What is Ti?

[Dioklecian]

What processes does it notice and deal with? Its' supposed to notice how thing are likely to develope.

[meatburger]

Ti is the process of thinking and putting things togehter with thoughts. It is used to be coherently about thinking to make things logically form around thoughts.

Clear as mud?

[Logos]

Ti is the process of thinking and putting things togehter with thoughts. It is used to be coherently about thinking to make things logically form around thoughts.

Clear as mud?

Ti makes mud clear.

[Phaedrus]

Ti is the process of thinking and putting things togehter with thoughts. It is used to be coherently about thinking to make things logically form around thoughts.

No, it is not.

[Exodus]

Its' supposed to notice how thing are likely to develope.

[science as magic]

is inference

[Phaedrus]

is inference

No, it is not.

[FDG]

is inference

No, it is not.

It's logical consistency in thought and behaviour (you can't say no - it's not an opinion but a fact)

[XoX]

is inference

No, it is not.

It's logical consistency in thought and behaviour (you can't say no - it's not an opinion but a fact)

Elaborate more on the logical consistency in behaviour? I'm starting to understand Ni and Ne but I still have some problems with separating Ti and Te in practice.

[Phaedrus]

Logical consistency in behaviour is correct, but consistency in thought is not solely a thing. We don't manage to single out from other functions by saying that it is "inference" or "logical thinking" or something like that. The essential nature of is something else.

[FDG]

Logical consistency in behaviour is correct, but consistency in thought is not solely a thing. We don't manage to single out from other functions by saying that it is "inference" or "logical thinking" or something like that. The essential nature of is something else.

You also gotta think that even if you are INTp (unlikely) you utilize Ti, so even an INTp can be logically consistent in thought (of course); the Ti PoLRs will ecounter more difficulty.

XoX: Consistency in behaviour means that the behaviour is led by certain rules, and every action is evalated from the standpoint of the coherence (or lack of it) of those rules. This, of course, gives the appearance of inflexibility to Ti-dominants, since the rules aren't necessarily taken from the real world (Te) but are sometimes seeminly arbitrary (however, the Ti dominant will still be consistent in its arbitrariness - I think there is a line about this in an ISTj description).

[science as magic]

Ti seems to infer relations between objects with close proximity to one another. in this way it reminds me of in an odd manner. i believe this is why is thought to involve spatial relations. my earlier statement was not meant to deal solely (or even primarily) with the study of inference

[XoX]

Logical consistency in behaviour is correct, but consistency in thought is not solely a thing. We don't manage to single out from other functions by saying that it is "inference" or "logical thinking" or something like that. The essential nature of is something else.

You also gotta think that even if you are INTp (unlikely) you utilize Ti, so even an INTp can be logically consistent in thought (of course); the Ti PoLRs will ecounter more difficulty.

XoX: Consistency in behaviour means that the behaviour is led by certain rules, and every action is evalated from the standpoint of the coherence (or lack of it) of those rules. This, of course, gives the appearance of inflexibility to Ti-dominants, since the rules aren't necessarily taken from the real world (Te) but are sometimes seeminly arbitrary (however, the Ti dominant will still be consistent in its arbitrariness - I think there is a line about this in an ISTj description).

But can Ti dominants be seen as having "holistic consistency of behavior" and Ti creatives be seen as having "situational consistency of behavior"?

[FDG]

Logical consistency in behaviour is correct, but consistency in thought is not solely a thing. We don't manage to single out from other functions by saying that it is "inference" or "logical thinking" or something like that. The essential nature of is something else.

You also gotta think that even if you are INTp (unlikely) you utilize Ti, so even an INTp can be logically consistent in thought (of course); the Ti PoLRs will ecounter more difficulty.

