Te vs Ti from the point of view of an ENFp

[Ms. Kensington]

(Just a few thoughts I took out of the previous post...you can think of this as a footnote)

Anyhow, the way I see it, ILI's tendency to "find contradictions" is highly opposed to LII. In a way, it's a compensating technique ("I don't have patience to master the system as well as an LII; but I know enough to be able to find its flaws.") It seems that acc-Ti types are the most likely to insist that each person takes responsibility for mastering systems ("Don't say things like that until you've mastered the system." "Can't you read?" etc.). Gammas (like you [Expat]) believe that with certain "tools" they can insert themselves in the conversation and start picking at things (not with a lack of Ti understanding, but with enough...something sufficient...and thus Ti has an important function even for Gammas).

Here's where "Ti = deductive logic" falls short. It seems that Ti is really a valuing of the position that people should master the rules, the system, learn all it's details, how it works together. Gamma NTs tend to take the view that it's fine (and useful) to insert themselves into any situation and critique any system, since they can apply their "tools." Deductive logic is, in itself, a tool, and as such is something that Gamma NTs use a lot. The Gamma NT sees that many people aren't thinking clearly, and thus reasons "since I can think clearly, I can come up with better conclusions." Thus, mastering the system isn't as important to the Gamma NT; however, some working knowledge of the system is required.

I see an ILI as a "data maximizer." That is, with only a little bit of data, an ILI can potentially learn more than other people. (IEIs are similar in the realm of people. You can't fool them, because with very little data, they can tell what you're thinking, feeling, where you've been, etc.). Although Jung's typology may be slightly different from Socionics, I think it's for this reason that Jung emphasizes the mystical quality of Ni (as if Ni can derive valid conclusions from no data whatsoever). The ILI uses Te to figure out how to get the needed data with the least amount of effort. ILIs create an impression of accumulating knowledge, but much of this comes from their maximizing tendency (they remember what they've read, they think about it, they understand all the nuances, they extrapolate).

As has been stated before, i feel that once you start talking about things like logic, and truth, you start getting into an area where functions seem to overlap. This is because... *drumroll* I don't know. But since both and are logical functions they will have some kind of order to it, and if you value one or the other you are likely to care about some of its governings. Whether you are talking about being consistent with the patterns of reality as they have played or with the theoretical rules of a system, you might point out contradictions because that's just what you're paying attention to and value.

I also wanted to post just to say I'm a counterexample and I was a little surprised at what you said because I always felt that the stereotype has been the other way around regarding interjecting oneself in a situation with little prior knowledge. Another way of seeing what you wrote about this is that an ENTp or an INTj feels he has the tools he needs without understanding the system of rules around him that apply in everyday life, how things habitually are. You see the focus is just which arena you are applying the deductive or inductive logic to, and I don't think it has to do with valuing that others familiarize themselves with an entire system. I would say that the original description of Ti as a valuing of consistency as a better fit than one of mastering a system. Personally i don't tell people to read, and myself ask questions often without prior knowledge. I wouldn't care as much if I had deduced something incorrectly in the realm of keeping track of facts as I would from one that is more abstract. It's the same skill in different realms, valued accordingly. Hmm.

In this way you can say that the creative function seems to affect what information someone pays attention to. It also ties in with an idea I've had that someone could say Ti people seem to favor inductive reasoning for a deductive world and Te people seem to favor deductive reasoning for an inductive world. But i would certainly say that within one's ego functions the preference is overwhelmingly the opposite. One is the way one sees things and the other is what they do to use their function in the opposite realm. Which is deductive and which inductive then? Seems to be easier to say both processes are used and the realm is given more or less emphasis.

Disclaimer. I am speaking from personal experience, but I couldn't really speak for a Te person's experiences.

Also, upon writing this and going back to

"As has been stated before, i feel that once you start talking about things like logic, and truth, you start getting into an area where functions seem to overlap. This is because... *drumroll* I don't know. "

I feel now that the answer seems to lie in the fact that the functions seem to be information that we collect to get around in the world, and those broad concepts don't really seem to apply as readily to the world. So you start having trouble functionalizing (yes i made that word up) these concepts the more encompassing they get.

