Definition of :Ti:

[tcaudilllg]

In short, "who will win."

looks at competing known factors and guages their strength. It determines which forces will win out given a competition between all of them.

Example: boat runs against the current. Boat has velocity of 5, current has velocity of 10. Which way will the boat go? In the direction of the current.


In a dominant type, the producing function either illustrates what the world will be like given the outcome of 's conclusion, if paired with creative, or suggests a plan of action to accomplish 's conclusion in favor of the dominant's interest. (if paired with )

In a perceiving type, provides a method of warning of dangerous outcomes and a vehicle for self-determination.

[aestrivex]

terrible definition.

[FDG]

Incredible. I happen to agree completely with one of your posts

[Gilly]

Yeah, dude, that's really, really bad

[aestrivex]

Incredible. I happen to agree completely with one of your posts

had to happen sometime.

[tcaudilllg]

[FDG]

blowjob!

[Gilly]

LOL

[tcaudilllg]

Blast it all you want. Your definitions are no better.

[aestrivex]

lol

[Rocky]

Example: boat runs against the current. Boat has velocity of 5, current has velocity of 10. Which way will the boat go? In the direction of the current.

I read this over about seven times to see if there was any deeper meaning to it... but there isn't; it's all too stupid.

[Gilly]

Example: boat runs against the current. Boat has velocity of 5, current has velocity of 10. Which way will the boat go? In the direction of the current.

I read this over about seven times to see if there was any deeper meaning to it... but there isn't; it's all too stupid.

LOL

[aestrivex]

actually, the velocity of the current is totally irrelevant to the force it produces.

[krieger]

Let's drop the petty cynicism, boys. We get the idea of what you're about by now.

I would have described my own dominant function as 'a subjective weighing process that gauges and compares the merit of individual ideas'. Tcaud's description basically just enlarges the scope to include any situation in which powers are tested. It's good. Note how the comparison with augusta's description of Ti is not lost: http://www.socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml

The Sharp cereal professor says: 'Nope, nothing wrong here.' :wink:

(still pondering on how to integrate my descriptions with the Ne->Ti->Se thing... I wonder if they just preceed eachother or wether 'Ti' necessarily implies that change?)

[Gilly]

It englarges the scope, yes, but to the point that it is irrelevant to any discussion of socionics, and is thusly invalid as a definition of Ti. He's overdoing the Ne, basically.

[Rocky]

actually, the velocity of the current is totally irrelevant to the force it produces.

LOL, I almost forgot about that, but... F=MA. pwned nerd style

[aestrivex]

a=!v. rather a=v/t

and if we want to get technical v is a vector quantity so the stated quantities are totally meaningless.

[Exodus]

and if we want to get technical v is a vector quantity so the stated quantities are totally meaningless.

"boat runs against the current"
--That's pretty clear.

a=!v. rather a=v/t

Whether tc is talking about relative velocities or forces, the example is still correct (albeit stupid and irrelevant to Ti).

[tcaudilllg]

It englarges the scope, yes, but to the point that it is irrelevant to any discussion of socionics, and is thusly invalid as a definition of Ti. He's overdoing the Ne, basically.

Why didn't you say that?

I was trying to illustrate in a very concise, easily explainable statement. To be honest, I'm having tremendous difficulty trying to parse people's speech for information elements.

I've tried to use Rick's descriptions but I just can't translate them into something -I- can use. I'm sure other people find them useful but I don't. Instead I'm going to try using Augusta's definitions directly. With them I think I can give an excellent illustration of what it means to be a crosstype.

[aestrivex]

and if we want to get technical v is a vector quantity so the stated quantities are totally meaningless.

"boat runs against the current"
--That's pretty clear.

that's not the point; the point being that the velocities stated should be 5 and 10 in some specific directions. velocities without directions do not exist.
[/quote]

[Not A Communist Shill]

is a process (it runs over time) which conserves energy (being introverted) by comparing ideas etc. in the mind, and also by inducing their internal environment to act - like running experiments in the real world. This allows them to evaluate things + give them values etc.. is static because the type needs little analysis of objects in order to know what to do with them.

A type might ask 'if someone in my vicinity gets murdered, is this acceptable?', and conclude, after a while (the process) 'no, it isn't acceptable'. Then if a real situation arises, e.g. hearing about genocide in some African country etc., they'll conclude almost instantly 'Lots of people have been murdered, murder is wrong, therefore this news I have recieved is also wrong' (This is similar to , which is also Static and IxxJ).