XoX: Consistency in behaviour means that the behaviour is led by certain rules, and every action is evalated from the standpoint of the coherence (or lack of it) of those rules. This, of course, gives the appearance of inflexibility to Ti-dominants, since the rules aren't necessarily taken from the real world (Te) but are sometimes seeminly arbitrary (however, the Ti dominant will still be consistent in its arbitrariness - I think there is a line about this in an ISTj description).

But can Ti dominants be seen as having "holistic consistency of behavior" and Ti creatives be seen as having "situational consistency of behavior"?

That sounds reasonable as a conclusion, however I do not know how to match it with my observations right now.

[krieger]

gives a focus on premisses that are implicitly present in the context of a problem.

It allows one a window into the absolute bottom-line of certainty in any situation.

distrusts outside knowledge. The emphasis is on the immediate known apart from what fact and law prescribe. According to it, knowledge and belief are interchangeable.

starts with the capacity, and secondarily considers the problem. The problem is disdained and stripped of it's power.

interprets actions and occurances as manifestations of volitional choice.

[anndelise]

gives a focus on premisses that are implicitly present in the context of a problem.

Ti would be focused on some portions that are explicitly presented.
Combined with Ne would allow one to notice some implicits as well.
Combined with Se keeps one focusing on the explicits.

[krieger]

= structural logic.

Structure is not something one perceives directly. Structure is the manner in which parts are arranged. You don't see it by looking at each part individually, but by taking in all parts as a whole. This is what I mean by 'implicitly present'. You can't point at one part of the thing you are describing and say 'that is it's structure'. You have to reconstellate the parts in order to convey what you saw through .

External judgment is what I call a premisse. It is a limiting factor (judgment) that comes in well-defined form, where conformity to said limitation is expressible in... *edit*

[anndelise]

= structural logic.

Structure is not something one perceives directly. Structure is the manner in which parts are arranged. You don't see it by looking at each part individually, but by taking in all parts as a whole. This is what I mean by 'implicitly present'. You can't point at one part of the thing you are describing and say 'that is it's structure'. You have to reconstellate the parts in order to convey what you saw through .

This is describing Ti combined with Ne.

[krieger]

Believe what you will.

[science as magic]

interprets actions and occurances as manifestations of volitional choice.

i have a problem with this. this format does not last beyond a certain stage wherein will is interrupted. in addition many formats deny choice such as fatalism, nihilism, and causation.

i actually agree with ann as well. need not be used in the context of "wholes" or "overarching structures." it can be used in any subset/superset of contextual variation.

works with things like this:

Which group does not fit?







where it encounters problems is in situations like this:

Which group does not fit?

[anndelise]

ooh ooh ooh

the carrot doesn't fit.
it does not contain seeds within itself, the seeds are in the planty part (i think!!)
and it doesn't matter if tomatos are considered a fruit or a vegetable....both tomatos and strawberries grow on a plant and have seeds from the flesh part of the plant as opposed to the leafy/stalky/green parts of them.




(I generally hated those kinds of tests in school, because I could usually find various connections between each of the parts given.)

Edited to add: Hey, you changed it!!!!

[science as magic]

yes such as in my second proposition. i believe this is why exfp does not "trust" . however it would be naive to disregard it altogether as all that would need to be done would be to recognize all of the possible "structures" that could be formed. this is also why i believe that exfp need not have weak . with that said i do not think you are exfp anndelise

[XoX]

works with things like this:

Which group does not fit?

Just to test if I get this at all...Carrots, Apples,Strawberries...well one is vegetable, one is fruit and one is berry so it can't be that...but well...carrots grow underground and strawberries and apples hang from a "thing" so based on this carrots don't fit...then apples and strawberries have seeds (even though strawberries have seeds outside and apples inside). Carrots apparently don't have seeds so even though this is a weak case you can say that again carrots don't fit. Umm I'm bored figuring out new ways to categorize them so I just say carrots don't fit. What is the right answer and why?

Edit: Oh it was already answered and then you have changed it and stuff. Now this confuses me
Edit 2: Lol I only now noticed that there were two sets of pics. I must learn to read the whole post before answering I guess (not to mention reading the whole thread).

