[Ti] Ti, inconsistency, and turning people into systems

[Poki]

[MENTION=26997]CitizenErased[/MENTION]

Ok gotcha. I guess it's mostly automatic and not something I'm actively conscious of. I have never thought about how I think about people before. *inception music*

I definitely pay attention to body language, tone of voice, inflection, eye contact. Those are what I find myself overlapping over time and that sort of gives me a quick impression. This is who I think you are (subject to change caveat).

What they say builds upon this, confirms, changes or fleshes out. Eventually yeah, you see the same types of body language, tone inflections and the ability to read those get more refined. But I don't ever get to that "core essence" of that or a specific person because I don't believe it exists. I can see it being a fun idea to play with but it's not an idea I've played with personally.

Ive never thought about "core essence" i just figure out "who" is the person. Incorporates everything about the person. Not just bad or good, but everything

 

[Obfuscate]

was talking to brain about this on discord... extracted this from it for merce the other night... anyhow, i find it convenient to not need to type it out...


i don't have external language for my process... i can point things out in specific examples... but rarely to the person... it is more complex than typology...

it has patterns... but the patterns have overlaps and have to be added or removed in layers... some of it is based heavily on intuition for where i start... but the intuitive portion fades out as data is used to sort layers, if that makes sense... like behavior x fits y number of z types of behavior... but x also fits c number of d types of behavior... now we compare odds... odds shift based on how many ques fit in each section and how many are rarely in a section... but no section stands on it's own... they stack... it is all about odds and observable data with a beginning basis of intuition... most of the time intuition has completed 85% or more of the work... imagine a pair of glasses you can click various lenses in and out of... then imagine that there are thousands of lenses... it is a matter of getting all the right ones in and the wrong ones out... but the various lenses have patterns covering them... so as they stack up, the empty portions are the person's identity... you just see if the empty portion fits them like they are a puzzle piece... sometimes that blocks off some of who they are, but as new data emerges you can fine tune it...

post script:

questions: forgot to do those at the end...

So, do you turn people into systems?

no, people are naturally complex systems... i merely interpret what i think it may be into terms my mind easily grasps...

If so, do you find it convenient/comfortable or you try to neglect the "abstractions" you make of people?

it is the most natural thing in the world... most of the process feels automated... it is like i can peek in at the process but i don't generally need to concentrate on most of the steps...

Do you believe it's because of Ti or not (or a mix between Ti and some other function), or just Ti-doms?

i think there is a mix of all eight functions at play... ne leads...

As a Ti user, do you often find people consistent? Do you find yourself or other Ti users inconsistent?

ummmm.... i guess? i find the processes that lead to a person's various responses to be consistent most certainly...

 

[meowington]

I work in IT, I have Ni as primary function, Ti as tertiary function and I'm male : I'm basically in a constant Ni-Ti-IT-Tits-loop

Yeah I turn everything in a system, including people, the least consistent & trustworthy component of every system.
But I have plenty of Fe to make up for this gross objectification.

 

[Sacrophagus]

Most people are very predictable.
I mentioned your same reasoning in an HR discussion, including my tendency to improve all systems and subsystems that incorporate people. The big picture can morph into another desired scenery if all details are improved or altered. It translates into my feelings of glee and joy when I see people aiming at becoming the best version of themselves without feeling guilty about it and this kind of positive character devlopment is fated to influence the efficiency of the main system.
Behaviorally, patterns and ambiguous data are stored and analyzed. You start predicting someone's reactions, verbal cues, or even talk to them and answer what you said in their stead, conducting a monologue that includes them on your own, all the while they're standing there questioning the meaning of their existence. You also become inclined to use Spoiler Alerts in the beginning of most of your discussions and have people thinking that you make a living out of gambling.

 

[Abcdenfp]

@poki "but I could not even come close to devising a system to determine her thoughts or answers as they have no consistency and are very emotionally driven goal based without any sense what so ever even when you know her goal. My system says "flip a coin is the best you will get to a good vs bad response as that is actually the accurate probability". I will adjust probability as time goes on and the probability will slide back and forth"
my ISTP would say the same , we would have a disagreement and I would come back all emotional and he would say I'm in neutral until I see which way your about to swing.. which would further infuriate me because wth is neutral give me angry, sad, frustrated but neutral. He would say being emotional about the situation makes no sense, drives.me.crazy.

