How is Ti PoLR manifested in ENFps and ESFps?

[Words]

Te - the information

Ti - the explanation of what it means, perhaps backed up with the names.

Ti is good at explaining things.

This is one of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics, but it's not your fault. Even the big name Socionists tend to disagree on the types of lots of famous people by flipping Ti and Te around relative to other Socionists. Jung made the distinction sound so simple, but then Socionics kind of messed it up.

Te is not raw data. Everything thinks it is. It's interesting though when Joy switched from self-typing as LIE to SLE...Although I didn't follow that transition, I suspect it's related to recognizing that being good at taking in the raw data around you and responding to it is Se, not Te.

Te is a rational function; to make it about perceiving data doesn't make any sense. You can define it as such, but then you have a sort of crummy system, in my opinion.

I think a better definition to use (and let's be realistic: We're simply deciding to use definitions for things; there is nothing intrinsic...it's a matter of choice) for Te is that is the dynamic and extraverted aspect of thinking.

That is, Ti and Te are basically the same thing, but Ti is static (about a fixed timeless reality) and more concerned with the extent of systems and how everything relates, whereas Te is dynamic (about a progression, such a series of steps, ways to accomplish something, for example) and tends to relate more immediately to the specific external objects under discussion.

There are, interestingly, a number of people whom other's have typed LIE who seem to be good explaining things. When Expat was on the forum, people used think he was good at explaining things. A lot of Socionists think Richard Feynman is LIE (although the MBTI folk usually type him as ENTP). He was great at explaining things.

And a lot of the people on the forum who are typed by others as LII may have great ideas and make interesting statements, but I wouldn't say that they excel above others at explaining things.

No, actually most people are confused by Ti vs. Te, but it's not surprising and one can't really blame them.

Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts, and Ti as skirting round facts.

Ones to know, ones to understand. I stand by my post, it works for me, cheers.

And I don't use the forum members for my typing purposes, I covered the why in my second last post (which isn't exhaustive).

[Skeptic]

No. Ti does not have a monopoly on explanation of meaning, if I read that correctly. To me, what you are attributing to Ti is how NTs understand how things work over time, given their T and N functions. Both T functions are concerned with how things work and can be equally adept at explaining why.

Well that's well explained....

Do you want justification or something?

Intuition; process, change from one state to another. With Ne, objective connection of thoughts, ideas, etc. With Ni, subjective connection of a stream of thoughts or ideas that lead to one another. With either, it is always a change from one to another; N is firmly based in this change in states and paired with T it can understand how states change logically. Te can be employed to achieve something, but independently it understands only that a series of logical steps are necessary for the objective realization of any goal; the irrational process, or the affect of a change in time, is the domain of N.

But I suppose you're more interested in why Te is also concerned with how things work? TBH Your post is far too general to give any specific rebuttal; Ti is concerned with 'explaining things'? This is difficult for me to interpret, especially since under that subsequent model of Te, the Te ego is a machine that cannot make anything of the facts.

I suppose my phrasing was also misleading, though, so I will clarify; Te has different concerns than Ti regarding how things work, but they are equal in that arena. For example, Te is primarily a function concerned with outer demonstration of logical validity; if a model can be shown to be applicable or valid in the outer world, Te is satisfied. It will no doubt accompany this demonstration of outer validity with a logical argument based in how the thing works under a set of real circumstances. In this manner it would be extremely adept at explaining how something works; the best example is found in classical physics, in the areas where we have energy inputs and assured energy outputs that can be proved through measurement and testing.

Ti is conversely concerned with inner logical validity, but that's a whole different topic and going into that would mean actually contributing to this thread and not policing it . But, to contribute minimally, I will say that if you want to talk about Ti POLR we must first speak of Fi, because it is the use of Fi that actively devalues Ti.

@Jonathan I think you're spot on in everything Te related, but your Ti description of 'how things relate' sounds N based to me, could you clarify?

[Jonathan]

Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts

Really? Where does he say this? I'd be curious on the quote. It's clear from the Jung essay that I read that he thinks of extraverted thinking as a form of thinking, not as raw facts.

In fact, he seems to associate facts with extraverted sensing:

No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experience with concrete objects, and the more pronounced he is, the less use does he make of his experience.

And I don't use the forum members for my typing purposes, I covered the why in my second last post (which isn't exhaustive).

I was just using forum members as a convenient example. My argument that Te <> facts does not rely on the typing of any forum members.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to make this into a personal issue; it's just a have a pet peeve with this thing people keep bringing up that "Te = facts." So I guess I automatically come out strongly when people say that. Nothing personal.

[Beautiful sky]

Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts

Really? Where does he say this? I'd be curious on the quote. It's clear from the Jung essay that I read that he thinks of extraverted thinking as a form of thinking, not as raw facts.

In fact, he seems to associate facts with extraverted sensing:

And I don't use the forum members for my typing purposes, I covered the why in my second last post (which isn't exhaustive).

I was just using forum members as a convenient example. My argument that Te <> facts does not rely on the typing of any forum members.

Anyhow, I didn't mean to make this into a personal issue; it's just a have a pet peeve with this thing people keep bringing up that "Te = facts." So I guess I automatically come out strongly when people say that. Nothing personal.

Te is facts; Se is only sense perception which is then conditioned by a judging function; a sense perception perceives objects as they are and the more attractive an object the more sense perception will want to acquire it.

[Galen]

That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated.

Fi has it's own set of "rules" or "values" which it subjugates the world to. This is not just a Ti conception.