[anndelise]

yes such as in my second proposition. i believe this is why exfp does not "trust" . however it would be naive to disregard it altogether as all that would need to be done would be to recognize all of the possible "structures" that could be formed. this is also why i believe that exfp need not have weak . with that said i do not think you are exfp anndelise

i'm pretty sure most exfps have issues with test questions like that second.
I'd even propose that an exfp would be more bugged by that type of question than an extp would.

[science as magic]

I'd even propose that an exfp would be more bugged by that type of question than an extp would.

I'd suggest that an extreme logical subtype of the ixtj that has not encountered such before would be equally perplexed because they would want "an answer." this could lead to them arbitrarily choosing one which again is not necessarily a logical error as long as it is juxtaposed against other possible structural formations.

[XoX]

(I generally hated those kinds of tests in school, because I could usually find various connections between each of the parts given.)

I still don't quite see what was the point of PTL but I can whole heartedly agree to this. I generally find a lot of connections and I have some problems deciding which one is the preferred one. Is this because of strong Ne or weak Ti or what? These kind of questions are quite common in many tests and it can be frustrating to get stuck in a test question where you can find two or more contradicting but somewhat equally viable groupings and only one should be selected.

[FDG]

I'd even propose that an exfp would be more bugged by that type of question than an extp would.

I'd suggest that an extreme logical subtype of the ixtj that has not encountered such before would be equally perplexed because they would want "an answer." this could lead to them arbitrarily choosing one which again is not necessarily a logical error as long as it is juxtaposed against other possible structural formations.

IDK, upon seeing the pic I immediatly though (the second pic I mean): easy, carrots because they are less round than the other two

[science as magic]

a prime example of why i said that encounters problems in such situations

[FDG]

a prime example of why i said that encounters problems in such situations

true!

[krieger]

According to my views, both XoX and Anndelise answered the question using extrovert functions.

[XoX]

a prime example of why i said that encounters problems in such situations

true!

Umm? Explain further what problems are we talking about

[FDG]

a prime example of why i said that encounters problems in such situations

true!

Umm? Explain further what problems are we talking about

I reached hastily a conclusion that is based on premises that are arbitrary

[anndelise]

I'd even propose that an exfp would be more bugged by that type of question than an extp would.

I'd suggest that an extreme logical subtype of the ixtj that has not encountered such before would be equally perplexed because they would want "an answer." this could lead to them arbitrarily choosing one which again is not necessarily a logical error as long as it is juxtaposed against other possible structural formations.

yes, i can see an ixtj that has not encountered such before would be equally perplexed.
key phrase being "not encountered before".
when I was in school (it probably still happens), it was common to use these kinds of questions to show one's thinking abilities. key phrase being "common" as in "commonly encountered" In many cases, the "correct" answer seemed rather arbitrary and/or limited to the teacher's own experiences.

If I was given such a question that I had not encountered before, my motivation to seek an answer would determine how much effort I'd put into figuring out the answer. My motivation would be dependant upon why am i being asked to do this, am I interested in this, and/or what effect will knowing this answer have upon other things in mine or someone else's life.

[anndelise]

According to my views, both XoX and Anndelise answered the question using extrovert functions.

In order to answer the questions, a person has to create/notice relationships between the objects. That is an Xi function.

[science as magic]

In order to answer the questions, a person has to create/notice relationships between the objects. That is an Xi function.

you are drifting :wink:

if it is possible to have translations between Xi and Xe thought then why can those translations not occur directly at the object in question rather than after it has been absorbed into the determiner?

[XoX]

a prime example of why i said that encounters problems in such situations

true!

Umm? Explain further what problems are we talking about

I reached hastily a conclusion that is based on premises that are arbitrary

Oh that. I think my problems are almost opposite to that i.e. arriving in too many logically solid conclusions and unable to choose which is the "right" one. I generally need some quantitative criteria in order to make a choice reliably. E.g. if I have to pick one of tomatoes, carrots and strawberries based on some qualitative or hidden criteria it is annoying. If i have to pick one of tomatoes, carrots and strawberries based on which would be the most healthy to eat or most profitable to grow etc then it gets easier as I can quantify the decision making process and arrange them according to that.

[anndelise]

I reached hastily a conclusion that is based on premises that are arbitrary

Oh that. I think my problems are almost opposite to that i.e. arriving in too many logically solid conclusions and unable to choose which is the "right" one. I generally need some quantitative criteria in order to make a choice reliably. E.g. if I have to pick one of tomatoes, carrots and strawberries based on some qualitative or hidden criteria it is annoying. If i have to pick one of tomatoes, carrots and strawberries based on which would be the most healthy to eat or most profitable to grow etc then it gets easier as I can quantify the decision making process and arrange them according to that.

I wouldn't even attempt to suggest that the relationships I see are logical, nor are my conclusions ever solid....but I'm familiar with the difficulties choosing which relationships to focus on without more information. Which is one reason why I tend to ask so many questions of those people I interact with. (Not so many questions on the forum anymore )








On a side note (not to XoX, just being in the same post), I can't help but feel that somehow I inadvertently may have hijacked this thread. I'll try to quit now.

[Exodus]

Oh that. I think my problems are almost opposite to that i.e. arriving in too many logically solid conclusions and unable to choose which is the "right" one. I generally need some quantitative criteria in order to make a choice reliably. E.g. if I have to pick one of tomatoes, carrots and strawberries based on some qualitative or hidden criteria it is annoying. If i have to pick one of tomatoes, carrots and strawberries based on which would be the most healthy to eat or most profitable to grow etc then it gets easier as I can quantify the decision making process and arrange them according to that.

What could it mean?

[XoX]

Oh that. I think my problems are almost opposite to that i.e. arriving in too many logically solid conclusions and unable to choose which is the "right" one. I generally need some quantitative criteria in order to make a choice reliably. E.g. if I have to pick one of tomatoes, carrots and strawberries based on some qualitative or hidden criteria it is annoying. If i have to pick one of tomatoes, carrots and strawberries based on which would be the most healthy to eat or most profitable to grow etc then it gets easier as I can quantify the decision making process and arrange them according to that.

What could it mean?

Well it seems to mean that I don't have Ti in Ego-Block (Of course it might just mean that this is not a reliable way to identify Ti). However I can't figure out whether my answer points more to Ni or Ne in Ego-Block or Fi or Te in Ego-Block (well it somewhat points to preference for Te but not necessarily Te in Ego-Block..fkhsdkjhf). For now it just suggests that Ti is not there. I have registered this piece of evidence but I'm not yet sure what to do with it and how to integrate it with the enormous amount of other, often contradictory, evidence I have collected during the past year

[Socionics Is A Cult]

(in my experience ) compares abstract or 'real' concepts\ideas\objects for value or truth - if there is a inconsistency (in a object, or collection of objects), the weaker thing is rejected - or at least, those ideas which have the greatest validity are brought to the forefront, the weaker ones get lost somewhere.

I think in the event of a Ti\Fi type being forced to make a decision, the relative positions of everything they hold dear have largely being crystallised, and so is unlikely to change in the moment of pressure (they are a bit like a ionic compound, for chemists out there ) (the bonds are difficult to break - they are rigid).



I think that Ti\Fi types (personally) experience + evaluate things over long period of time so they are ready in a giving moment (their decision process has already been formulated), whereas for Te\Fe types, their decisions are based on the current consensus (they get their 'experience' from other people, or from the real spatial positions of objects now (when I say real, I mean of the moment, as opposed to the long-term ponderings of Ti\Fi types - who see things in their relative spatial positions in their minds eye, rather than actual reality, if that makes sense ).