 

[Poki]

@poki "but I could not even come close to devising a system to determine her thoughts or answers as they have no consistency and are very emotionally driven goal based without any sense what so ever even when you know her goal. My system says "flip a coin is the best you will get to a good vs bad response as that is actually the accurate probability". I will adjust probability as time goes on and the probability will slide back and forth"
my ISTP would say the same , we would have a disagreement and I would come back all emotional and he would say I'm in neutral until I see which way your about to swing.. which would further infuriate me because wth is neutral give me angry, sad, frustrated but neutral. He would say being emotional about the situation makes no sense, drives.me.crazy.

Its not that her emotions make no sense...thats ENFP territory...lol. its that her logic, her reasoning, her inferior Ti was just...inferior. no issues in regard to this with ENFP. Reasoning may be hit or miss like an ENFJ, but its handled drastically different with P vs J

I say that at times with current ENFP, drives her nuts. Her answer is it makes me feel better...my answer is what are you gonna do to solve problem instead of symptoms? I am good with feelings...but they should not control you, you should use them to understand and control life like Ti does with its systems. Shoot to be an IFP, you will never hit it, but will create a much more balanced person. IFPs use emotions as processing and building not extraverting. I will give time with feelings, but senseless emotional that do not lead to growth...why?

ENFJ is different inside then ENFP greatly.

 

[Abcdenfp]

Its not that her emotions make no sense...thats ENFP territory...lol. its that her logic, her reasoning, her inferior Ti was just...inferior. no issues in regard to this with ENFP. Reasoning may be hit or miss like an ENFJ, but its handled drastically different with P vs J I say that at times with current ENFP, drives her nuts. Her answer is it makes me feel better...my answer is what are you gonna do to solve problem instead of symptoms? I am good with feelings...but they should not control you, you should use them to understand and control life like Ti does with its systems. Shoot to be an IFP, you will never hit it, but will create a much more balanced person. IFPs use emotions as processing and building not extraverting. I will give time with feelings, but senseless emotional that do not lead to growth...why? ENFJ is different inside then ENFP greatly.

This makes a lot of sense, I am really trying to not let them control me but it's like reigning in something that has been allowed to run wild for a very long time, I would like to use them like to does with systems. Agree shoot for the IFP and I'll hit the middle, I'm getting there I'm learning.

 

[CitizenErased]

[MENTION=26997]CitizenErased[/MENTION]

Ok gotcha. I guess it's mostly automatic and not something I'm actively conscious of. I have never thought about how I think about people before. *inception music*

I definitely pay attention to body language, tone of voice, inflection, eye contact. Those are what I find myself overlapping over time and that sort of gives me a quick impression. This is who I think you are (subject to change caveat).

What they say builds upon this, confirms, changes or fleshes out. Eventually yeah, you see the same types of body language, tone inflections and the ability to read those get more refined. But I don't ever get to that "core essence" of that or a specific person because I don't believe it exists. I can see it being a fun idea to play with but it's not an idea I've played with personally.

What happens to me is that everything I do "automatically", at some point I discover I do it unconsciously and then I have to monkey around with the "source code" and make it a conscious act. So building inside my head who I think the person is becomes a sort of puzzle.

My view tends to be that any T type has to work with logical consistency very strongly, not just Ti-doms. In fact, this is something I often struggled with in earlier stages of thinking about this stuff.

The distinguishing feature of a Ni vs a Ti dom to me is that introverted functions are about a priori constraints imposed by the mind, and Ni deals with mental constraints, Ti with logical ones. In this sense, Ti types are a lot more prone to be conscious of the framework they are committing to, whereas Te types tend to have a "whatever you can do with the framework" attitude. Where "do" is NOT MEANT in a pragmatic way, but can mean things like logical implementation of an idea that is of no practical value in the sense of money/that type of thing.

That's what I mean with Ti. To understand the framework you already have gives you the chance to consciously "customize" it (reason why I thought Ti-dom people could be seen as inconsistent when it came to values/opinions). I agree with that difference between Ti and Te, and that approach seems like a good clue to determine people's function stack.

I make no concious effort to focus on if something is logical. World is a system, it has to follow its system of an extreme parallel cause and effect. I try to understand it as best i can to navigate it as best i can. Reality trumps my understanding period. Logical or not. Its about understanding reality. Application refines it by exposing reality more.

Logical is limited by ones understanding of it

Ive never thought about "core essence" i just figure out "who" is the person. Incorporates everything about the person. Not just bad or good, but everything

Agreed. Once I was at a epistemology class, and the professor said "Throughout history, reason learned to think itself". The same way we're part of the reality and we try to understand it, its parallel "zoomed in" version would be the brain admitting to be part of the system and trying to understand it (not just other "brains" but the system to which it belongs, i.e. oneself). If you learn how you learn, then it's easier to understand processes inside your head nad trust them or not.

