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.