[Jonathan]

I was a little surprised at what you said because I always felt that the stereotype has been the other way around regarding interjecting oneself in a situation with little prior knowledge. Another way of seeing what you wrote about this is that an ENTp or an INTj feels he has the tools he needs without understanding the system of rules around him that apply in everyday life, how things habitually are.

Could be. You know, different things are meant by what each of the types are around here. I don't think there's total consensus. But what I meant by system was not social rules (i.e., typical F territory)...but more that in my experience the LIIs (by one definition, in one of the versions of Socionics, at least) tend not to be as aggressive or quick in picking apart what someone is saying compared to the Gammas...say, someone like Expat.....as they would tend to think that they must know where a person is coming from (know the system) more before actually commenting on it.

[Logos]

In most simplified form of erroneous generalities:

Alpha NT = Questions are asked to determine the reasoning and structure behind the belief or system of beliefs.

Gamma NT = Questions are asked to determine the facts and validity of the belief or system of beliefs.

or

How a person thinks. vs. What a person thinks.

While both Alpha and Gamma NTs will ask questions which reveal both the reasoning and facts of a system, their aims are different.

[Expat]

Yes, it is possible, but not more consistent with Model A. As you may recall, I've been intrigued by your IEI-with-hyper-emphasis-on- hypothesis.

But I don't see it as being "hyper-emphasis" at all.

The whole of Beta values logic, in my opinion - logic which to outsiders is more clearly Te than Ti, but for them it's just "logic". For examples here, look at Kristiina and snegledmaca. For an IEI to like to say "I am not logical enough" is the same as an LIE liking to say "I am not assertive enough".

Let's focus on descriptions for a while. Most IEI descriptions - if not all - focus on more-obviously-Fe-inclined IEIs. But a more reclusive, bookish, intuitive subtype IEI (as even described by Meged), could easily have a self-perception of being a logical type. And, of course, for most purposes, actually indeed be quite logical (just like LIEs can be quite assertive, although not in the eyes of the Se types).

Phaedrus suggests that IEIs could not possibly be concerned with having a scientific or rigorous understanding of things, something I do not think is necessarily true.

That's the kind of statement (whether Phaedrus actually phrased it like that or not) that I think is a misunderstanding of Socionics.

I think IEIs can very well be concerned with having what they see as a rigorous understanding of things. To say that they can't is just like saying that an SLE can't be concerned with assuring a pleasant group atmosphere, or that an LIE can't be concerned with being assertive around others. That concept becomes absurd if you think about it.

But a true Fe type will notice that the SLE "gives up" on the Fe mood and becomes an ass for the sake of Se (even when not noticing it), just like a true Se type will notice that the LIE is actually being a pussy-wimp and using Te "wishy-washy" arguments, and a true Ti type will notice that the IEI's "understanding" is not so rigorous as they think.

So that statement is sheer rubbish imo, from the point of view of self-perception.

On the other hand, I do not believe for myself that the typical profile of IEI as "weak in Ti though valuing it" applies. Nor do I think that pointing out inconsistencies in other people's arguments is typical behavior for IEIs. I know a number of "classic" IEIs, and that simply is not their style, nor is it ever mentioned by Socionists.

It wouldn't be "typical IEI" to me either, if with "typical" the usual descriptions are meant.

The fact that ILIs do point out inconsistencies in other people's arguments has been pointed out by others (Dmitri, various sites); it is not my observation but theirs.

I have never argued that ILIs do not do that. And it also depends on which kind of argument is being used against which kind of inconsistency. Further, for that matter, obviously, ILIs also use Ti argumentation. The issue is whether the person's mode of thinking seems to be Ti by default.

It is only inconsistent if one thinks "Ti=consistency" or if one interprets Model A as giving the "id" functions no important role whatsoever. Labcoat has pointed out some important material that suggests that the "id" functions do play an important role, too often ignored.

I'd never say that the id functions are not important, the issue is they are less visible than the ego functions.

But more importantly, plain observation shows that Gammas do indeed put a certain emphasis on "finding contradictions" and referencing "consistency." (Note your own post: "much more easily consistent with model A functions than yours." How is your use of the word "consistent" there consistent with you being a Gamma and with Model A if an emphasis of a Gamma on consistency isn't consistent with Model A? )

These are straw man arguments, and not a good use of Ti or Te.

However, getting back to the context of my origianl post, I was explaining why Socrates (not me, not Phaedrus ) appears to emphasize finding contradictions in what people are saying, yet the consensus of a number of Socionists, including Dmitri, is that he was Gamma (by which I assume is meant the portrait of Socrates presented by Plato). Do you think then that Socrates is an IEI-Ti-subtype? (According to that interpretation, Socrates was perhaps using Ti to "prove" that all those types out there who think they have "knowledge" really don't.)

1) As should be clear by now, I don't necessarily trust the typing of the "consensus of Socionists", so in order to argue this I'd have first to reach my own conclusions on Socrates's type, which I have no inclination to do right now
2) Do you want to discuss in precision whether Plato's portrayal of Socrates is IEI or whatever, and use that as argument to type people here, and using Lytov etc 's typing as reference (and I don't even know now closely he studied Socrates)? That's -- [s:61079cec32]insane [/s:61079cec32]not very practical.

Yes, I have also typed people who died thousands of years ago. For instance, I have little doubt that Marcus Aurelius (whose own thoughts, by himself, are available) was an EII. Shall I start to use him as reference to type EIIs here?

[Expat]

In most simplified form of erroneous generalities:

Alpha NT = Questions are asked to determine the reasoning and structure behind the belief or system of beliefs.

Gamma NT = Questions are asked to determine the facts and validity of the belief or system of beliefs.

or

How a person thinks. vs. What a person thinks.

While both Alpha and Gamma NTs will ask questions which reveal both the reasoning and facts of a system, their aims are different.

Personally I agree with this, but I think that what someone (I forget who, sorry) said has a point -- IF in a subject where the Alpha NT is already persuaded of the correctness of their own system, they will be inclined to check other beliefs against their own. A typical case is a persuaded Marxist-Leninist who will refuse to analyze any other economic theory in its own terms but always in terms of Marxism-Leninism.

[Jonathan]

But more importantly, plain observation shows that Gammas do indeed put a certain emphasis on "finding contradictions" and referencing "consistency." (Note your own post: "much more easily consistent with model A functions than yours." How is your use of the word "consistent" there consistent with you being a Gamma and with Model A if an emphasis of a Gamma on consistency isn't consistent with Model A? )

These are straw man arguments, and not a good use of Ti or Te.

Probably the result of miscommunication; I would not claim someone said something they didn't say for the sake of knocking them down; I hate when people do that.

It seemed from your more recent post that you actually accept that ILIs do point out inconsistencies in other people's arguments. So therefore it's not clear what in my previous post you disagreed with when you said that interpreting my comments as referring to IEIs would be "more consistent" with Model A. Given the lack of clarity, I made a few assumptions about what you meant, sorry. On the other hand, it appears that perhaps you made some assumptions about what I was saying (i.e., that I was referring to Phaedrus or myself specifically rather than talking about ILIs in general). At no point have you shown what was inconsistent with Model A in my remarks. So, I could say that yours was a straw man argument, but instead I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

And by the way, I see a pattern to your posts; you seem to disagree with someone, declare (without proving) that their argument isn't good Ti or Te, and thus imply that this is evidence that the person is an F type. (I'm not saying you're wrong about my type; I'm still considering.) In any case, Rick has made the point a number of times that types (as Socionists conceive them) are not related to intelligence or overall ability; you could have an LII, for example, of average or even below-average intelligence, or an F type of well-above-average intelligence. So, to imply (if that's what you're doing) that someone's argument isn't good and therefore the person is an F type is both wrongly denigrating to F types and also a flawed method of determining that the person isn't a T type.

A good example is that Rick considered that Adrian in "Rocky" may be intended to represent an ILI. I'm not arguing that she's an ILI, but rather that Rick's thinking that she is shows that he doesn't set some sort of "high standard" to show someone can be an NT (I'm not saying Adrian isn't bright; just that I saw the first Rocky film and she didn't seem to show any sort of outstanding genuis; she seemed just basically normal.) This gets to my last point here...

However, getting back to the context of my origianl post, I was explaining why Socrates (not me, not Phaedrus ) appears to emphasize finding contradictions in what people are saying, yet the consensus of a number of Socionists, including Dmitri, is that he was Gamma (by which I assume is meant the portrait of Socrates presented by Plato). Do you think then that Socrates is an IEI-Ti-subtype? (According to that interpretation, Socrates was perhaps using Ti to "prove" that all those types out there who think they have "knowledge" really don't.)

