Experiment in representation of introverted logic Ti

[Jonathan]

/* This is an experiment inspired by the "apple" thing that the people who went to England did. As has been pointed out, it's quite impossible to do the "apple" thing online nearly as well as you can do it in person. However, the same is true about most of the things that are done on this forum...so if we follow that line of reasoning too far, then this forum should be less than half its current size. Anyhow, I thought I'd try this, even against the odds, starting with just Ti to see if it's worth going any further.

So, here are the rules: Try to say something "using" primarily Ti; make your comments the best representives of Ti that you can. If you need a starter topic...how about your views on Socionics...or what it means to "use" a function (I'm not going to try to define it right here)...but just using Ti. And if you need examples of Ti, look at posts of people you think are Ti types, or see what Rick or others have to say about Ti.

Now, if you have something to say that's not using primarly Ti, enclose the statement with a slash and asterisk, and then put an asterisk and a slash at the end.

For example, if someone says something that shows more of some other function rather than Ti, then it's great to point out that it's not really a great example of Ti, but has Fi or Te or something else...but if in making the comment, you're not focusing on Ti yourself, then enclose your comments with the slash and asterisks. And you can also comment if you think that someone enclosed comments in the slash and asterisks when they didn't really need to because it was really Ti after all.

(Waits to see if anyone will try this ) */

[tcaudilllg]

The sun is a phenomenon of... (and I can't go further because at that point I would be describing internal object dynamics of the sun.)

[Jonathan]

The sun is a phenomenon of... (and I can't go further because at that point I would be describing internal object dynamics of the sun.)

So would /*you*/ say that all /*connecting information*/ as long as it focuses on /*clear syntactic connections*/ between /*things*/ is /*Ti*/ and /*everything else*/ is not? Or does the /*fact*/ that /*language*/ is used for a /*specific instance at the moment*/ cast /*doubt*/ upon its /*credentials*/ as being /*static*/ ? /**/

[Exodus]

A longer meaningful response to this prompt would require a more specific topic. In other words, Ti naturally correlates content with length.

[aestrivex]

That dog is peeing on the fire hydrant. It is quite probable for people to also associate Fi with that dog's actions.

this is not true because it violates newton's nth law, where L(k+1) (L(a) denotes the ath term of the lucas sequence, starting with 2, 1, 3...) is greater than n and k=e^ni.

note that L(a) is defined for all complex numbers a by the relation [L(a)|L(a)=null]=aleph(a-1)

[snp7901]

[aestrivex]

But 67 is a prime number. The field of real numbers is an example of a Hilbert space. There is no obvious relationship between these two statements besides the fact that 67 belongs to the set of real numbers.

but 67 is not in the lucas sequence, therefore this is irrelevant.

[Jonathan]

/* Somehow people associate the language of mathematics with Ti. If one states things mathematically, does that mean one is entering "Ti mode"? It would seem perhaps that when people are stating facts, even facts about math, such as that a certain number is prime, that might still be Te? */

[Creepy-bg]

/* I thought you two were flirting /*

[Subteigh]

Ti is a rigid entity (i.e. static) and makes comments about the properties of things which aren't prone to change. With Se\Ne, Ti types can see deviation from their Ti structure in the current moment, but the structure remains firm in the long term - Ti types don't tend to reevaluate things, because that would be a waste of time.

A Se statement might be 'the Sun is large, round and yellow', while a Ti statement might be 'the Sun has always been large, round and yellow, in my experience' - their statement only changes if something contradicts that, which would require a huge reorganisation of the Ti structure. (A Se type would be 'hmmm, whatever, the Sun's falling out of the sky'). So, Ti statements are quite mathmatical - e.g. 'the Sun is large, round and yellow, if not large, round and yellow, it not Sun' .

Is my post all Ti? It probably is, because it seems to be this is certainly true, unless...something contradicts that.

[jas05]

'the Sun is large, round and yellow, if not large, round and yellow, it not Sun'

The Sun belongs to a group called stars. Though the Sun is yellow, all stars are not. Stars also differ in size, but they are all rather large. Stars tend to be round, too, but due to gravitation and/or centrifugal force, a star may be not perfectly circular in some circumstances.

Definition: Star is a concentration of plasma, held together by gravitation. In some part of the evolution of a star there is nuclear fusion in it.

/* There might be some mixed in this explanation, I'm sorry for that. */

[Jonathan]

Ti is a rigid entity (i.e. static) and makes comments about the properties of things which aren't prone to change. With Se\Ne, Ti types can see deviation from their Ti structure in the current moment, but the structure remains firm in the long term - Ti types don't tend to reevaluate things, because that would be a waste of time.

A Se statement might be 'the Sun is large, round and yellow', while a Ti statement might be 'the Sun has always been large, round and yellow, in my experience' - their statement only changes if something contradicts that, which would require a huge reorganisation of the Ti structure. (A Se type would be 'hmmm, whatever, the Sun's falling out of the sky'). So, Ti statements are quite mathmatical - e.g. 'the Sun is large, round and yellow, if not large, round and yellow, it not Sun' .

Is my post all Ti? It probably is, because it seems to be this is certainly true, unless...something contradicts that.

/*Well that sounds all quite good, as it seems to come from the fact that Ti is a "static" function. However, Se and Ne are also static functions. Nevertheless, if we ignore the static/dynamic dichotomy for a moment and accept the idea that Ti comments are about what doesn't change, whereas Se comments are about things that exist now and might change, that seems to put the emphasis on the thing itself (the object of discussion) rather than on the style of the person making the comment (or that person's style at that moment)...which has potentially weird ramifications for typing.

Consider, for example, Expat's posts. He's generally accepted around here as an LIE. However, a large number of his comments are about how Socionics works; I would expect that he would think that what he says about Socionics isn't something that's going to change (he may change his view later on, based on new evidence, but when he says something, it seems he feels that's the way things are-and-will-be). Similarly, Rick, generally understood as an IEE, while a static type, isn't a Ti type; yet he makes lots of general concepts about Socionics; surely he doesn't think that these observations are valid just for a short time.

Furthermore, suppose something a Ti type comments on were to change afterwards. Would that change the function the Ti person used? Or if an SEE makes a comment about something, and the thing never changes, would that make it Ti? Clearly, there has to be more to it; it must have to do with the aspect the person is focusing on at the time of making the comment. */

[Jonathan]

/* Somehow people associate the language of mathematics with Ti. If one states things mathematically, does that mean one is entering "Ti mode"? It would seem perhaps that when people are stating facts, even facts about math, such as that a certain number is prime, that might still be Te? */

/*I was typing thought or logic processes that were going on in my head; as opposed to typing what would otherwise be a "verbal" discussion on maths with Niffweed. I think that is what differentiates Ti from Te.*/

/*It sounds as if you have an interesting insight here, but I'm not sure I get it. How does typing out a verbal discussion as vs. thought processes relate to Ti vs. Te? I'd be interested to know what you mean by these two things. */

[Jonathan]

/* One other quick thought, relating to SubT's comments....The idea of Ti as relating to timeless truths has been put forth before (yielding heated discussions as to whether Ti or Ni is more concerned with timeless truth)....but it seems to me that really that's an N vs. S thing. That is, all N types have a tendency towards abstraction...timeless, spaceless, etc. ....whereas S types are more likely to focus on specifics. Although I put this in the Alpha thread, I wonder...would an LSI type of expression be as timeless-seeming as an LII one? (And if so, does that relate to both N and T being the "abstract" functions, as Anndelise has pointed out...?) */

[tcaudilllg]

is this: a is true because b is true because c is true because d is true etc..

is structure: pure, unadulterated structure. It only has to do with math in as much as it can structure sequences of relationships between numbers.

says that something is true because something else is true. If you were to take this to its logical conclusion, then the world is true because everything in it is true.

"I think, therefore I am."

Anything else is not , but rather accompanied by another function. Most people don't know the difference, nor can you if you do not accept exertion theory as true. (there again, )

You might say that truths are only true because they are interconnected by . But the two are probably inseperable.


I would avoid the use of the term "abstraction" when describing function behavior. In particular, it can't be explained, and is therefore scientifically useless.

[Subteigh]

/*Well that sounds all quite good, as it seems to come from the fact that Ti is a "static" function. However, Se and Ne are also static functions. Nevertheless, if we ignore the static/dynamic dichotomy for a moment and accept the idea that Ti comments are about what doesn't change, whereas Se comments are about things that exist now and might change, that seems to put the emphasis on the thing itself (the object of discussion) rather than on the style of the person making the comment (or that person's style at that moment)...which has potentially weird ramifications for typing.

Consider, for example, Expat's posts. He's generally accepted around here as an LIE. However, a large number of his comments are about how Socionics works; I would expect that he would think that what he says about Socionics isn't something that's going to change (he may change his view later on, based on new evidence, but when he says something, it seems he feels that's the way things are-and-will-be). Similarly, Rick, generally understood as an IEE, while a static type, isn't a Ti type; yet he makes lots of general concepts about Socionics; surely he doesn't think that these observations are valid just for a short time.

Furthermore, suppose something a Ti type comments on were to change afterwards. Would that change the function the Ti person used? Or if an SEE makes a comment about something, and the thing never changes, would that make it Ti? Clearly, there has to be more to it; it must have to do with the aspect the person is focusing on at the time of making the comment. */

Socionics has a rigid structure of sorts - if it changed drasatically, it would no longer be socionics. I think Se\Ne bring about change in the external world using Ti as a blueprint - using Se\Ne is about the person making changes in the real world now, while Ti helps to maintain homeostasis - it observes things passively over a long period of time, making a rigid structure of facts about things they have observed (they remain facts until they are disproved through Se\Ne interaction.

[tcaudilllg]

Neither or can actually change anything in the world through information metabolism. Only exertion can "exert" action. This is something that has carried over into socionics thinking from Augusta....

I hate to say it, but socionics is in desperate need of overhaul. Confusion reigns.

[Subteigh]

/* One other quick thought, relating to SubT's comments....The idea of Ti as relating to timeless truths has been put forth before (yielding heated discussions as to whether Ti or Ni is more concerned with timeless truth)....but it seems to me that really that's an N vs. S thing. That is, all N types have a tendency towards abstraction...timeless, spaceless, etc. ....whereas S types are more likely to focus on specifics. Although I put this in the Alpha thread, I wonder...would an LSI type of expression be as timeless-seeming as an LII one? (And if so, does that relate to both N and T being the "abstract" functions, as Anndelise has pointed out...?) */

/*Te is more like the changing prices of shares on the stock market - it's information rather than data (information is useful in the curent moment)*/ I don't think Ti is neccesarily about timeless truths - it's more an unwillingness to go against what has been observed to be true in the past - it's a means of energy conservation. /*Si\Ni is obviously different from Ti - they are about influncing the environment to recrete a result they experienced in the past. Static types including Ti types seek to influence objects (rather than the environment) as efficiently as possible (as determined by their Ti\Fi blueprint). The environment is more universal than localised objects, which is why Ni is more to do with timesless 'univeral' truths.

Ti types follow their internal + self-created structure as an act of self-preservation - with Ni types, their Ni is more out of control, dictated by the universe etc. - follow their Ni is a matter of survival, rather than an act of self-preservation, as they are fulfilling the role set aside for them (that's a bit overdramatic )*/

[aestrivex]

every post in this thread is totally meaningless because the universe will come to an end at t=406

[aestrivex]

/* I thought you two were flirting /*

lol

[Jonathan]

/*It sounds as if you have an interesting insight here, but I'm not sure I get it. How does typing out a verbal discussion as vs. thought processes relate to Ti vs. Te? I'd be interested to know what you mean by these two things. */

/*When I think of Te, I think of someone who can explain something really well on their feet. Someone who can, and is prepared, to engage in mental thought processes with another person, often on the fly. (Although I don't think that a second person is necessarily required to exhibit Te ... just like you can exclaim Fe, eg: "Shit, I hate when I do that!", to yourself.)

Whereas, my leading function is Ti. I think of how, if a maths tutor (for example) asks me for an answer, I prefer not to talk it over with them, but go and think about it by myself instead ... and then come back to them with the answer. (Maybe a bit extreme in a maths tute to actually get up and walk out of the room, but you can get my drift : think, and then talk; rather than "verbally discuss".) Of course, I can think through something "out loud" by verbally expressing my thoughts ... but not to be confused with Te.

Since you asked for Ti, I was posting the kinds of thoughts that might run in my mind as I would think about something "by myself". Ie: Thoughts that would normally be meant to be heard by myself and no one else (the conclusion will do for them). If you had asked for Te, the result of what I typed on the keyboard might be the same, but the path to get it there would have been different.*/

/*These are insightful comments, but I also think that a lot of what you say isn't unique to Ti vs. Te. For example, I think a lot of introverts feel the need to think through a problem by themselves, even if they're not Ti types. Similarly, ILEs generally seem to be good at verbalizing things "at the moment" and to be "fast on their feet." */

[Expat]

Consider, for example, Expat's posts. He's generally accepted around here as an LIE. However, a large number of his comments are about how Socionics works; I would expect that he would think that what he says about Socionics isn't something that's going to change (he may change his view later on, based on new evidence, but when he says something, it seems he feels that's the way things are-and-will-be). Similarly, Rick, generally understood as an IEE, while a static type, isn't a Ti type; yet he makes lots of general concepts about Socionics; surely he doesn't think that these observations are valid just for a short time.

/* You're trying to put too much Ti on that, yourself. My view or reality is dynamic, so I take for granted that my present "certain" understanding of Socionics (or anything else) will change in face of new evidence; until that happens, I trust my present understanding. This may confuse Ti types but it's not confusing to me at all. My "certainty" is "updated" continuously. However, my updates become more and more marginal, I do reach a level of "overall certainty".

For instance, consider natural laws. I am "certainty" of their validity so, on a daily basis, I have no need to consider that the Earth's gravity pull will suddently change. So, for all intents and purposes, I am certain that it won't change. However, hypothetically, should the Earth's gravity pull suddently change, I will have to conclude that that understanding was incomplete, which will be a surprise but not disturbing on a "existential" level. And that is obviously even more so the case in Socionics.*/

[Jonathan]

Consider, for example, Expat's posts. He's generally accepted around here as an LIE. However, a large number of his comments are about how Socionics works; I would expect that he would think that what he says about Socionics isn't something that's going to change (he may change his view later on, based on new evidence, but when he says something, it seems he feels that's the way things are-and-will-be). Similarly, Rick, generally understood as an IEE, while a static type, isn't a Ti type; yet he makes lots of general concepts about Socionics; surely he doesn't think that these observations are valid just for a short time.

/* You're trying to put too much Ti on that, yourself. My view or reality is dynamic, so I take for granted that my present "certain" understanding of Socionics (or anything else) will change in face of new evidence; until that happens, I trust my present understanding. This may confuse Ti types but it's not confusing to me at all. My "certainty" is "updated" continuously. However, my updates become more and more marginal, I do reach a level of "overall certainty".

For instance, consider natural laws. I am "certainty" of their validity so, on a daily basis, I have no need to consider that the Earth's gravity pull will suddently change. So, for all intents and purposes, I am certain that it won't change. However, hypothetically, should the Earth's gravity pull suddently change, I will have to conclude that that understanding was incomplete, which will be a surprise but not disturbing on a "existential" level. And that is obviously even more so the case in Socionics.*/

/*Yes, I agree, that's very much how I understand the difference. It's almost as if science (physics and so forth) is the natural domain of Gammas, since scientific laws are all based on assumptions about the external (Se) world, world, whereas mathematics is the natural domain of Alphas, as it concerns structural truths that are reliant only on logic. ...Which suggests that when trying to understand things such as Socionics and its applications, the Gamma approach is the more relevant one.

However, in practice, I think many Alphas are interested in science, and are able to deal with the fact that it's built on mathematical models based on experiments, etc. ....and many Gammas are interested in mathematics and appreciate the sense of certainty and freedom by being able to use pure logic. This leads to an interesting topic:
* An Alpha and a Gamma are both mathematicians doing research in pure math (number theory, or whatever). How might one describe the differences between their general approaches?
* An Alpha and a Gamma are both physicists, applying the scientific method, coming up with hypotheses and testing them (as their scientific training requires). How might one describe the differences between their approaches there?
*/

[Exodus]

every post in this thread is totally meaningless because the universe will come to an end at t=406

-1 for units.

---

Above all, Ti doesn't care what you think. It is a self-contained, abstract, regimented, and personalized thought process. Hence Fe.

Jonathan: too complicated, too many cooks. Socionics is not just philosophy.

Expat: I believe that is not related to Te as a value, but to Te as a strength. Do you mean Ti uses internal comparison as well, whereas Te does not? This is perhaps true.

[Expat]

Expat: I believe that is not related to Te as a value, but to Te as a strength. Do you mean Ti uses internal comparison as well, whereas Te does not? This is perhaps true.

*/Well, it's useful to remember that I - and, I hope, we - are talking about functions, not about types and much less individuals having those functions. A person who's all Te and no Ti would have to go to a lunatic asylum, a person who's all Ti and no Te would have to be institutionalized as well.

So, in terms of functions, Ti is about internal consistency of a system; Te is about facts and observable results.

I had a discussion on that with Kristiina while in London. I was explaining how the British "no-written constitution" monarchical state works, like, for instance, that the Queen, should she wish to drive herself, would not need a driving license since the law does not apply to the monarch. Kristiina kept asking how that could work logically, and what would happen if the monarch would actually murder someone with their own hands etc. I kept saying that IF that very unlikely scenario happened, they'd think of something, like a mini-revolution; but there's nothing describing precisely what rules apply in that situation. She kept saying that the rules should be defined, I kept saying that the system has had no need of such rules to work and that's what the British see as important. And on the discussion went until we just got bored. The British system of government is much more Te than Ti. /*

[Exodus]

/* I agree totally with Kristiina there. Good Te response (to her and me). I do like thinking of all the possible exceptions in cases like that. It has to be airtight, from a Ti POV.

Yes, this confirms what I thought. */

[krieger]

Introverted Thinking is this: a is true because b is true because c is true because d is true etc..

Introverted Thinking is structure: pure, unadulterated structure. It only has to do with math in as much as it can structure sequences of Extraverted Thinking relationships between numbers.

Introverted Thinking says that something is true because something else is true. If you were to take this to its logical conclusion, then the world is true because everything in it is true.

"I think, therefore I am."

Anything else is not Introverted Thinking, but rather Introverted Thinking accompanied by another function. Most people don't know the difference, nor can you if you do not accept exertion theory as true. (there again, Introverted Thinking)

You might say that Introverted Thinking truths are only true because they are interconnected by Extraverted Thinking. But the two are probably inseperable.

I agree with the general sentiment, but there is more to it than just this.

I agree that Ti is the discrete relation between two facts. "follows from" seems to be one incarnation. I think there are more, but that is besides the point.

What is important, is that the actual truth of Ti-spawned relations is never self-sustaining, while the IXTj often makes it sound as if it is. Take the words you wrote that I have quoted; you seem convinced that they are true, and yet, you state no proof for them. You couldn't give proof if you wanted to. I can't prove what I write here either, and yet we both feel we speak on behalf of 'the truth'. How does that work?

Here is my theory: Ti unites converging 'subjective experiences'. It identifies what Fe units have in common and groups them together, it unites them under the same banner. It appeals to others to explore their subjective experiences on a subject, and points out where those experiences agree. What they agree on, then becomes a self-evident truth, begging to be upheld and built upon.

In my views, every function is strongly tied to it's dual-seeking counterpart. One is defined internally by it's connection to individual units of the other.

[Exodus]

is this: a is true because b is true because c is true because d is true etc..

is structure: pure, unadulterated structure. It only has to do with math in as much as it can structure sequences of relationships between numbers.

says that something is true because something else is true. If you were to take this to its logical conclusion, then the world is true because everything in it is true.

"I think, therefore I am."

Anything else is not , but rather accompanied by another function. Most people don't know the difference, nor can you if you do not accept exertion theory as true. (there again, )

You might say that truths are only true because they are interconnected by . But the two are probably inseperable.

Yes, true.

I would avoid the use of the term "abstraction" when describing function behavior. In particular, it can't be explained, and is therefore scientifically useless.

Abstraction is a necessary component of explanation. Ti relies on it.

[Gilly]

A Ti assessment of marijuana prohibition (using Si/Ni input):

Alcohol is legal, and marijuana is illegal. However, purporters of marijuana prohibition and continued alcohol legality fail to come up with aspects of marijuana usage that make it more harmful to the individual or society than alcohol. Thus, marijuana and alcohol should both be either legal or illegal.

[Creepy-bg]

Alcohol is legal, and marijuana is illegal. However, purporters of marijuana prohibition and continued alcohol legality fail to come up with aspects of marijuana usage that make it more harmful to the individual or society than alcohol. Thus, in order to maintain consistency, marijuana and alcohol should both be either legal or illegal.

/*+1 (+2 if you take out that last illegal :wink: ) */

[Gilly]

:S I know, but it would be incomplete Ti without it.

[Creepy-bg]

well then Ti is fucked IMO... I'm going back to delta

[Gilly]

Te might say that it's pointless to legalize marijuana whether alcohol is legal or not, because if both are legalized, it would just cause more problems with abuse.

...which, of course, I would counter with a little more Te, by saying that that (a) the necessity of illegal methods to bring drugs into the US causes more deaths and trouble, even within the US, than a few more stoners, (b) illegal usage would decrease among teens if it was totally legal, because it wouldn't be "rebellious" and "special," (c) legality would encourage more programs for responsible use as opposed to usage deterrance, (d) it can be used for many practical medical and manufacturing purposes, (e) so many kids wouldn't get into trouble for petty crimes...I could go on for a long, loooong time

[aestrivex]

every post in this thread is totally meaningless because the universe will come to an end at t=406

-1 for units.

-373Ω/26 for deducting points from me.

[Expat]

*/Well, it's useful to remember that I - and, I hope, we - are talking about functions, not about types and much less individuals having those functions./*

/*But you said ...*/

/*My view or reality is dynamic, so I take for granted that my present "certain" understanding of Socionics (or anything else) will change in face of new evidence; until that happens, I trust my present understanding. This may confuse Ti types but it's not confusing to me at all. My "certainty" is "updated" continuously. However, my updates become more and more marginal, I do reach a level of "overall certainty".*/

/*Why?*/

My reminder on top was just to avoid rejoinders of the sort "Ti types also use external information" or "Te types also worry about consistency" etc, because I've seen it happening before.

That doesn't mean that there are no differences between the types, so I suggested that that kind of thing as in my example may disturb Ti types more than Te types.

[Exodus]

every post in this thread is totally meaningless because the universe will come to an end at t=406

-1 for units.

-373Ω/26 for deducting points from me.

-2

Answer must be an integer.

[aestrivex]

every post in this thread is totally meaningless because the universe will come to an end at t=406

-1 for units.

-373Ω/26 for deducting points from me.

-2

Answer must be an integer.

answer is sometimes an integer. -ß^8 for not considering this.

[Exodus]

every post in this thread is totally meaningless because the universe will come to an end at t=406

-1 for units.

-373Ω/26 for deducting points from me.

-2

Answer must be an integer.

answer is sometimes an integer. -ß^8 for not considering this.

/* I could continue, but this is getting boring. :wink: */