The "logic being limited by one's understanding of it" part reminds me of this idea about language, in which you perceive things in reality in terms of words you have to describe them. Maybe if you had another words with other meanings (different or more specific), you would experience/understand reality with those terms. It's interesting.

Well, I think "core essence" and "who" the person is, is more or less the same. As I see it, what one is excedes physical appearance/life story (to me they don't even matter that much sometimes), so I just work with what people say, how they say it and how they react to things.

was talking to brain about this on discord... extracted this from it for merce the other night... anyhow, i find it convenient to not need to type it out...


i don't have external language for my process... i can point things out in specific examples... but rarely to the person... it is more complex than typology...

it has patterns... but the patterns have overlaps and have to be added or removed in layers... some of it is based heavily on intuition for where i start... but the intuitive portion fades out as data is used to sort layers, if that makes sense... like behavior x fits y number of z types of behavior... but x also fits c number of d types of behavior... now we compare odds... odds shift based on how many ques fit in each section and how many are rarely in a section... but no section stands on it's own... they stack... it is all about odds and observable data with a beginning basis of intuition... most of the time intuition has completed 85% or more of the work... imagine a pair of glasses you can click various lenses in and out of... then imagine that there are thousands of lenses... it is a matter of getting all the right ones in and the wrong ones out... but the various lenses have patterns covering them... so as they stack up, the empty portions are the person's identity... you just see if the empty portion fits them like they are a puzzle piece... sometimes that blocks off some of who they are, but as new data emerges you can fine tune it...

post script:

questions: forgot to do those at the end...

So, do you turn people into systems?

no, people are naturally complex systems... i merely interpret what i think it may be into terms my mind easily grasps...

If so, do you find it convenient/comfortable or you try to neglect the "abstractions" you make of people?

it is the most natural thing in the world... most of the process feels automated... it is like i can peek in at the process but i don't generally need to concentrate on most of the steps...

Do you believe it's because of Ti or not (or a mix between Ti and some other function), or just Ti-doms?

i think there is a mix of all eight functions at play... ne leads...

As a Ti user, do you often find people consistent? Do you find yourself or other Ti users inconsistent?

ummmm.... i guess? i find the processes that lead to a person's various responses to be consistent most certainly...

Interesting thoughts! I liked the idea of the infinite lenses. In my case (I think I mentioned it once on the forum), I see information as squared Lego pieces (like the tiniest unit possible) and I build each piece of information with them, and then I separate all the information related to that and put it together, and then I link it to other pieces of information, until everything I know about a person is tied together and becomes a little machine, so I can feed new info to it, and the output SHOULD be how the real person would react to that. Of course, most of the times are my own interpretations of the facts, so I have to refine the way I interpret information in order to get the best results.

I work in IT, I have Ni as primary function, Ti as tertiary function and I'm male : I'm basically in a constant Ni-Ti-IT-Tits-loop

Yeah I turn everything in a system, including people, the least consistent & trustworthy component of every system.
But I have plenty of Fe to make up for this gross objectification.

I once said you were the master of quotes, now I'm giving you the extra title of master of word play. Clever.

Good for you. I have Fe deficit (see? I can play with words too), so I can't make up for the gross objectification, though without Fe, I don't care much about it being gross.

Most people are very predictable.
I mentioned your same reasoning in an HR discussion, including my tendency to improve all systems and subsystems that incorporate people. The big picture can morph into another desired scenery if all details are improved or altered. It translates into my feelings of glee and joy when I see people aiming at becoming the best version of themselves without feeling guilty about it and this kind of positive character devlopment is fated to influence the efficiency of the main system.
Behaviorally, patterns and ambiguous data are stored and analyzed. You start predicting someone's reactions, verbal cues, or even talk to them and answer what you said in their stead, conducting a monologue that includes them on your own, all the while they're standing there questioning the meaning of their existence. You also become inclined to use Spoiler Alerts in the beginning of most of your discussions and have people thinking that you make a living out of gambling.

Exactly this!! I once started a thread about perceiving things "zoomed in" first, and then focusing in the big picture. I don't care about the big picture unless I know what's made of. In fact, I believe I can't understand big pictures if I don't understand its components first.

Hahaha, you made me laugh. Now I have to try this path with people I know. I'll let you know if they arrive to the same gambling conclusion.

 

[Obfuscate]

yeah... building blocks was my prior example (in the conversation i quoted)... neither way is a perfect descriptive model, but the fluidity inherent in each fits the bill....