ti - why?

[Tater]

Right. And since I'm such a horrible failure at being objective with Ti, I'm asking someone else to do this.

to whom it may concern,

why is it that you profess such a high level of objectivity, yet fail to achieve your alleged caliber in every category? you state your positions as though you've touched the holy grail of truth, but in reality, your assertions are merely hypotheses in the process of testing. you declare your stance so matter-of-factly, but your method of reasoning is simply a sandbox of fraudulence. it is in this sandbox that you dick around like a child, while everybody else grows increasingly frustrated with your duplicity and carelessness. for all the time it takes you to develop an informed conclusion, your thoughts amount to gross over-simplifications in the face of an ocean of empirical data. if the situation wasn't already dire enough, you attest that you have a monopoly on openness, when your stubbornness indicates that you wouldn't know a novel idea if it bit you on the face. to top it all off, despite your 'detachment', you shit the bed every time your pet theories are challenged. emotionally compromised, but unaware, your repressed feelings rise to the surface, embarrassing almost everyone involved. but not you, because you have no idea how ridiculous you look.

 

[Mal12345]

to whom it may concern,

I guess this concerns me.

why is it that you profess such a high level of objectivity, yet fail to achieve your alleged caliber in every category?

Objectivity is a goal to be achieved. I don't say I have a high level of objectivity, I just say that it is higher than X's (insert some name).

you state your positions as though you've touched the holy grail of truth, but in reality, your assertions are merely hypotheses in the process of testing. you declare your stance so matter-of-factly, but your method of reasoning is simply a sandbox of fraudulence. it is in this sandbox that you dick around like a child, while everybody else grows increasingly frustrated with your duplicity and carelessness. for all the time it takes you to develop an informed conclusion, your thoughts amount to gross over-simplifications in the face of an ocean of empirical data. if the situation wasn't already dire enough, you attest that you have a monopoly on openness, when your stubbornness indicates that you wouldn't know a novel idea if it bit you on the face. to top it all off, despite your 'detachment', you shit the bed every time your pet theories are challenged. emotionally compromised, but unaware, your repressed feelings rise to the surface, embarrassing almost everyone involved. but not you, because you have no idea how ridiculous you look.

Sorry.

 

[Evo]

to top it all off, despite your 'detachment', you shit the bed every time your pet theories are challenged. emotionally compromised, but unaware, your repressed feelings rise to the surface

I think this is the problem. And honestly, probably why that shame thread has received so much attention.

If you put an idea out there, that doesn't mean that it's going to be received well, and when it's not, it can be quite deterring if the OP is adamant about their accuracy to the point of it interfering with any substantial learning.

 

[Poki]

to whom it may concern,

why is it that you profess such a high level of objectivity, yet fail to achieve your alleged caliber in every category? you state your positions as though you've touched the holy grail of truth, but in reality, your assertions are merely hypotheses in the process of testing. you declare your stance so matter-of-factly, but your method of reasoning is simply a sandbox of fraudulence. it is in this sandbox that you dick around like a child, while everybody else grows increasingly frustrated with your duplicity and carelessness. for all the time it takes you to develop an informed conclusion, your thoughts amount to gross over-simplifications in the face of an ocean of empirical data. if the situation wasn't already dire enough, you attest that you have a monopoly on openness, when your stubbornness indicates that you wouldn't know a novel idea if it bit you on the face. to top it all off, despite your 'detachment', you shit the bed every time your pet theories are challenged. emotionally compromised, but unaware, your repressed feelings rise to the surface, embarrassing almost everyone involved. but not you, because you have no idea how ridiculous you look.

not Ti, maybe someone in need of Ti and searching for it externally. what you mention sounds like perception validation. usually driven by a weak internal judge and an even weaker external perception. like a horse with blinders that cant see anything else running down a path.

 

[Mal12345]

I think this is the problem. And honestly, probably why that shame thread has received so much attention.

Probably, it's because Fi.

 

[CitizenErased]

I think this is the problem. And honestly, probably why that shame thread has received so much attention.

If you put an idea out there, that doesn't mean that it's going to be received well, and when it's not, it can be quite deterring if the OP is adamant about their accuracy to the point of it interfering with any substantial learning.

I don't know if my opinion will be well received by other Ti-dom people, but I think the problem with Ti is that it's some sort of masturbatory function: IT dissects the information captured by Pe, IT classifies it, IT discerns if it's right or wrong according to ITS framework. Ha! IT did it all by ITSELF, and got to the right, logical answer!

Being wrong is like having erectile dysfunction. It's a matter of pride, not fear.

 

[Forever]

Ti is built on axioms and when something doesn't fit well with that axiom, especially if it's deep, it's very difficult to change that axiom because then the logical framework or infrastructure has to be radically altered to a new logical framework making the ti user frustrated. Te trusts the outer world so it can change the logic easier.

Fi is like that with feelings, they're very stubborn to change a core value.

There's somewhat a similar predicament of a dominant Si/Ni user too.

But the lesson can be taken from this, sometimes changing our inner selves has to work in order to progress.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It, like any judging function, works best in tandem with the perceiving function.

What OP is describing sounds like Ti-Pi looping.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Ti is built on axioms and when something doesn't fit well with that axiom, especially if it's deep, it's very difficult to change that axiom because then the logical framework or infrastructure has to be radically altered to a new logical framework making the ti user frustrated. Te trusts the outer world so it can change the logic easier.

Fi is like that with feelings, they're very stubborn to change a core value.

There's somewhat a similar predicament of a dominant Si/Ni user too.

But the lesson can be taken from this, sometimes changing our inner selves has to work in order to progress.

I semi-disagree with the bolded. This is true when extraverted perception isn't engaged enough. Doing that requires a Ji dominant to venture out of their comfort zone, but if they can do that, I think they might be a lot more open to altering the infrastructure.

So yeah, you're right to a point, but I think what's difficult isn't altering the framework so much as learning not to rely too much on the feedback of the Si/Ni which tends to create a closed circuit that isn't bringing in the information that will function as tools to restructure the framework of understanding.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Ti - why?

Chicken thigh

 

[Numbly Aware]

Ti - why?

Chicken thigh

 

[flourine]

chicken thigh? i think not

 

[prplchknz]

Ti - why?

Chicken thigh

thats my favorite part of the chicken, can ti please be the breast [the part i like the least, please and thank you]

 

[anticlimatic]

to whom it may concern,

why is it that you profess such a high level of objectivity, yet fail to achieve your alleged caliber in every category? you state your positions as though you've touched the holy grail of truth, but in reality, your assertions are merely hypotheses in the process of testing. you declare your stance so matter-of-factly, but your method of reasoning is simply a sandbox of fraudulence. it is in this sandbox that you dick around like a child, while everybody else grows increasingly frustrated with your duplicity and carelessness. for all the time it takes you to develop an informed conclusion, your thoughts amount to gross over-simplifications in the face of an ocean of empirical data. if the situation wasn't already dire enough, you attest that you have a monopoly on openness, when your stubbornness indicates that you wouldn't know a novel idea if it bit you on the face. to top it all off, despite your 'detachment', you shit the bed every time your pet theories are challenged. emotionally compromised, but unaware, your repressed feelings rise to the surface, embarrassing almost everyone involved. but not you, because you have no idea how ridiculous you look.

Spot on. Often it is a literal sandbox.

 

[laymen]

Ti is good man, it gives you independency to think, free from general rule