(For comparision, Ixxp Dynamics have objects induce them to change, rather than the other way round (they are more passive to their environment, but more wary of time).

[Gilly]

Sub, what you describe in that second paragraph is : seeing the conceptual similarity in the two situations, and applying the same subjective rationale in both cases. That's why Ti works so well with Ne: Ti is subjective logic, but it is only subject to it's circumstance; if the circumstance is analagous, then the logic applies as well.

[Gilly]

It englarges the scope, yes, but to the point that it is irrelevant to any discussion of socionics, and is thusly invalid as a definition of Ti. He's overdoing the Ne, basically.

Why didn't you say that?

Because I'm a populist douchebag

[Rocky]

A type might ask 'if someone in my vicinity gets murdered, is this acceptable?', and conclude, after a while (the process) 'no, it isn't acceptable'. Then if a real situation arises, e.g. hearing about genocide in some African country etc., they'll conclude almost instantly 'Lots of people have been murdered, murder is wrong, therefore this news I have recieved is also wrong' (This is similar to , which is also Static and IxxJ).

This still seems like faulty reasoning... you're assuming that "bad" things cannot happen!

[Not A Communist Shill]

A type might ask 'if someone in my vicinity gets murdered, is this acceptable?', and conclude, after a while (the process) 'no, it isn't acceptable'. Then if a real situation arises, e.g. hearing about genocide in some African country etc., they'll conclude almost instantly 'Lots of people have been murdered, murder is wrong, therefore this news I have recieved is also wrong' (This is similar to , which is also Static and IxxJ).

This still seems like faulty reasoning... you're assuming that "bad" things cannot happen!

I don't understand - are you saying this is relative reasoning? - e.g. one thing is better or worse than another? I think a applies their own experience to a universal ideal - if it's bad for them, it's bad for everyone else - unless, they have reason to doubt this.

[Rocky]

A type might ask 'if someone in my vicinity gets murdered, is this acceptable?', and conclude, after a while (the process) 'no, it isn't acceptable'. Then if a real situation arises, e.g. hearing about genocide in some African country etc., they'll conclude almost instantly 'Lots of people have been murdered, murder is wrong, therefore this news I have recieved is also wrong' (This is similar to , which is also Static and IxxJ).

This still seems like faulty reasoning... you're assuming that "bad" things cannot happen!

I don't understand - are you saying this is relative reasoning? - e.g. one thing is better or worse than another? I think a applies their own experience to a universal ideal - if it's bad for them, it's bad for everyone else - unless, they have reason to doubt this.

You said, "murder is wrong, therefore this news I have recieved is also wrong" (!!!)

JUST because murder is wrong doesn't make it impossible to happen!

[Not A Communist Shill]

Sub, what you describe in that second paragraph is : seeing the conceptual similarity in the two situations, and applying the same subjective rationale in both cases. That's why Ti works so well with Ne: Ti is subjective logic, but it is only subject to it's circumstance; if the circumstance is analagous, then the logic applies as well.

Maybe - but from my experience (as an INTj?) you don't need to experience more than one murder to know that more murders are bad - the African thing might seem like applying a concept gained from personal experience to more abstract 'unexperienced' levels (e.g. a foreign country), but I was trying to show how a IxTj type applies from the personal to the universal.

[Gilly]

Yes, that is true. The problem for ISTjs is that sometimes they can't understand which concepts are analagous in nature, and misapply the rules. The problem for INTjs is that they don't understand that their rules sometimes play second fiddle to those of their environment.

[Not A Communist Shill]

A type might ask 'if someone in my vicinity gets murdered, is this acceptable?', and conclude, after a while (the process) 'no, it isn't acceptable'. Then if a real situation arises, e.g. hearing about genocide in some African country etc., they'll conclude almost instantly 'Lots of people have been murdered, murder is wrong, therefore this news I have recieved is also wrong' (This is similar to , which is also Static and IxxJ).

This still seems like faulty reasoning... you're assuming that "bad" things cannot happen!

I don't understand - are you saying this is relative reasoning? - e.g. one thing is better or worse than another? I think a applies their own experience to a universal ideal - if it's bad for them, it's bad for everyone else - unless, they have reason to doubt this.

You said, "murder is wrong, therefore this news I have recieved is also wrong" (!!!)

JUST because murder is wrong doesn't make it impossible to happen!

I meant if a type has eperienced one murder personally, and has come to the conclusion 'murder is wrong, as it ends life prematurely etc.' receiving a piece of news about mass genocide will make the type instantly think 'murder is wrong; so this event is wrong' - the type doesn't need to explore the reasons for the event or consider each murder\genocide on an individual basis - their opinion is already largely formed.

[Rocky]

Ahh, *morally* wrong... I misread it as *factually* wrong...

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes, that is true. The problem for ISTjs is that sometimes they can't understand which concepts are analagous in nature, and misapply the rules. The problem for INTjs is that they don't understand that their rules sometimes play second fiddle to those of their environment.

I think ISTjs and INTjs make their opinions\judgements on prior experience, not of the moment. So, ISTjs fulfil the power\order of an object in the here and now based on rules they have formulated about objects in the past, and INTjs have an idea of the potential of objects, also from prior experience.

[UDP]

In short, "who will win."

looks at competing known factors and guages their strength. It determines which forces will win out given a competition between all of them.

Example: boat runs against the current. Boat has velocity of 5, current has velocity of 10. Which way will the boat go? In the direction of the current.


In a dominant type, the producing function either illustrates what the world will be like given the outcome of 's conclusion, if paired with creative, or suggests a plan of action to accomplish 's conclusion in favor of the dominant's interest. (if paired with )

In a perceiving type, provides a method of warning of dangerous outcomes and a vehicle for self-determination.

I think I understand what you are getting at, but I have no idea how to comment on it right now.

[Exodus]

Ahh, *morally* wrong... I misread it as *factually* wrong...

This is a good point; can Ti really be used to make an ethical judgment like "Murder is wrong"?

[xiuxiu]

actually, the velocity of the current is totally irrelevant to the force it produces.

and this is irrelevant to the analogy. also why you are not intj.

[krieger]

This is a good point; can Ti really be used to make an ethical judgment like "Murder is wrong"?

I'm actually pretty sure that Ti is the only function that single handedly comes to that particular conclusion.

Fi's judgment would sound like: 'murder is disagreeable', after which 'murder is wrong' would follow as a natural second step.

Te would provide a string of reasonings as to why murder is detrimental to society and humanity (or anything that people in general can sharedly relate to).

Fe would put the general audience's feelings about murder into words.

[Rocky]

This is a good point; can Ti really be used to make an ethical judgment like "Murder is wrong"?

I'm actually pretty sure that Ti is the only function that single handedly comes to that particular conclusion.

Fi's judgment would sound like: 'murder is disagreeable', after which 'murder is wrong' would follow as a natural second step.

Te would provide a string of reasonings as to why murder is detrimental to society and humanity (or anything that people in general can sharedly relate to).

Fe would put the general audience's feelings about murder into words.

Basically, I disagree completely as "Murder is wrong" is far to broad a judgment.

[Rocky]

actually, the velocity of the current is totally irrelevant to the force it produces.

and this is irrelevant to the analogy. also why you are not intj.

How so? How could it be irrelevant? TC's conclusion was_wrong_and I don't think you could relate being wrong to a function.

[UDP]

Yes, that is true. The problem for ISTjs is that sometimes they can't understand which concepts are analagous in nature, and misapply the rules. The problem for INTjs is that they don't understand that their rules sometimes play second fiddle to those of their environment.

I agree with what Gilligan said about LSI / LII.

[Exodus]

labcoat, I agree that the thought process leading to the conclusion (as opposed to the conclusion itself) is definitely more type-related.

This is a good point; can Ti really be used to make an ethical judgment like "Murder is wrong"?

I'm actually pretty sure that Ti is the only function that single handedly comes to that particular conclusion.

Single-handedly? The possible lines of thought you give are reasonable. The Ti process might be something like, "A consequence of murder is X. X is bad, therefore murder is bad." However, this begs the question, what led one to think X is bad in the first place? It seems unlikely to me that moral first principles naturally come from Ti, although they can be contrived as such.

[krieger]

Yeah, I can't really defend what I wrote there... Just a personal belief. Jung postulated that introverted thinking arrives at conclusions by relating materials to 'archetypes'. Maybe there are archetypes that directly help us tell right from wrong, in the most fundamental of instances. One could argue that there is an evolutionary necessity for such a thing.