Yeah, and since INTPs have tertiary Si I think sometimes they believe that their Si is the same thing as their Ti, but it is not.
I had a similar issue with Se/Te, even other people on the forum used to say "oh marm, your shiny Te!" ...and sometimes I am using Te, but other times it's really just Se.
Yea Si can influence a person's decisions. A person's actions may appear random. It can encourage decisions to be subjective or objective, either way really, and deeply depends on the given issue and one's attenuations regarding the issue.
"..And the eight and final rule: If this is your first time at Fight Club, you have to fight."
'Men are meant to be with women. The rest is perversion and mental illness.'
The first two are the best examples.
1) Logically, the school should start the same time this monday as it started the last week
2) The time for monday's lessons will be found in the schedule
1 is making a prediction based on logic. It may be a fallacy, but it's still logic, and it exists only in the head.
2 is asking you to look to the outside world for evidence that may contradict the logic of #1.
For a close example, when I started my present job with a group of others, we were all given a work schedule. I thought that was that. But my logic-based assumption was wrong. In fact (and much to my chagrin) a co-worker pointed out to me that the schedule was changing daily. He knew this because he looked at the schedule.
I have never in my life had a break schedule that could change daily. Why would I assume otherwise? And why was the co-worker on top of this fact? I don't know, but I'm certain he was more of a J than I am.
Thank you for writing this out, though I still remain confused.
I don't understand what is logical about assuming a static break schedule because of a consistent past history of static break schedules? Wouldn't it have just been logical to look to the schedule you were given to find out schedule-related information instead of assuming...? (unless I read you wrong, in which case, I apologize). Is there such a thing as "past evidence?" Or is it the application of that to a similar context in the present, or projecting it into the future, the logic part?
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm ever going to understand. I'll just say I'm dysfunctionally Feelery, use neither, and call it a day.
but nothing's outside the realm of logic, in those situations it's just that our understanding of it is limited. I mostly agree, though. the use of evidence is often more reliable than theory, especially if we're talking about real-world situations, but we still wouldn't know what to do with the evidence if it weren't for basic logical skills.
Te - Extroverted Thinking
Contingency planning, scheduling, and quantifying utilize the process of extraverted Thinking. Extraverted Thinking helps us organize our environment and ideas through charts, tables, graphs, flow charts, outlines, and so on. At its most sophisticated, this process is about organizing and monitoring people and things to work efficiently and productively. Empirical thinking is at the core of extraverted Thinking when we challenge someone’s ideas based on the logic of the facts in front of us or lay out reasonable explanations for decisions or conclusions made, often trying to establish order in someone else’s thought process. In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else’s logic, sequence, or organization. It also helps us notice when something is missing, like when someone says he or she is going to talk about four topics and talks about only three. In general, it allows us to compartmentalize many aspects of our lives so we can do what is necessary to accomplish our objectives.
Ti - Introverted Thinking
Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a “leverage point” that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what’s observed.
I think that this should clear up what I was saying.
Also if you would like to understand the differences between Ne and Ni, this is a good reference...