Well of course, but the nature of the rules in question are very different. The "rules" that I find myself creating/noticing about the world are much more based intrinsically, having a more implicit and less tangible staticness and order rather than the order being, uhm, I guess more tangible. The difference here would be perceived externality vs perceived internality, if that makes any sense. Like, the kind of consistency I associate with Fi can't be measured in any real tangible way. It can only be felt, or something.

[Beautiful sky]

They are both subjective and they both try to fill in holes where information is incomplete. I remember my sister asking my LSI brother-in-law who was the president of the US at a certain time, which is a fact, but since he didn't really know, he didn't say "I don't know" instead he assumed, and was wrong.

[Marie84]

I feel like I need to know more about this. I'm sure I do it enough times and hardly notice it. I find Ti PoLR in my case usually means saying something that I feel to be right and may even be correct, but logically makes little sense or has little backing. It's kind of annoying too because sometimes I feel it's an interesting idea or point, but because of my Ti PoLR I cannot explain it sufficiently in concrete terms so it is immediately discredited. At least that's how Ti PoLR appears from my point of view. I'd like to hear some thoughts on this.

Yeah pretty much, I think Ti PoLR's are very reluctant to speak and act in absolutes about things without sufficient sources to verify their points, and even than there's a feeling of reluctance towards classification as it counteracts with their more chaotic way of thinking (and in SEE's case, living).
They're, along with Fi bases to a point, extremely bothered when someone nit-picks at their illogical "errors" and "flaws", especially about things they regard as lacking significance to what they might be trying to accomplish.

[silverchris9]

They tend to regard arguments that are not based firmly in concrete reality with suspicion, I think. And they hate it when you cut up their arguments. They think it's cheating or something. I think they tend to ask "how do you know that" a lot.

They don't like absolutes, yeah, or at least, it's an explicit/implicit thing. They don't like explicit absolutes. Implicit absolutes are less absolute-y. They follow a rule, but the rule, being implicit, looks more like it conforms to each situation individually, when in reality it is internally consistent, just on a micro-level; it follows rules invisible to the naked eye.

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

Ti likes straight lines, and mature Ti-valuers will accept a line with a few slope changes as necessary. But Fi-valuers hate straight lines. They like curves.

What else about Ti-polr? They have trouble with theoretical entities where you have to think about it as a series of lines that change their slope. They don't like sets of rules (If x, y or z? z. If z, a or b? b) used to organize information.

Ever seen those charts where it has a set of outcomes at the bottom, and a series of boxes and each box has a choice where you can go like left or right, and the various choices lead you to different boxes? I'm not making sense, but they're hard to describe. Anyway, Ti is like those things, very binary thinking, very clean, very explicit. And Ti-polrs can't stand it, and can't stand systems that are organized that way.

Also, they probably can't stand this post? Why? Because it was built using top-down thinking. It was made using lines of reasoning like "Since Ti has characteristic X, it will manifest in thought pattern Y. Since Ti-polrs don't like Ti, they will dislike thought pattern Y." That's a poor example. But throughout this post, I reached all of my conclusions not by generalizing from my experience, but by taking general principles and working out where their conclusions "must" lead. Ti-polrs don't like that kind of thinking.




EDIT:
@Marie,

Deep. Ti wants coherence of the total system; each piece, "significant" or not, needs to fit with the whole, especially since Fe considers every aspect of communication, even the subtle and implicit ones, as part of the communication (good fit between Ti and Fe there). But Fi doesn't require coherence of the total system, and it naturally weights things with different significance or weight, which is a good fit with Te, which, as it appears, prefers to have thing in discrete sections (which can therefore obviously have unequal weight). This is also a good example of two ways of thinking (Ti/Fe vs. Te/Fi), both of which completely make sense and are justified, but which are mutually exclusive.


Also, Ti = "as it appears" for that which has been experienced by not "justified" through deduction. Te = "theoretically" for that which has not been "proven" by experience.

Ti is a highly idealistic function, by the way. (Which is part of why Alpha Ti includes Ni id.) Just read Plato for a good example of Ti over Te: what we experience is totally irrelevant (devaluing Te and Se) 'cause it's constantly changing. What's important is unchanging knowledge arrived at via deduction. It's about what you can trust.

Ti = straight lines; Fi = curves; Te = arrows; Fe = hints (or, in someone else's metaphor--I can't remember who--either you highlight the path or you highlight everything around it. Either way you see the path; either way you see the things around it, but it's about what you focus on, what's positive; what's negative).

[silverchris9]

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

This seems like it explains the "Fi is a bitch" thing I get from Alphas/Betas.

Indeed.

It's because we can't process your curves as anything but really fucked-up lines. It's not that curves are bad. It's just that they're not lines, fucked-up or not. So trying to understand them as lines will just result in misunderstanding and frustration.

The analogy works for this purpose. I'd say I feel the line is leaving out some information.

I'm sure. Lines are not very curvy, and if the line doesn't fit you because you've got curves, the line doesn't give a shit, which leaves you uncomfortable and constricted. On the other hand, if you've got a humongous hunk of dough, it's a lot easier to stamp it all out into equally sized linear figures (squares), and if you miss some because you didn't have a complicated enough shape, well... oh well!

It must be frustrating when the lines won't admit that they can't fit life's curves. I don't understand how Ti works with Ni.

[Galen]

They don't like absolutes, yeah, or at least, it's an explicit/implicit thing. They don't like explicit absolutes. Implicit absolutes are less absolute-y. They follow a rule, but the rule, being implicit, looks more like it conforms to each situation individually, when in reality it is internally consistent, just on a micro-level; it follows rules invisible to the naked eye.

The difference between Ti absolutes and Fi absolutes is like the difference between a smooth curve and a line. You can make constant adjustments to a line so that it quite resembles a smooth curve. And Ti valuers can sort of conceptualize Fi as a really, really, really complicated set of rules, so complicated that it can't be explained, it has to be understood already, pre-programmed or programmed internally/invisibly. Like a line that changes its slope every three seconds.

Ti likes straight lines, and mature Ti-valuers will accept a line with a few slope changes as necessary. But Fi-valuers hate straight lines. They like curves.

I thought about this a lot last night, and I kinda came to conclude that not only does Fi not have lines like Ti does, but Fi doesn't even have a shape of its own. As an internal IE, the form of an Fi structure can't be explicitly known, but it can be hinted at depending on the information it's dealing with. In a strictly literal sense, the only thing absolute about Fi is impossible to know because its shape is constantly determined by the data it's taking in.


(Massive Ne/Si dump coming up, sorry in advance)

Say we have a rubber band. For the sake of comparison, let's say that this rubber band has no true shape of its own. Sure it has a couple specifics to it, like the material or whatever, but it's such a malleable entity that you can't really say that it's of one specific shape. If you lay this rubber band on a table, then you take a finger or a foreign object and push the rubber band on one side, you change its current shape. You can pull it, twist it, tie it in a knot, and its curves will be different depending on each physical iteration. But the rubber band doesn't change at its core every time something new is introduced, since the material doesn't inherently change.

I've come to see Fi as something akin to this rubber band in that it has no shape other than the shapes that everything else makes of it. Depending on what external phenomenon/data are present in the Fi mindset, the "shape" that the framework takes changes to fit the existence of the new points. This is what seems so inconsistent about Fi to Ti valuers because it's a malleable system that can't be directly looked at, which means it has no measurable consistency other than to the individual who experiences it.

This is the kind of "squishiness" that I associate with internal IEs in general. Ne/Ni/Fe/Fi data/structures don't really have shapes of their own, and they can only be determined by the external data/structures that they deal with.

If we think about Fe information as having the same sort of "squishiness," then it makes sense that Fe datum can be fitted into external, lined-out Ti frameworks depending on how malleable each datum really is. It seems to me that points of data for Fe/Ti valuers have no inherent shape to them, kinda like a chunk of Silly Putty that can be shaped around at a whim. Since a lot of (all?) Fe data as it exists by itself without an extrinsic classification doesn't have a strict form, it can be shaped and molded (within its perceived limits) to fit the external classification system of one's own choosing.

In a sense, Ti gives staticness to Fe by fixing it with a form, and Te gives dynamics to Fi by constantly changing its form. I haven't thought more about this point, something I just came up with and like the sound of it. May expand on it later.



I would love to hear from other people what they think of this analogy/description.

[Suz]

The way I see Te vs Ti wrt to explaining things:

Both Te and Ti egos like explaining things (in particular Te/Ti doms), but in different ways with different emphasis. A Ti-type's explanation has historically been difficult for me to understand and usually does not address key issues I am waiting to hear about. I do a lot better with Te-types' explanations.

[Galen]

The way I see Te vs Ti wrt to explaining things:

Both Te and Ti egos like explaining things (in particular Te/Ti doms), but in different ways with different emphasis. A Ti-type's explanation has historically been difficult for me to understand and usually does not address key issues I am waiting to hear about. I do a lot better with Te-types' explanations.

Uhm, naturally.

[plotter]

I find that Ti-POLRs are unable to conceptualize properly.

Instead of creating a rule that accounts for variations that may be encompassed by the concept/rule, Fi-valuers create an "inferior" rule
and instead constructs a lot of exceptions when the rule doesn't apply "because the reality is always different"...
Well in reality they just suck at understanding and creating rules/concepts that includes all necessary information.
People say of Ti-egos that their explanations are long and full of useless information. Sorry but if you would care to understand its importance in relation to the conceptualized form you would be able to use rules as proper rules and not just abstract statements.

[FDG]

Then Te types come and act like assholes until the Fi type bitches about it, without constructing any kind of Ti framework.

[Galen]

I find that Ti-POLRs are unable to conceptualize properly.

Instead of creating a rule that accounts for variations that may be encompassed by the concept/rule, Fi-valuers create an "inferior" rule
and instead constructs a lot of exceptions when the rule doesn't apply "because the reality is always different"...
Well in reality they just suck at understanding and creating rules/concepts that includes all necessary information.
People say of Ti-egos that their explanations are long and full of useless information. Sorry but if you would care to understand its importance in relation to the conceptualized form you would be able to use rules as proper rules and not just abstract statements.

lol so are Ti egos then, because I find exceptions to their rules all the time.

[Skeptic]

...

Ti = a president Te = a TV Fi = an apple Fe = an apricot

I like this game, I think the way you use words that only have personal metaphoric meaning is really cool

[strrrng]

I don't even really care for "the rule" to begin with, because no single rule I've come across has ever really encompassed everything it tries to do, no matter how hard people try to bend it.

it's hard to clarify the difference between 'the rule' and all the rules in a sense. to me, the former is some kind of implicit form (pretty sure Ni influences this) that governs every manifestation of the latter. it's like, you could look at every linguistic rule of the sentences here, then abstract them into an algebraic form whose premises would give a shadow of 'the rule.'

I get how Ti-polrs can find these exceptions, because EPs view experience as compiled moments, with the Te sequence never being complete, so the behavior is more of a necessity than a weakness/strength.

Well of course, but the nature of the rules in question are very different. The "rules" that I find myself creating/noticing about the world are much more based intrinsically, having a more implicit and less tangible staticness and order rather than the order being, uhm, I guess more tangible. The difference here would be perceived externality vs perceived internality, if that makes any sense. Like, the kind of consistency I associate with Fi can't be measured in any real tangible way. It can only be felt, or something.

could you give an example of one of these rules being formed?

It must be frustrating when the lines won't admit that they can't fit life's curves. I don't understand how Ti works with Ni.

like I alluded to above, I think Ni gives Ti a more standalone form. alpha NTs are very contextual with their systems, they acknowledge the rule, but are more focused on the proportion between different aspects of the moving picture of involved dynamics. Ni and Ti are tracking involved objects, nodes of vibration that imply something about each other and must be removed from their given context to be properly defined. the governing system is platonic, because the validity of its rules doesn't hinge on what object manifests at this or that time; merely that their interactions possess absolute symmetry. 'you follow the script whether you understand it or not.'

[Galen]

could you give an example of one of these rules being formed?

Well, Socionics itself works as a Ti system formation (whenever I say "rules" in this context I really just mean a system constructed out of thought that's meant to be a representation of the world in some way). Both Aleksei, and here Skeptic I suppose, are alluding to the idea that Socionics as a construct is made before anything is actually fitted into it, and phenomena that are observed as being part of this classification somehow are placed in after the fact. This later classification eventually builds to the idea that all this talk of Fe and Ti and everything only has meaning on a personal level, where the meaning is dependent on whatever system you're using. So they (seemingly artificially) create their own definitions for things, then place the observed phenomena into those definitions afterwards.

Bringing this back to the Ti PoLR talk, this whole process of system > phenomena/noumena seems wholly backwards to me. My preferred means of thinking about Socionics, or anything else I guess, is for the observed phenomena themselves to take center stage, and have any means of externally classifying or systematizing the phenomena come after the data has been (sufficiently) gathered. What does happen, though, is that as more data comes to me, my mind will create a sort of gestalted "feeling" that comes as a consolidation of all the various data points in question. I'd hypothesize that the nature of the internal IEs as being more "noumenal" than "phenomenal" would result in the F function information being interpreted as feelings (information not received through/pertaining to the physical senses.)

[Jonathan]

@Jonathan I think you're spot on in everything Te related, but your Ti description of 'how things relate' sounds N based to me, could you clarify?

By how things relate, I just meant the validity within a structure when viewed statically. I didn't mean viewing possible connections between different things, which I agree has an N flavor. I think your view of Te and Ti makes a lot more sense than a lot of the other views I'm hearing on this thread.

...although the idea people have come up with Fi as curved relative to straight-line Ti is interesting. I think actually that idea can apply to Fe relative to Te as well.

[Crispy]

All this talk about being anything about "the rules" is sickening (although I guess LSI's would prefer it to "laws").

Fully differentiated Filatova -PoLR Quotes: (May decide to revamp the other PoLR threads in the future)

IEE

Weak in administrative functions such as organization of work schedules, writing instructions, reports and the like.

Have trouble restraining themselves to certain boundaries.

Does not accept anything predetermined.

Difficulty in logical analysis.

Cannot sit and meticulously do what is necessary, instead preferring to bounce a multitude of ideas off those around them.

Inability to analyze things deeply

Pay attention to the many minute details while failing to grasp the big picture

SEE

Difficulty with logic

Not easy to decide what is needed and what can be sacrificed in a given system.

Reluctant to accept objective basic laws.

Cannot give themselves a reasonable explanation for their impulsive actions.

Completely sure of themselves even if doing a job that is completely unsuitable for them.

If told it is better for them to work on something else, they will either not understand, not hear, or not believe it.

[Beautiful sky]

Te is facts; Se is only sense perception which is then conditioned by a judging function; a sense perception perceives objects as they are and the more attractive an object the more sense perception will want to acquire it.

I think Te and Se are both about "facts," in a way.
Te: external dynamics of objects
Se: external statics of objects
they are just different kinds of facts. For example:
Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).

Now, for on topic discussion...
I know a guy who is (I'm 99.999% positive) SEE. He hates labels (like preppy, emo, etc), categories, and he flipped shit when I explained to him what socionics was, thinking that by describing someone with a type, you are putting them in a box that limits their personality, etc. etc.
I see where he's coming from with all this, but I don't think he understands that labels exist to describe, not box you in (though they can do that if taken too seriously).
EDIT: he also throws around the words "in which" and "therefore" in his sentences when he talks about politics, and doesn't seem to understand that there are only certain places where those words belong (structure of sentence = Ti, no?).

Would this be a good example of Te?


The Way in which he describes my actions and what they could mean indicates Te: external dynamics of objects

My boyfriend observed a very interesting thing in me while reading my online posts. He said, "honey, it seems as though that when you write, you do so from the place of authority; you drop your introvert's mask and the screen is like a buffer and a safety zone for you; I am the safety zone for you behind the screen because I have the ability to find the words to say what I want and sound how I want."

[krieger]

you people don't honestly think it's IxTjs that go around calling people nerd, emo, jock, etc, do you.

...

[Jonathan]

Te: external dynamics of objects
Se: external statics of objects
they are just different kinds of facts.

If you're implying that Te has more in common with Se than it does with other IM elements (because they're both "external...objects"), or equating "external...objects" with facts, I think that's a bit misleading. External/internal is really just a convenient grouping of ST vs. NF so that Augusta could uniquely define each IM element via three dichotomies. Abstract vs. involved (NT vs. SF) would work just as well.

Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).

These are basically the same kinds of information. The only differences are that one uses units of measurement, and one happens to be describing something that's moving. That has nothing to do with dynamic in the Socionics sense. We could also remove the units of measurement: "That car is going fast!" That doesn't make it Te or dynamic either, anymore than noticing "It just stopped" causes a transition from dynamic to static IM elements. This is getting silly, but it bears pointing out.

Eh, I'm going to keep being wary of this " = facts" carp. It's patently obvious that everyone uses 'facts', just in different ways towards different ends—this is the crux that you all keep missing. To relegate 'facts' to 1 (or 2) IEs is nonsensical and uninteresting.

Yes!

It's the cognitive orientation that matters—the way 'facts' are thematically put together by an individual's mind to illustrate a phenomena or convey an idea, etc. That's where IE distinctions lay.

I agree with this. I don't think I agree with your way of looking at it all the way (mainly in that I think the IM elements have to do with some sort of patterns or aspects of reality, which could have relevance in computer science, not just biology, and that I think our brains are probably more alike than different, and thus capable of simulating the experiences of others if we really try), but this far I agree with.

[krieger]

i associate J functions with facts... Je is about epistemically unprobematic facts whereas Ji is about epistemically challenging facts (i.e. questions or theses that require mental effort to be answered)... the epistemic challenge is what invites a person to make a shortcut to an answer through "subjective" reasoning.

however, in another sense the following holds:
Accepting: epistemic challenge is not confronted
Creating: epistemic challenge is confronted

when the challenge and the confrontation don't coincide, the function is Diffuse, i.e. an agent of arbitrarity and chaos.

Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).

i'd say it's more like:

Se: the car
Te: is moving at 100 km/hour

the P function signifies the entity that the fact is expressed of.

[silke]

Well of course, but the nature of the rules in question are very different. The "rules" that I find myself creating/noticing about the world are much more based intrinsically, having a more implicit and less tangible staticness and order rather than the order being, uhm, I guess more tangible. The difference here would be perceived externality vs perceived internality, if that makes any sense. Like, the kind of consistency I associate with Fi can't be measured in any real tangible way. It can only be felt, or something.

I conceptualize it differently with neither Ji element being more explicit or implicit. For me there is symmetry inherent to the model and Ti and Fi accomplish essentially same task. I call Fi "personal" and Ti "impersonal" rather than static or more explicit. May be because Ti is impersonal it gives you this sort of colder, more rigid, static-like feeling? While Fi being personal seems more squishy and formless? I don't think of Ti as static because whatever a Ti-valuer considers true will evolve with life experience. The internal worldview that Ti builds is constantly being structured and restructured (at least for all healthy Ti types).

The way I see Te vs Ti wrt to explaining things:
Both Te and Ti egos like explaining things (in particular Te/Ti doms), but in different ways with different emphasis. A Ti-type's explanation has historically been difficult for me to understand and usually does not address key issues I am waiting to hear about. I do a lot better with Te-types' explanations.

I've had more issues in classes taught by Te professors. I always had a feeling that they won't re-adjust the course material to fit the understanding of their students. They would tell you what you need to know but not really concern with helping to shape your understanding of it.

Well, Socionics itself works as a Ti system formation (whenever I say "rules" in this context I really just mean a system constructed out of thought that's meant to be a representation of the world in some way). Both Aleksei, and here Skeptic I suppose, are alluding to the idea that Socionics as a construct is made before anything is actually fitted into it, and phenomena that are observed as being part of this classification somehow are placed in after the fact. ... My preferred means of thinking about Socionics, or anything else I guess, is for the observed phenomena themselves to take center stage, and have any means of externally classifying or systematizing the phenomena come after the data has been (sufficiently) gathered. What does happen, though, is that as more data comes to me, my mind will create a sort of gestalted "feeling" that comes as a consolidation of all the various data points in question. I'd hypothesize that the nature of the internal IEs as being more "noumenal" than "phenomenal" would result in the F function information being interpreted as feelings (information not received through/pertaining to the physical senses.)

I don't think this forming a model then trying to fit observables into it has anything to do with Ti in itself. If you read through Aleksei's thread you'll see several Beta posters arguing with him that this approach is wrong, though Beta is Ti-valuing too. The gestalted "feeling" I can relate to as well. When everything is coherent and making sense it actually makes the Ti-user feel good, but I think if anything this feeling might have to do with the reward system of the brain and is probably not related to the jungian F functions.

All this talk about being anything about "the rules" is sickening (although I guess LSI's would prefer it to "laws").

Yes, I don't like this description too and find it can be highly misleading as the word "rules" has other connotations. Next thing you know it is equated to "laws" to then prescribe Ti-egos some sort of administrative/legalistic flair which has nothing to do with reality.

[The Ineffable]

I think Te and Se are both about "facts," in a way.
Te: external dynamics of objects
Se: external statics of objects
they are just different kinds of facts. For example:
Te fact: the car is moving at 100 km/hour (dynamic)
Se fact: the car is red (static).

Now, for on topic discussion...
I know a guy who is (I'm 99.999% positive) SEE. He hates labels (like preppy, emo, etc), categories, and he flipped shit when I explained to him what socionics was, thinking that by describing someone with a type, you are putting them in a box that limits their personality, etc. etc.
I see where he's coming from with all this, but I don't think he understands that labels exist to describe, not box you in (though they can do that if taken too seriously).
EDIT: he also throws around the words "in which" and "therefore" in his sentences when he talks about politics, and doesn't seem to understand that there are only certain places where those words belong (structure of sentence = Ti, no?).

This is the right track, Vois! However, here's my opinion:
Se: This is a car. This is red. This is movement.
Te: The car is moving at 100 km/hour. This car is red.

The idea is that Static is analytic and Dynamic is synthetic, not necessarily movement, but a temporary fact (something that does not make part of the idea, it depends on time). Read Kant's distinction between analytic/synthetic and you get the idea, both Aushra and Gulenko (at least) recognized this distinction in Static/Dynamic, in case you need some official backup.

"The car is red" - it's Dynamic, synthetic. It is a phenomenon, that color is neither inherent nor mandatory in the car, it is so in the moment of observation. A different thing is when you say "this is the red cross" - that's identification again, Static and Se: the color makes part of the concept of the subject, you can't have the red cross in blue. To exemplify you further:

- time 0, a red car: Se: the red car; Te: the car is red;
- time 1, the car is repainted: Se: not the red car; Te: the car is not red.

See the difference? Te deals with the changes, not with the identity with the objects, therefore the car may remain the same, but Se does deal with the identity based on specific properties, if they change, the identity is not the same anymore, it can't work in time.
---

I once used an example (perhaps express slightly differently): two horses, a poor skinny one that won all contests so far against normal horses, and a strong and healty steed that you know nothing about. Which one is gonna win the contest?
- Se: the steed, the strength is in itself, it is impossible for that jade to win since it is weak by construction;
- Te: the jade, it always won, facts speak for themselves. It doesn't matter how they look, there's no such thing as strong and weak, but how they perform (facts), thing that you can't tell in advance.

[tcaudilllg]

rantedy rant rant wheeeeeeee

Things I've noticed about Ti-PoLRs are: a love of pointing out exceptions to the rule

Absolutely yes. I don't even really care for "the rule" to begin with, because no single rule I've come across has ever really encompassed everything it tries to do, no matter how hard people try to bend it. What really pisses me off is when people try to assert how their own self-made "rules" actually work in the real world, then when I point out the discrepancies between how the world works and what their rule stipulates they weasel their way out of it. People can become so painfully attached to the rules that they create about the world, and it's like they can't bear to give them up and instead have to force data into it, straining their spider web so hard until it rips apart although the person never knows that it's broken.

What else annoys me about Ti valuers is that they like to build their own world in their head from the ground up, affixing their own basic starting points and situations to create an argument. This works fine so long as the system stays inside the individual's head, but when you try to apply it to the real world, there's always some way in which it doesn't quite fit. The issue then becomes that they don't even see how it doesn't fit: they just go along with the bias they have for their own head.

That's essentially how it works for me to be Ti PoLR: rejection of "the rules," whatever they may be. That's not to say rejection of law in general, but rejection of the existence of externally static laws under which the world is subjugated. I've always been under the impression that the outer world is really just a giant playground of chaos where each infinitesimally small little part does what it does, and these small parts compound into larger parts and everything just grows out of an extrinsically unstructured environment. An ENFp friend of mine one said "truth is temporary," which I think is a good summary of everything here.

The rule may be correct, but it is tied up with assumptions that require a lot of work to extinguish. Notably, most of these assumptions are untested Ti postulates offered by weak Ti people. Strong Ti people are driven to eliminate these assumptions, in part due to a sense or responsibility and in part, due to a sense of personal guilt for not knowing better. To be sure, the stronger your function, the more guilt you feel over its misuse.

[strrrng]

Well, Socionics itself works as a Ti system formation (whenever I say "rules" in this context I really just mean a system constructed out of thought that's meant to be a representation of the world in some way). Both Aleksei, and here Skeptic I suppose, are alluding to the idea that Socionics as a construct is made before anything is actually fitted into it, and phenomena that are observed as being part of this classification somehow are placed in after the fact. This later classification eventually builds to the idea that all this talk of Fe and Ti and everything only has meaning on a personal level, where the meaning is dependent on whatever system you're using. So they (seemingly artificially) create their own definitions for things, then place the observed phenomena into those definitions afterwards.

I see what you mean, but I think this is more related to alpha . Beta on the whole seems to work a bit more holistically, in the sense that separate systems can be merged if their premises are symmetrical; whereas alpha is more fixated on the content in these systems (abstract statics are weird kinds of boundaries).

Bringing this back to the Ti PoLR talk, this whole process of system > phenomena/noumena seems wholly backwards to me. My preferred means of thinking about Socionics, or anything else I guess, is for the observed phenomena themselves to take center stage, and have any means of externally classifying or systematizing the phenomena come after the data has been (sufficiently) gathered. What does happen, though, is that as more data comes to me, my mind will create a sort of gestalted "feeling" that comes as a consolidation of all the various data points in question. I'd hypothesize that the nature of the internal IEs as being more "noumenal" than "phenomenal" would result in the F function information being interpreted as feelings (information not received through/pertaining to the physical senses.)

I definitely agree about the F function thing, because most of my conclusions stem from apperception and momentary impressions; it's just the core premises of my ideas that keep things aligned.

"Ti = rules" irritates me because to me, "rules" implies externally imposed strictures which can be applied without consideration of the overall logical structure of the system.

yeah, I figured this could yield conflicting views. see, when I think of "the rule" or whatever, it isn't something that exists out there; it's inherent to the laws of thought, the design and intent of any system; and the fluid expression of said system defines "the rule" to me. I don't think external structures should be imposed, that's a contradiction anyway.

overall, I've found this attitude prominent in beta groups, as far as social rules go. it's tacit, like the personal/moral boundaries of delta, and governed by the energy field of each person; so you either 'get' what to do or not.

[EyeSeeCold]

I already ejected him. He can go join the omega quadra leper colony with his boy ESC.

Get off my case and stop namedropping me. Just stop dude.

[Suz]

People say of Ti-egos that their explanations are long and full of useless information. Sorry but if you would care to understand its importance in relation to the conceptualized form you would be able to use rules as proper rules and not just abstract statements.

Actually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

[The Ineffable]

Actually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I guess not. Where have you head that?

[Galen]

I conceptualize it differently with neither Ji element being more explicit or implicit. For me there is symmetry inherent to the model and Ti and Fi accomplish essentially same task. I call Fi "personal" and Ti "impersonal" rather than static or more explicit. May be because Ti is impersonal it gives you this sort of colder, more rigid, static-like feeling? While Fi being personal seems more squishy and formless? I don't think of Ti as static because whatever a Ti-valuer considers true will evolve with life experience. The internal worldview that Ti builds is constantly being structured and restructured (at least for all healthy Ti types).

I think we have the same idea in mind, just with different vocabulary. What occurs to me now is that "static" may not refer to the staticness of the system in general, considering how formless/malleable Fi is, but rather that it provides staticness to the corresponding Je functions by grounding them with meaning/context. Otherwise I'm kinda starting to lose grip on "static" or "dynamic" having any real meaning other than in a temperament scheme.

I don't think this forming a model then trying to fit observables into it has anything to do with Ti in itself. If you read through Aleksei's thread you'll see several Beta posters arguing with him that this approach is wrong, though Beta is Ti-valuing too.

Could be, I imagine it'd be more of an Alpha Ti deal. With both of their object functions being internal (Ne and Fe, malleable, squishy, etc blah blah), it seems like they'd have little difficulty turning things into just variables and working with external frameworks (Si and Ti both reinforcing each other as external IEs). Or something. Betas would be grounded in more explicitly observable points of data/holistic contexts a la strrrngs description.

The gestalted "feeling" I can relate to as well. When everything is coherent and making sense it actually makes the Ti-user feel good, but I think if anything this feeling might have to do with the reward system of the brain and is probably not related to the jungian F functions.

What I'm noticing here is that the coherency of a system and the good feeling are separate entities from how you described it. The status of the system causes a feeling, which isn't so much a gestalt as it is a reaction, unless I'm misunderstanding something. For Fi, or at least for me, the system and the feeling are the same thing. Points of data are taken in, and at the same time they shape the noumenal structure in whatever way. Then if you ignore the points of data and instead just take note of the structure's resulting shape, that shape would be the sort of "gestalt" feeling I'm referring to.

As a more concrete example, I've done a bit of metacognitive analysis and came up with some interesting points. I find that whenever I stare off into space, when I'm not actively trying to process or deal with information, my eyes will subconsciously move themselves so that the information received from my entire field of vision "feels" the best. By this I mean that my eyes/brain will scan my environment for fields of colors, shapes, discernible objects, etc. Then, still at the subconscious level, it seems my brain takes all of the things in that field of vision and somehow synthesizes it all down to a "feeling," an actual emotion that I can understand.

Yes, I don't like this description too and find it can be highly misleading as the word "rules" has other connotations. Next thing you know it is equated to "laws" to then prescribe Ti-egos some sort of administrative/legalistic flair which has nothing to do with reality.

Admittedly, "rules" was a terrible choice of word for what I was trying to explain, lol. I'll just drop that part of the argument until I can explain it better, if ever.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

People say of Ti-egos that their explanations are long and full of useless information. Sorry but if you would care to understand its importance in relation to the conceptualized form you would be able to use rules as proper rules and not just abstract statements.

Actually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

I don't know about explanations; but my LSI stepdad can talk forever.

[strrrng]

What I'm noticing here is that the coherency of a system and the good feeling are separate entities from how you described it. The status of the system causes a feeling, which isn't so much a gestalt as it is a reaction, unless I'm misunderstanding something. For Fi, or at least for me, the system and the feeling are the same thing. Points of data are taken in, and at the same time they shape the noumenal structure in whatever way. Then if you ignore the points of data and instead just take note of the structure's resulting shape, that shape would be the sort of "gestalt" feeling I'm referring to.

see, this is what I'm still trying to differentiate, because I relate very strongly to everything concerning gestalt feelings, etc.

it might even have something to do with aristocratic quadras, given that the external field complements the internal; one could only justify a feeling of congruence via an extrinsic spectrum.

from a beta pov, I often find myself reading over something and referencing the different aspects of my subjective system as it manifests its own; symmetry in the measurement then seals the boundaries for an entire process to streamline, usually in images or metaphors, as a confirmation of the structure's premises, etc.

what you're describing seems a bit more objectively located, and through a natural evolution, brought to a state of inner rest, the implicit boundaries of said process finding resonance.

As a more concrete example, I've done a bit of metacognitive analysis and came up with some interesting points. I find that whenever I stare off into space, when I'm not actively trying to process or deal with information, my eyes will subconsciously move themselves so that the information received from my entire field of vision "feels" the best. By this I mean that my eyes/brain will scan my environment for fields of colors, shapes, discernible objects, etc. Then, still at the subconscious level, it seems my brain takes all of the things in that field of vision and somehow synthesizes it all down to a "feeling," an actual emotion that I can understand.

odd, this is what I find myself doing a lot. it's some kind of peripheral monitoring of sound and form, 'not looking in order to see things moving,' and the lateral motion recalibrates the borders of my perception. internal elements are what they are, I guess lol.

[Galen]

from a beta pov, I often find myself reading over something and referencing the different aspects of my subjective system as it manifests its own; symmetry in the measurement then seals the boundaries for an entire process to streamline, usually in images or metaphors, as a confirmation of the structure's premises, etc.

Sounds like you're translating your Ti structure into a much more malleable Ni "structure," allowing it to more fluidly transmute itself into the other. I imagine in an Si mind-frame these boundaries between structures would already be sealed off the instant they were created.

The difference I'm finding between what you're talking about and what I'm explaining is that I can't analyze my own structure by itself. The structure can only be hinted at by the points around it. This probably does sound like something Ni/Se can relate to as well, but the key difference would be information input vs. output, however that can really be measured.

what you're describing seems a bit more objectively located, and through a natural evolution, brought to a state of inner rest, the implicit boundaries of said process finding resonance.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, could you expand on it a bit?

odd, this is what I find myself doing a lot. it's some kind of peripheral monitoring of sound and form, 'not looking in order to see things moving,' and the lateral motion recalibrates the borders of my perception. internal elements are what they are, I guess lol.

This sounds like a more strictly information input scheme than it is a means of information synthesis, so it's not quite the same thing but it's pretty close, lol.

[plotter]

About the word "Rules"

I just thought we used "rules" as a substitute for what we really meant because we are lazy, because personally I dislike, rules, laws, and the like.
When I speak of "rules" I mean an abstracted version of reality (or fiction) with two or more "objects" and their relations to eachother descibed in such a way, that when you change something with one of the objects, a change must occur to either the described relationm, or the other object, in such a way that the total sum is the same.

Or something like that

[strrrng]

Sounds like you're translating your Ti structure into a much more malleable Ni "structure," allowing it to more fluidly transmute itself into the other. I imagine in an Si mind-frame these boundaries between structures would already be sealed off the instant they were created.

right, because the implied Fi boundaries would define the expansion of Si's... I'll clarify this more below.

The difference I'm finding between what you're talking about and what I'm explaining is that I can't analyze my own structure by itself. The structure can only be hinted at by the points around it. This probably does sound like something Ni/Se can relate to as well, but the key difference would be information input vs. output, however that can really be measured.

it probably also has to do with the fact that you're static and I'm dynamic. I can't analyze the structure of my perceptions' movement, but it always remains very aligned; Ti structures I can suspend more, much like I'd expect you to be able to do with Si.

this would probably imply the input/output of information as at least partially dependent on ego/super-id functions.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, could you expand on it a bit?

well if I'm visualizing delta functions from an NF pov, then the Fi structure is that implicit pulse, circumscribed by the subject; Ne is its scalar field, the different forms the rubber band can take in being bent. implied by this (contraction-dilation), is a sequence of the points/bends ordered by the parameters of its observable movement (expansion-gradation); thus you have a predictable measure of how a person melds their essential form in different situations.

This sounds like a more strictly information input scheme than it is a means of information synthesis, so it's not quite the same thing but it's pretty close, lol.

yeah, it is; but I view it as an a priori necessity for synthesis, clarify the lens before presuming to see.

[Gilly]

Actually i've heard that said about Te-egos, not Ti-egos. But i guess it's all a matter of perspective.

If Info Were Gluttony

= A buffet line. (More food than you need, but quick and easy to pick and choose what you want.)

= A full-course dinner. (Exactly the food you need, but you've gotta sit through the whole thing.)

IMO this is a really good metaphor for extroversion vs introversion in general.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Chris: I'm not sure that Te is an 'arrow' exactly. It just probably feels that way to you cause you have Te polr. =p

But I liked most of what you said in your post.

[force my hand]

Not sure if this post has much use, but I suspect one of my thesis advisors was Ti POLR; it was often difficult to have a satisfying meeting with him.

For example, he seemed to have a fundamental distrust for classification schemes. I had a suite of igneous rocks that I wanted to correlate with a broader (aerially) assemblage on the basis of petrology; that is, the type of rock (i.e. tonalite, granite, granodiorite, etc.). It's a pretty straight-forward task, but it relies on making an accurate determination of what the rocks actually are. For that, you plot the normalized proportions of three end-members - quartz, alkali feldspar, and plagioclase - on a ternary diagram, and the sample will fall into one field or another.

Complications arise when metamorphism or alteration changes the chemical composition of the minerals. Alkali feldspar and plagioclase are end members, but form a solid solution series - so removing calcium and adding sodium or potassium can change your tonalite into a granodiorite, which is a problem if you are doing correlations. Additionally, each rock type has a different origin, so you want to make sure you're effecting the classification scheme to its full potential.

When I brought this problem to my advisor, his response was, "it doesn't matter!" What do you mean it doesn't matter? He refused to acknowledge there was any point in distinguishing between one type from another, and when pressed about it, couldn't explain why it was important to make any distinctions at all. It almost seemed like he wanted to rewrite the entire philosophy behind the practice of classification itself. He did not want to face the particulars of where hard data, arbitrary distinctions, and simplified approximations collided.

When I went to my other advisor, he saw right away what my problem was, and gave me a plan of attack in less than two minutes, no fuss, no muss (which was determine the protolith through metamorphic grade, relict textures, and geochemistry). Not even a mention regarding the classification scheme.