anyone as an enemy. It was just fun to have someone to bitch at when I was having a bad day. My opinion/feelings for the person/people involved never changed... they weren't any different than they were when I was getting along with that person a while back. My "feelings" for her/them were never strong in a positive or negative way. Ect.
I can talk about that more later if anyone wants me to expand, but right now I gotta go.
(of course, the tree example doesn't work in that in order to use the branches from a tree you have to remove them, but I think it gets the point across)
I think Joy has individually evolved the ability to exchange
would be her 8th function. If she were a Ni-Ne subconsicious type, then she would scrutinize the internal evolution patterns she believed possible by examining the possibilities posed by others. This would lend itself to limiting her creativity to the unconscious ways of the 8th function.
Consider, for example, her practice of discussing every new bit of professionally produced socionics information she comes across with us. She will share her perspective on it, but only after we have ourselves discussed our views of what the information might mean. These views act as a filter for her own perspective. She will not explore a
Consider by contrast the work of Expat, who will seek to reveal the conflicts of our priorities between each other so as to create a positive change in our internal processes. The shadow of
So in conclusion, I believe Joy limits her
lol I have no idea what you're talking about
Let's put it this way: what is your *ideal* for the world? Where do you *dream* about taking people, about how you affect them?
The world? I don't really have an ideal for the world. It will be what it will be. I will donate funds when and where I am moved to do so, but I will not put effort into trying to change others. They'll be as stupid as they want to be with or without my involvement, so it would not be wise for me to try to interfere.
The only people I concern myself with is those close to me, particularly my family. My "dream" for my family would be that everyone is healthy, happy, and close. And no one ever has to work because we'll all have created enough passive income (such as through real estate, businesses, or intellectual property) to more than support our lifestyle and future investments indefinitely. And we'll travel together and discuss our various investments and other ventures.
To all, i think talk about what you can and can't do with each function is not warranted, and also simple definitions which combine what you can do with them and not into the definitions; this practice unravels into talk about which is better than the other. I noticed that the descriptions sort of have arguments in them against one another, for example Te doesn't hold onto tree branches or have a dewey decimal system because of the same criteria that makes Ti wrong.. perhaps it is an impossible task to present information otherwise, though?
Expat: were you referring to FDG's post? Are you saying that if a Ti person makes a change in the model, that it must be credited to a different function? for example, a Ti person using Te?
Also... I still don't have a definite opinion on your type, joy. I don't know what Rocky meant but he didn't have to mean that most people think you are a Ti type. My own observations have seen that you do seem to want to clarify things a lot in terms of something not ALWAYS being the case or with meanings of statements, referring instead to motivations. though it could be just in response to types that have difficulty receiving the information you present. I had been from time to time analyzing those types which would allow for not as strong a differentiation between the T functions. I do regret not having a good real life type base. It would all be theoretical anyhow, socionics being what it is. It all boils down to making an argument, and maybe one can't be made with what data i have or even that can be, i'd venture to say.
Yeah and the only person i know who CAN SOMETIMES not change his mind when confronted by facts is INFj. It's often more about the individuals than the types when it comes to such radical tendencies (If the tendency surprises you, it may be because it manifests itself rarely in people). Don't forget Expat's explanation of his descriptions. Describing a function doesn't mean describing 4 types with that function in their ego block. BTW the post was not addressed to you, FDG. The quote was for context purposes.
That's the key there.... it's not that Te will except any bullshit it's presented with or that Ti is incapable of considering new information or changes in reality... it's more of a matter of tendencies when considering that new information. Te is able to more easily "accept" it (more on that later) without having to reject contradictory information. Ti can learn something new and either accept it into it's existing structured logical structure of information or alter the existing logical structure of information in order for it to fit.
But how can they be described if not in their real manifestations in idividuals and types?
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
They're components of real manifestations in individuals and types.
Yes, but the problem is this: in describing the component, you imply that the traits of the component will be deciding factors in a type which hold that component in the leading position.
The logic works like this: you can describe a component and describe the characteristics of its manifestation as the leader, but not describe the manifestations of its leadership as the characteristics of the component. A implies B but B does not imply A.
And that is exactly what sets you apart from a fully conscious type. You have no hope of your ability to effect change in the world on a macro scale, because your perception of the facts is bound by the reality in front of you and your horizons constrained by the imaginations of others. Contrast your philosophy with that of ENTj Al Gore, for example. (Gore being an idealist who attempts to reorient group priorities toward the end of focusing their internal processes toward the goal of respect for the environment)The world? I don't really have an ideal for the world. It will be what it will be. I will donate funds when and where I am moved to do so, but I will not put effort into trying to change others. They'll be as stupid as they want to be with or without my involvement, so it would not be wise for me to try to interfere.
And of course, an ENTj is never content to let the world be "what it will be." It is always in their power to reorient the processes of the world if only they can create a change in collective priorities.
Your own behavior is distinct from the ENTj in that you are using
To be accurately described as real manifestations in individuals and types, you have to do something like Stratiyevskaya's 15-page descriptions. That is certainly the best way of doing it, but most people obviously are not willing to read such descriptions (not necessarily hers), nor to try to distillate from them what the individual functions mean.But how can they be described if not in their real manifestations in idividuals and types?
We all know, or should now, what Jung himself already said: both a pure Te person and a pure Ti person, if they exist, belong in a lunatic asylum. My examples are actually descriptions of such lunatic behavior, in an attempt to make people realize that real persons are combinations of the two, with varying degrees of preference.
If you want to describe how a Te person actually behaves, realistically, differently from a Ti person, realistically, you're back to very long descriptions that perhaps obscure what each function actually does.
Well, sure, but my hope was that by describing an exaggerated manifestation as leader, people could glimpse the characteristic of the component. That was my intention all along.Yes, but the problem is this: in describing the component, you imply that the traits of the component will be deciding factors in a type which hold that component in the leading position.
The logic works like this: you can describe a component and describe the characteristics of its manifestation as the leader, but not describe the manifestations of its leadership as the characteristics of the component. A implies B but B does not imply A.
Short descriptions will be ideal to train your gut understanding. Then you might appreciate them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote