Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 94

Thread: Realistic examples of Ti

  1. #1
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,870
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Realistic examples of Ti

    Real world examples of how one uses Ti (any functional stack)

  2. #2
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,368
    Mentioned
    112 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everytime you figure something out.
    Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.

  3. #3
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,446
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "Excuse me, the sign says no walking on the grass. Please walk on the pathways, thank you."

    "I have four dollars so I can buy at most 6 eggs"

    "15% tip equals $1.20"

    "I'll wash the dishes and take out the trash, you do the laundry."

    "It's my turn to be Mario, you got to be Mario last time"

    "put the cap on the toothpaste when you're done using it"

    etc.

  4. #4
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    alpha NT
    Posts
    1,702
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    How I use ?

    I'm able to understand how technical devices work. I almost never needed a manual to operate technical devices, with a few exception where functionalities were implemented in a counter-intuitive way.
    is very self-learning or autodidactic.
    I always wanted to learn everything in my own way.

    Abstract: is understanding of working principles and using of functional modeling.

    Realistic example: See a object or product for the first time and know what you can do with it – (Ok, with help of ) – without instructions or the help of other people.
    Last edited by WinnieW; 10-22-2017 at 01:12 AM.

  5. #5
    Melodies from Mars~
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,016
    Mentioned
    65 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    My Ti isn't so good at creating systems as much as it is good at breaking other people's systems xD


    I'm rebellious with my Ti and not in the least helpful, I'll just find inconsistencies and rules that need to be broken because they don't make sense. I often ask why people do things and get triggered by things being done weirdly.


  6. #6
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,446
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinnieW View Post
    How I use ?

    I'm able to understand how technical devices work. I almost never needed a manual to operate technical devices, with a few exception where functionalities were implemented in a counter-intuitive way.
    is very self-learning or autodidactic.
    I always wanted to learn everything in my own way.

    Abstract: is understanding of working principles and using of functional modeling.

    Realistic example: See a object or product for the first time and know what you can do with it – (Ok, with help of ) – without instructions or the help of other people.
    This actually sounds like Te.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    15,759
    Mentioned
    1404 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default


  8. #8
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    alpha NT
    Posts
    1,702
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    This actually sounds like Te.
    Really?

    What about knowing why a technical device don't work and what part of the device is broken, without open the casing?

  9. #9
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,446
    Mentioned
    335 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinnieW View Post
    Really?

    What about knowing why a technical device don't work and what part of the device is broken, without open the casing?
    How things work = Te
    How things are put together and structured = Ti

    If you are logically deducing that a certain part has to be broken based on where in the process the malfunction occurs then it would be Ti. If you're figuring it out based on trial and error or relating it to past experience then it would be more Te. Learning from the manual tends to be more of a Ti approach.

  10. #10
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    alpha NT
    Posts
    1,702
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    How things work = Te
    How things are put together and structured = Ti
    I can do both. Difficult to say which one I use more.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If you are logically deducing that a certain part has to be broken based on where in the process the malfunction occurs then it would be Ti.
    I'm able to do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by thehotelambush View Post
    If you're figuring it out based on trial and error or relating it to past experience then it would be more Te.
    Past experience is related to sensing, this is not solely, imo. Try and error is a combination of perception and thinking for handling stocks and stones.

    It is difficult to speak about isolated from any perception function.

  11. #11
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What I sometimes find is that Ti make their own categories in which they think. While Te use those that is most used.

  12. #12
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,358
    Mentioned
    358 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that creative IE users should not define their creative and demonstrative IEs. It is always mixed.
    Creative usually takes shortcuts with help of demonstrative.
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  13. #13
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    I think that creative IE users should not define their creative and demonstrative IEs. It is always mixed.
    Creative usually takes shortcuts with help of demonstrative.
    Yes! And lead with ignoring is so confident and all covering that it cover the bases of the opposite.

  14. #14
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    I think that creative IE users should not define their creative and demonstrative IEs. It is always mixed.
    Creative usually takes shortcuts with help of demonstrative.
    I think that's a really good point

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerfadder View Post
    Yes! And lead with ignoring is so confident and all covering that it cover the bases of the opposite.
    I think this is taking it kind of far, but not totally unfounded either

  15. #15
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I think that's a really good point



    I think this is taking it kind of far, but not totally unfounded either
    Well while demo and creative play in each others area the lead overrule the ignoring. Simple but a way of thinking of it.

  16. #16
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah but lead tends to know when its doing it, thus doesn't conflate its understanding of the other the way creative->demonstrative tends to, because its punching up not down

    which is where I thought the insight to troll's post was

    i think this is precisely how intuition creatives piss people off cause it looks like they're either skipping steps one way or the other, and this is really potentially painful for people with the "skipped step" who have that as dual seeking function

    so if you're EIE and SEI is asking you to explain yourself, you do so in a kind of Ni fashion but its leaving out so many Ne truths it leaves the SEI frustrated because its like you haven't given them what they requested, just a bullshit conclusion when they really wanted all the breadcrumbs laid out: x is possible y is possible z is possible but a is most likely because c d e f and g, etc

    in reverse Ne egos bother Ni HA because its like they're getting derailed on all this extra shit, but their true underlying narrative is concealed, but it may very well be one if explicated may be welcome to ESI or whatever. in other words Ne egos still sort of tie everything together they just indicate it indirectly. it would be a misnomer to say Ne egos are all over the place with no integrated perception that causes them to go left instead of right, its just that it recedes from view and they demonstrate it indirectly
    Last edited by Bertrand; 10-22-2017 at 05:23 PM.

  17. #17
    Tigerfadder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    TIM
    ILE
    Posts
    1,305
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    yeah but lead tends to know when its doing it, thus doesn't conflate its understanding of the other the way creative->demonstrative tends to, because its punching up not down

    which is where I thought the insight to troll's post was

    i think this is precisely how intuition creatives piss people off cause it looks like they're either skipping steps one way or the other, and this is really potentially painful for people with the "skipped step" who have that as a 1D function

    so if you're EIE and SEI is asking you to explain yourself, you do so in a kind of Ni fashion but its leaving out so many Ne truths it leaves the SEI frustrated because its like you haven't given them what they requested, just a bullshit conclusion when they really wanted all the breadcrumbs laid out: x is possible y is possible z is possible but a is most likely because c d e f and g, etc

    in reverse Ne egos bother Ni suggestive because its like they're getting derailed on all this extra shit, but their true underlying narrative is concealed, but it may very well be one if explicated may be welcome to ESI or whatever. in other words Ne egos still sort of tie everything together they just indicate it indirectly
    Ya but then you can start adding in some spins. Ni- with Ne+ for example use some of the cold hard Ni truth that cant be avoided to which they add width with Ne so in a way it can be more attractive for example LSE since in low dimension and also not valued Ni- the width can be just a headache.

  18. #18
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,354
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Real scientists opposed to socionics.

  19. #19
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chains View Post
    Real scientists opposed to socionics.
    I always said socionics was heavy on Te!

  20. #20
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,354
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    I always said socionics was heavy on Te!
    Socionics is weak thinking

  21. #21
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    well it certainly seeks to contextualize the thinking function against the backdrop of the entirety of human cognition, but there's a certain irony in judging socionics according to the scheme it lays out. its like you're acting out a belief inconsistent with the words on the page

    i guess we could call that weak intuition

  22. #22
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,354
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    In socionics, those that logically defend the theory are the "NTs". Its called confirmation bias.

  23. #23
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,354
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Where are the real skeptics and thinkers? Well they don't believe in socionics, that's for sure.

  24. #24
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chains View Post
    believe in
    There's nothing to believe in. It's one explanation for how people may process things. Think of it as a hypothesis that is still being tested.

  25. #25
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chains View Post
    Where are the real skeptics and thinkers? Well they don't believe in socionics, that's for sure.

    perhaps they should think about being skeptical towards their own skepticism

    is skepticism a virtue? only once its directed at itself and thinking--the origin of ethics

  26. #26
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,354
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    There's nothing to believe in. It's one explanation for how people may process things. Think of it as a hypothesis that is still being tested.
    If only. People make hefty claims that lack serious empirical evidence and claim they are correct with their assertions based on these dubious claims.

    People on here usually don't say, "I think this may be Ni, or Fe, etc. Or, your type conclusion is a matter of opinion and perspective." No, people claim x function exists, that they know you prefer function x, that your type is A, etc. They are all leaps in logic. Some people here are less dogmatic and open than others, which is why I'm still here.

  27. #27
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    i feel bad for you if you can't automatically tell what claims are opinions and rooted in perspective... there's something profoundly sad about taking everything so literally the world is 100% liars who continually misrepresent the objective truth

  28. #28
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,354
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I like how you are now trying to manipulate my argument by not having one of your own. Now you are taking my argument as literal interpretations, which means you think I am a sensor who can't understand your superior "intuitions" . I don't want your sympathy.

  29. #29
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    too late, I feel awful for you..!

  30. #30
    Honorary Ballsack
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3,354
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just don't try and hug me

  31. #31
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    287 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chains View Post
    If only. People make hefty claims that lack serious empirical evidence and claim they are correct with their assertions based on these dubious claims.

    People on here usually don't say, "I think this may be Ni, or Fe, etc. Or, your type conclusion is a matter of opinion and perspective." No, people claim x function exists, that they know you prefer function x, that your type is A, etc. They are all leaps in logic. Some people here are less dogmatic and open than others, which is why I'm still here.
    Sure, some people take it as a religion, which is why jokes about holy texts and heresies are funny. And contemplating in terms of "IF this is true, then this should follow" can easily morph into "this IS true, so this follows." Operating from the assumption that something might be true for long enough can lead to accepting it as true. And the testing and comparing of it as a hypothesis gets abandoned in favor of accepting it as an absolute.

    An answer to this might be to bring in more information from other sources, and look at the whole system with a critical eye (critical as in critical thinking, evaluatory, rather than "everyone is stupid for believing this" kind of critical) and testing and poking at it more. And if in the process of poking at it the whole structure crumbles, then you take the pieces that didn't crumble and start creating a new structure to test.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,593
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Turning on the computer, that's Ti.

    Using the smartphone, that's Ti.

    Typing on the keyboard, that's certainly Ti.

    The beautiful thing about Socionics is that it can be applied to anything. It's simple enough that you can make simple declarations, but also deep enough that you can make it to apply it to anything that you want. That's the beauty of Socionics. It will revolutionarise how we think about our own cognition.

  33. #33
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,797
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    To my understanding you use Ti whenever you delve into the details of how something functions or should function and getting exact results. In a gun shooting scenario Te would be inclined to go full auto and unload a clip as fast as possible on a target while Ti would more concerned about lining up the perfect shot.
    Last edited by Muddy; 10-22-2017 at 09:05 PM.

  34. #34
    WinnieW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    alpha NT
    Posts
    1,702
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Turning on the computer, that's Ti.

    Typing on the keyboard, that's certainly Ti.
    No pushing buttons is force, that's

    You use when you construct a math formula.

    Example: You have a set of 52 playing cards. You use if you can tell how likely it is to take four cards of that set and all cards are kings, without any preknowledge.
    Last edited by WinnieW; 10-22-2017 at 09:37 PM.

  35. #35
    Seed my wickedness The Reality Denialist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Spontaneous Human Combustion
    TIM
    EIE-C-Ni ™
    Posts
    8,358
    Mentioned
    358 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    When I shot with assault rifle I usually didn't care to hit the target. Well, I was myopic and didn't wear glasses so I had no idea which one was my target.

    So based on this I'm Ti PoLR.


    (Got out of the compulsory army sooner. Te HA )
    MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type
    Life is a joke but do you have a life?

    Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org

  36. #36
    idontgiveaf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    2,870
    Mentioned
    166 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Turning on the computer, that's Ti.

    Using the smartphone, that's Ti.

    Typing on the keyboard, that's certainly Ti.

    The beautiful thing about Socionics is that it can be applied to anything. It's simple enough that you can make simple declarations, but also deep enough that you can make it to apply it to anything that you want. That's the beauty of Socionics. It will revolutionarise how we think about our own cognition.
    Amazing! I'm using Ti. Everyone uses Ti when they turn.on there phone of computer

  37. #37
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    is this..? is this what Ti feels like?!

  38. #38

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,593
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WinnieW View Post
    No pushing buttons is force, that's

    You use when you construct a math formula.

    Example: You have a set of 52 playing cards. You use if you can tell how likely it is to take four cards of that set and all cards are kings, without any preknowledge.
    Exactly, that's why LIIs can't type, and they frequently make typos. EIIs are even worse and I have personally observed that they are the worst typers. They frequently have bad eyesight (because they spend so much time reading) and they even have trouble looking for keys. Fortunately, they are not bad at typing in Socionics because they have the Fi to compensate.

    I have observed this in a total of 52 LIIs, with a confidence level of 0.39. I have rated their level of typing skills averaging from 1 to 10, with a median of 2.99. Shit, did I just use Ti, because of Math? Well it doesn't matter, the point is that LIIs are BAD AT TYPING!!

    Source:

    1. P.K.Provinsky, professor of psychodynamics theory of integrative association in Moscow University, PhD
    2. J.T.Sulliver, a Real-World Socionist
    3. A.Augusta, in Integral Association of Psychodamnic Socio-interactive theory, Pt. 2.
    4. Me

  39. #39
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,889
    Mentioned
    486 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    you make a great argument against olimpia style reasoning, but most people already know its bad. by all means tho wave the flag

  40. #40
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    2,797
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    When I shot with assault rifle I usually didn't care to hit the target. Well, I was myopic and didn't wear glasses so I had no idea which one was my target.

    So based on this I'm Ti PoLR.




    (Got out of the compulsory army sooner. Te HA )
    Well as ILE you still have stronger Te then Ti, even though you devalue it soooo... there's that at least?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •