Real world examples of how one uses Ti (any functional stack)
Realistic examples of Ti
Real world examples of how one uses Ti (any functional stack)
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.
"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.
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.
I always wanted to learn everything in my own way.
Abstract:
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.
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.
This actually sounds like Te.Originally Posted by WinnieW
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.
I always wanted to learn everything in my own way.
Abstract:
Realistic example: See a object or product for the first time and know what you can do with it – (Ok, with help of
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.
I can do both. Difficult to say which one I use more.
I'm able to do this.
Past experience is related to sensing, this is notsolely, imo. Try and error is a combination of perception and thinking for handling stocks and stones.
It is difficult to speak about
What I sometimes find is that Ti make their own categories in which they think. While Te use those that is most used.
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
Yes! And lead with ignoring is so confident and all covering that it cover the bases of the opposite.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Tigerfadder; 10-22-2017 at 06:07 PM.
Real scientists opposed to socionics.
I always said socionics was heavy on Te!
Socionics is weak thinking
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
In socionics, those that logically defend the theory are the "NTs". Its called confirmation bias.
Where are the real skeptics and thinkers? Well they don't believe in socionics, that's for sure.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
too late, I feel awful for you..!
Just don't try and hug me
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.
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.
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.
No pushing buttons is force, that's
You use
Example: You have a set of 52 playing cards. You use
Last edited by WinnieW; 10-22-2017 at 09:37 PM.
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
Amazing! I'm using Ti. Everyone uses Ti when they turn.on there phone of computer
is this..? is this what Ti feels like?!
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.No pushing buttons is force, that's
You use
Example: You have a set of 52 playing cards. You use
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
you make a great argument against olimpia style reasoning, but most people already know its bad. by all means tho wave the flag
Well as ILE you still have stronger Te then Ti, even though you devalue it soooo... there's that at least?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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