1) As should be clear by now, I don't necessarily trust the typing of the "consensus of Socionists", so in order to argue this I'd have first to reach my own conclusions on Socrates's type, which I have no inclination to do right now
2) Do you want to discuss in precision whether Plato's portrayal of Socrates is IEI or whatever, and use that as argument to type people here, and using Lytov etc 's typing as reference (and I don't even know now closely he studied Socrates)? That's -- [s:ec5096ab19]insane [/s:ec5096ab19]not very practical.

Yes, I have also typed people who died thousands of years ago. For instance, I have little doubt that Marcus Aurelius (whose own thoughts, by himself, are available) was an EII. Shall I start to use him as reference to type EIIs here?

Per your comments: I was not using Socrates to type people here; I was using Socrates to show that emphasis on consistency of arguments may be consistent with Gamma. My later suggestion of Socrates as an IEI was just a suggestion, based on your comments; I think it would be interesting to explore; perhaps we could start a thread.

In general, it seems that I make reference to historical typings a lot, just as others here make reference to type descriptions, and so forth. I realize that this deserves an explanation.

As you know, there are difference between the way typologists view the behaviors that would be associated with various pairings of functions. The MBTI system clearly comes out differently from Socionics in this regard, and there are clearly some conflicting views represented on this forum as well. If we turn to Augusta's definitions for the functions, we don't find much help there. They're vague, and they don't adequately explain either the various nuances in Socionics or why the predictions of behavior are so different from how they are in other Jung-based typology systems.

So, if one wants to have a clear understanding of what Socionics is (as opposed to Jung-based typology theory in general), it becomes necessary to turn to information about what professional Socionists in the Socionics community believe each of the types looks like. If a person develops his/her conception of types based on the functions and throws out the descriptions, historical typings, and statements of Socionists, then that conception is not Socionics. (I'm not arguing that Socionics is correct, only that it makes sense to try to pin down what the Socionics viewpoint is.)

So when I refer to a historical typing to make a point, it's not because I trust someone's typing of the actual person. My emphasis is on what the typing says about the positions of the person doing the typing. Thus, the fact that Socionics consider certain paradigmatic characters in history as representing one or another type says something about what the Socionists must mean. By typing Socrates as a Gamma, Socionists apparently mean that his manner of debate in the Plato dialogues is consistent with Gamma, which gives information about how Socionists view Gamma, whether or not they're right about Socrates.

(Of course, in an ideal world, I would have time to find out who all these Socionists are and read all their papers to check their reasoning. In the real world, time is limited, Socionics is just a hobby, and I have to make a few assumptions. But anyone who has read Plato should understand the core issues at play here.)

[Expat]

I'll answer only this one now --

And by the way, I see a pattern to your posts; you seem to disagree with someone, declare (without proving) that their argument isn't good Ti or Te, and thus imply that this is evidence that the person is an F type.

Ok, I can see how it could be interpreted like that, but you've made this point before and I already argued against it.

It's difficult - not impossible - to prove it. A Se person would look at someone's arguments and think "they are not being very assertive"; a Fe person would say "you are being offensive" or "not caring about the impression you make" or "being hostile" or whatever, but that's the kind of stuff that is difficult to prove.

This may be incorrect, but it's not about "you disagree with me, hence you are an ethical type". That is nonsense. I have disagreed with lots of logical types here without saying that they were ethicals.

I will get back to this.

[Expat]

In any case, Rick has made the point a number of times that types (as Socionists conceive them) are not related to intelligence or overall ability; you could have an LII, for example, of average or even below-average intelligence, or an F type of well-above-average intelligence. So, to imply (if that's what you're doing) that someone's argument isn't good and therefore the person is an F type is both wrongly denigrating to F types and also a flawed method of determining that the person isn't a T type.

That's not what I'm doing and this seems defensive/attacking/whatever. There is nothing in what I have ever written here, or in my interactions with anyone, to suggest that I think that intelligence or "ability" are related to type. I have made the point before to you, if that's how you insist on putting it, I'll just give up on arguing that.

[Expat]

It seemed from your more recent post that you actually accept that ILIs do point out inconsistencies in other people's arguments.

How could I not accept it? It's too general a trait to say that no type never does it. Have I ever said anything that could be remotely, resonably implied as meaning "ILIs do not point out inconsistencies in other people's arguments"? No way.

What I have done is point out that, when done in a speficic way, that is use of as I understand the function. Now, if you take that to mean, "and therefore that person can't be ILI", that's your unwarranted interpretation.

I do agree that Phaedrus uses a form of analysis often. The issue is whether that use is enough to say he can't be an ILI. But that's different from what you're saying I am saying.

As a matter of fact, I was not actively questioning Phaedrus type based on that. I started to seriously question the INTp type for him as a result of the XoX discussion.

So therefore it's not clear what in my previous post you disagreed with when you said that interpreting my comments as referring to IEIs would be "more consistent" with Model A.

I disagreed with the sheer notion that one could even imply that Gammas or whoever "never refer to consistencies", and your picking up on my use of "consistency with model A" to nullify that never-defended notion. That's what I call a straw man argument. You have argued as if I had said, or meant, or implied something as obviously wrong as "Gammas never refer to consistencies". It's such an absurd notion that I saw no point in even addressing it.

Given the lack of clarity, I made a few assumptions about what you meant, sorry. On the other hand, it appears that perhaps you made some assumptions about what I was saying (i.e., that I was referring to Phaedrus or myself specifically rather than talking about ILIs in general). At no point have you shown what was inconsistent with Model A in my remarks. So, I could say that yours was a straw man argument, but instead I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I thought I had, but ok let's get back to this:

With ILIs, I suspect it's more about what you might call "conservation of information." Given that the ILI wants to use Ni primarily, that means that ILIs would rather use their imagination and insight to make the most of the data they have rather than spend most of their time collecting external data.

A greater emphasis on "making the most of their data" than on "collecting external data" is a good definition as Ti>Te preference as I understand it. So, according to this definition (and if you disagree with that, than we can discuss it) it is inconsistent with model A since ILIs have Te>Ti.

A good example is that Rick considered that Adrian in "Rocky" may be intended to represent an ILI. I'm not arguing that she's an ILI, but rather that Rick's thinking that she is shows that he doesn't set some sort of "high standard" to show someone can be an NT (I'm not saying Adrian isn't bright; just that I saw the first Rocky film and she didn't seem to show any sort of outstanding genuis; she seemed just basically normal.) This gets to my last point here...

I have no problem with the concept of "non-bright" ILIs or LIEs or whatever; and I have never said the opposite. You make a lot of assumptions about what I say, that's the problem which leads to straw man arguments.

Per your comments: I was not using Socrates to type people here; I was using Socrates to show that emphasis on consistency of arguments may be consistent with Gamma. My later suggestion of Socrates as an IEI was just a suggestion, based on your comments; I think it would be interesting to explore; perhaps we could start a thread.

But the point is that first you have to "prove" that Socrates was even Gamma, and I see that as far more trouble than it's worth. By using Socrates as a sort of reference point as Gamma to prove how ILIs may behave, you are indirectly, yes, using that to type people here, eventually.

So when I refer to a historical typing to make a point, it's not because I trust someone's typing of the actual person. My emphasis is on what the typing says about the positions of the person doing the typing. Thus, the fact that Socionics consider certain paradigmatic characters in history as representing one or another type says something about what the Socionists must mean. By typing Socrates as a Gamma, Socionists apparently mean that his manner of debate in the Plato dialogues is consistent with Gamma, which gives information about how Socionists view Gamma, whether or not they're right about Socrates.

But, again, without knowing the actual reasons for that typing, we have to make assumptions about that which may be misleading. How do we know how closely they actually read Plato's dialogues? That is the issue.

[Jonathan]

With ILIs, I suspect it's more about what you might call "conservation of information." Given that the ILI wants to use Ni primarily, that means that ILIs would rather use their imagination and insight to make the most of the data they have rather than spend most of their time collecting external data.

A greater emphasis on "making the most of their data" than on "collecting external data" is a good definition as Ti>Te preference as I understand it. So, according to this definition (and if you disagree with that, than we can discuss it) it is inconsistent with model A since ILIs have Te>Ti.

Okay, taking out all the stuff that is probably related to my making assumptions about your posts, and visa versa (I think it works both ways), plus what I perceive as overly weak F in your wording and what you perceive as over-reaching assumptions in mine (much of this related to the medium of internet dialogue, where it's difficult to clarify points in real time, IMO ), this point here is really the only one worth discussing, and we can probably drop everything else here as not very important at all. And actually, this does get back to the general area of the topic of the thread.

I was introducing a potential new theory here, which I called "conservation of information." My basic argument was that introversion implies a relative de-emphasis on the external environment, and therefore this may make introverted types appear to put more emphasis on "making the most of their data" rather than on "collecting external data." Thus, this tendency in Gamma and Delta introverts (actually all introverts, but I'm highlighting the non-Ti quadras) may cause people to think that they're having a Ti > Te preference, when actually it's merely a consequence of the fact that the person doesn't venture out as much as an extravert would.

So let's focus on that. If you don't think that's possible, why not? And if ILIs put as much emphasis on external data as LIEs, why are they a different type? If you say simply that they emphasize Ni a little more, then that's sounds more like an LIE Ni-subtype.

Anyhow, do you see why I would say that introversion may appear as a de-emphasis on external data and therefore seem similar to Ti?

I'm not saying this is a polished theory; I just think it's worth examining more carefully.

[Expat]

I was introducing a potential new theory here, which I called "conservation of information." My basic argument was that introversion implies a relative de-emphasis on the external environment, and therefore this may make introverted types appear to put more emphasis on "making the most of their data" rather than on "collecting external data." Thus, this tendency in Gamma and Delta introverts (actually all introverts, but I'm highlighting the non-Ti quadras) may cause people to think that they're having a Ti > Te preference, when actually it's merely a consequence of the fact that the person doesn't venture out as much as an extravert would.

So let's focus on that. If you don't think that's possible, why not?

Instead of using the word "possible", let me just say that I disagree with it, because that's not how I see Socionics working (to my own satisfaction, which is actually the only way it will ever work).

Because the introvert's "introversion" is different, and the data they are collecting is different. An ESI or EII (say) is an introvert in terms if the temperament, and in terms of their most natural way of thinking, of seeing reality, , is an introverted function - or, rather, a Fi>Fe preference. As far as Fi and Fe are concerned, yes, they prefer to "make the most of their data" or, as I put in my metaphor, they focus on their laser beams (colored by their own criteria) rather than on the dynamic Fe fog colored by everyone around.

However, when you go to Te and Ti matters, ESIs and EIIs definitely do not focus on "making the most of their data" - on the contrary, they are happy to collect it, even if by listening to an LIE talking a lot (heh).

The problem with your theory is that it takes Socionics one step backwards, by essentially saying that there is no difference in the kind of data the functions collect - or essentially saying that in introvert is an introvert in everything: so an ESI, I suppose, would have to be Fi-Ti rather than Fi-Te.

And why aren't introverts Fi-Ti? Well, because that's not the way I see it all working, not only because model A says so. If you see introverts as Fi-Ti, and if we agree in the definitions of Fi and Ti, we'll simply have to disagree.

And if ILIs put as much emphasis on external data as LIEs, why are they a different type? If you say simply that they emphasize Ni a little more, then that's sounds more like an LIE Ni-subtype.

If you recall McNew's old 200-something test based on functions, its biggest weakness (even when the functions were correctly measured) was that it did not differentiate well between mirrors, precisely because mirrors focus on the same kind of external and internal data - largely.

Yet they are different types. Why? Well, for the immediate purposes of typing people in front of you, the most visible difference is in the temperament. An INTp is an IP "most of the time", a LIE is an EJ "most of the time". And that is connected to whether they have or in the ego (and the same in the other blocks).

Or if you don't want to focus on temperaments (although in the end it amounts to the same thing), if you perceive reality primarily through as accepting function, steered by input from as creative, you see it differently as if it is inverted.

For my own views on how that works, I refer you to my Te views thread descriptions of Te and Ni types. I can't put it better than what I wrote then. And the Te-Ni and Ni-Te approaches are different.

Anyhow, do you see why I would say that introversion may appear as a de-emphasis on external data and therefore seem similar to Ti?

Once again, because this nullifies the distinction between different kinds of data.

[Expat]

I see, however, that when I first said your approach was inconsistent with model A I also said "data" without emphasizing the distinction. Obviously, external data are also "data".

[Jonathan]

I see, however, that when I first said your approach was inconsistent with model A I also said "data" without emphasizing the distinction. Obviously, external data are also "data".

Yes, that's the point. In fact, every function involves data of some sort, doesn't it? Even is data about possibilities. You might not think of it as data as the possibilities "aren't real," but to an type, they are real, and they are, further, perceived to be discoveries...discoveries of the reality of "what could be."

And so, for example, an ILE type -subtype, who focuses on far-flung opportunities and eclectic ideas, may (in some instances) seem to others to be so stretched out that they don't see the consistent thread and question if he's an ILE and think he might be IEE or something else.

As for ESI types, they do of course value external data, often expressed as an emphasis on keeping up with the state-of-the-art standards and being connected with experts. But they also have a strong tendency to specialize, which can appear to others as a sort of information conservation approach.

In no way was I suggesting that introverts all favor Ti or that ESI would combine Fi with Ti in some way. As I mentioned, the resemblence to Ti is an illusion, but I still think this illusion (or appearance) exists.

[Daniel Draper]

The problem with Te is that if you zoom out far enough, everything looks different.
The problem with Ti is that zoom in close enough, everything looks the same.

It's macroscope vs microscope. My personal opinion is that Te allows for faster assessment, whereas Ti allows for more accurate assessment. This should be seen as consequential given that the nature of Ti is primarily to see the makeup of the parts of the machine in motion(A>B>C=X, D>E>F=Y, H>I>J=Z) and Te to see the parts constituting the whole in motion(X=A>B>C, Y=D>E>F, Z=H>I>J).

Te assumes a consistent form, Ti assumes an analogical form.

[Esaman]

@Daniel Draper
Interesting.
Expand "everything looks different","analogical form"?

[Saberstorm]

This is a good thread, let us resurrect it.

[kopyk]

This is a good thread, let us resurrect it.

As you wish. I'll scavenge the forum for details about a priori (ti?) and a posteriori (te?) reasoning and how it may relate to socionics.

[willekeurig]

TiSe people aren't able to see other possibilities so they figure A -> B and it MUST lead to B and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid or even apparently immoral or whatever.

But if you disagree with a person who works with Ti + Se, that person reacts much more negatively to the disagreement. Well at least if an Ne + Fi person disagrees with them they react more negatively. They are offended that you would even suggest they consider another possibility because they figure they're working from some level of authority or something, or they're calling upon some other authority, and your inability to agree with that authority drives them crazy.

If I were to write a book about my (TiSe) dad, this is how I would begin the personality description. Ugh.
Personally I have no trouble following or using Ti. I actually enjoy it and will actively seek to engage in Ti+Ne-style conversations from time to time, but beta ST:s will drive me crazy with their narrow-mindedness/ignorance/arrogance. (obviously this is just my perspective blahblahblah bad communication blaghblahblah why do i even need to say this)

[kopyk]

(obviously this is just my perspective blahblahblah bad communication blaghblahblah why do i even need to say this)

Be more unashamed. Shed your sense of duty on the internet.

[Beautiful sky]

What if you arrange the evidence according to some relevance criteria before you do this "Te logic"? What I mean is that your example seems to suggest Te considers amount of evidence over quality of evidence. From your example it seems that X is the right answer. However if you dig deeper into A, B, C, D and E you might find that A and B cannot be trusted as evidence and thus they are discarded and instead C, D, E are given the priority. This leads to conclusion Z > X >Y which is different from what you get when you consider all evidence being of equal importance. I kind of work this way I think. First collecting evidence, then exploring the evidence a bit to see which evidence should be given more weight and which less and finally concluding the answer using this "weighted" evidence where some pieces of evidence are considered to be more important than some others.

That is correct. Te considers the amount of evidence (you can see this by how much evidence - even exaggeration they try to conjure up against something they want to defend) over the quality of the evidence but rather the actual evidence in the case of TiSe.

[Beautiful sky]

If I were to write a book about my (TiSe) dad, this is how I would begin the personality description. Ugh.
Personally I have no trouble following or using Ti. I actually enjoy it and will actively seek to engage in Ti+Ne-style conversations from time to time, but beta ST:s will drive me crazy with their narrow-mindedness/ignorance/arrogance. (obviously this is just my perspective blahblahblah bad communication blaghblahblah why do i even need to say this)

If you can get a Beta ST to see what they are doing and what possible result may come from an action taken in another way, they won't be as you've described in communication with you.