• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Ti] Ti's Relationship to Empirical Data

Burning Paradigm

Vibe Curator & Night Owl
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
2,146
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
731
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
One thing I'm confused about by the descriptions of Ti vs. Te is their relationship to empirical data. The descriptions of Te paint it as making its judgments on the basis of interpreting, structuring, and organizing empirical data. Ti, on the other hand, makes its judgments on the basis of internalized logic and methods. But, there's something about this description of Ti as I've found through multiple websites and resources that isn't quite clicking for me. I understand these points in the abstract, but one thing I can't seem to find is how Ti deals with empirical data (e.g. statistics).

1) Am I interpreting the differences between these two functions correctly?

2) Everyone relies on empirical data to some degree, and I find it hard to believe that Ti, as a function, wouldn't manifest or rely on empirical data to some degree in its judgment. Could any Ti-users or people more knowledgeable in this area clarify this for me?
 

RadicalDoubt

Alongside Questionable Clarity
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
1,848
MBTI Type
TiSi
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
One thing I'm confused about by the descriptions of Ti vs. Te is their relationship to empirical data. The descriptions of Te paint it as making its judgments on the basis of interpreting, structuring, and organizing empirical data. Ti, on the other hand, makes its judgments on the basis of internalized logic and methods. But, there's something about this description of Ti as I've found through multiple websites and resources that isn't quite clicking for me. I understand these points in the abstract, but one thing I can't seem to find is how Ti deals with empirical data (e.g. statistics).

1) Am I interpreting the differences between these two functions correctly?
What you've written here seems to be consistent with how Te vs Ti is defined at a basic level.

2) Everyone relies on empirical data to some degree, and I find it hard to believe that Ti, as a function, wouldn't manifest or rely on empirical data to some degree in its judgment. Could any Ti-users or people more knowledgeable in this area clarify this for me?
This is also correct, for the basis of any logical system, due to how perception works, there must be some level of understanding or understanding of empirical logic or data. The biggest difference between Ti vs Te is where the trust goes. Te is, by nature, an objectively oriented function that desires some kind of external proof for the conclusions it comes to. No, to say that Te is purely empirical is false, as Te of course comes to it's on conclusions and can develop a novel and cohesive understanding of a thing, however it prioritizes what can be proved and objective systems over what cannot. Te becomes irritable and will sometimes disregard information that cannot in any way be proven or connected to external data (and if it can't and they think it makes sense, they will try to find a way to connect it to that external set of data and what is known). Te is looking for what works and what is consistent logically.

Ti also requires external data to create the systems that it does, however, being a subjectively oriented function, trusts what it thinks makes sense over externally proven systems or external deviants. Ti, at the end of the day, desires to derive an understanding of things and model their understanding of things in a way that is disconnected from external systems (ie. by what makes sense to them) and will disregard any information that seems illogical/doesn't make sense in their mind, sometimes even if there is physical proof "proving" their logic incorrect (and if they think the idea is reasonable, but doesn't make sense, they'll dissect it until they can integrate it into their own systems). Ti is looking for precision and what makes sense internally.
 

Burning Paradigm

Vibe Curator & Night Owl
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
2,146
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
731
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
What you've written here seems to be consistent with how Te vs Ti is defined at a basic level.


This is also correct, for the basis of any logical system, due to how perception works, there must be some level of understanding or understanding of empirical logic or data. The biggest difference between Ti vs Te is where the trust goes. Te is, by nature, an objectively oriented function that desires some kind of external proof for the conclusions it comes to. No, to say that Te is purely empirical is false, as Te of course comes to it's on conclusions and can develop a novel and cohesive understanding of a thing, however it prioritizes what can be proved and objective systems over what cannot. Te becomes irritable and will sometimes disregard information that cannot in any way be proven or connected to external data (and if it can't and they think it makes sense, they will try to find a way to connect it to that external set of data and what is known). Te is looking for what works and what is consistent logically.

Ti also requires external data to create the systems that it does, however, being a subjectively oriented function, trusts what it thinks makes sense over externally proven systems or external deviants. Ti, at the end of the day, desires to derive an understanding of things and model their understanding of things in a way that is disconnected from external systems (ie. by what makes sense to them) and will disregard any information that seems illogical/doesn't make sense in their mind, sometimes even if there is physical proof "proving" their logic incorrect (and if they think the idea is reasonable, but doesn't make sense, they'll dissect it until they can integrate it into their own systems). Ti is looking for precision and what makes sense internally.

That makes sense. Mind if I run an example by you? (Disclaimer: I'm just exposing their styles of thought, not espousing a position here.) Two of my friends responded to a Facebook post they disagreed with the other day, which brought up "black-on-black" crime in response to the targeting of African-Americans by police officers. Here's how they responded:

1) One of my friends brought up countervailing statistics as to why that wasn't true or why that statistic was out of context considering the data. They posted a Twitter thread linking several statistics and sources to back up this point.

2) My other friend, before pointing to any statistics, brought up how it was a moot point if true, because the power dynamics between officers and civilians is different from civilians' dynamics with each other. Therefore, the OP's post didn't make sense or was a red herring.

Would the first be an example of Te and the second an example of Ti in this case?
 

RadicalDoubt

Alongside Questionable Clarity
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
1,848
MBTI Type
TiSi
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
That makes sense. Mind if I run an example by you? (Disclaimer: I'm just exposing their styles of thought, not espousing a position here.) Two of my friends responded to a Facebook post they disagreed with the other day, which brought up "black-on-black" crime in response to the targeting of African-Americans by police officers. Here's how they responded:

1) One of my friends brought up countervailing statistics as to why that wasn't true or why that statistic was out of context considering the data. They posted a Twitter thread linking several statistics and sources to back up this point.

2) My other friend, before pointing to any statistics, brought up how it was a moot point if true, because the power dynamics between officers and civilians is different from civilians' dynamics with each other. Therefore, the OP's post didn't make sense or was a red herring.

Would the first be an example of Te and the second an example of Ti in this case?

At a basic level (ie. without knowing either of those people's thought processes and assuming neither was specifically tailoring their argument towards what they assumed would convince the opposer of their points), I would say that this would be a decent example of Te vs Ti.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,145
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Honestly, nothing is perfectly "separate" -- but making a case from specific data points is definitely more the Te style. Ti style logic tends to look at the logical underpinnings of concepts and typically consists of logic statements that allow one to draw general truths. (Maybe another way to look at it is as doing specific math problems and data collection to do math, versus doing "math proofs" and drawing broader conclusions, which is more Ti. Ti focuses on the principles of logic more.)

Getting back to my first point, you can only compensate for flaws by combining the two styles a bit. Te logic might get the calculations and data points right while drawing wrong conclusions or getting lost in the trees. Meanwhile, Ti can construct a castle in the sky that is inherently rational (the system is internally rational and consistent) but does not connect to any real data points and thus actual reality even if the principles are right.

So while I might favor the broad coherent truth context myself, I personally have learned to anchor the framework in real data points, as a kind of check. It also makes it easier to convey my ideas to those who focus more on the data points. There is typically some kind of synthesis of the approaches to build something substantial and relatable.
 

Schrödinger's Name

Blessed With A Curse
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,693
Ti also requires external data to create the systems that it does, however, being a subjectively oriented function, trusts what it thinks makes sense over externally proven systems or external deviants. Ti, at the end of the day, desires to derive an understanding of things and model their understanding of things in a way that is disconnected from external systems (ie. by what makes sense to them) and will disregard any information that seems illogical/doesn't make sense in their mind, sometimes even if there is physical proof "proving" their logic incorrect (and if they think the idea is reasonable, but doesn't make sense, they'll dissect it until they can integrate it into their own systems). Ti is looking for precision and what makes sense internally.
This makes sense but it also confuses me. How would you distinguish an 'emotional' Ti user versus a 'logical' Fi user? (Yes yes, I intentionally stereotyped) What you explained sounds a bit like holding on to your own values, which is also described in Fi users. The 'not wanting to accept something/a fact' because it doesn't sound logical to them. I'd say that could be based on feelings and values. Or do I have to picture this as; it doesn't make sense to them because they can't relate/tie it to what they already know/have already gathered?
 

RadicalDoubt

Alongside Questionable Clarity
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
1,848
MBTI Type
TiSi
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
This makes sense but it also confuses me. How would you distinguish an 'emotional' Ti user versus a 'logical' Fi user? (Yes yes, I intentionally stereotyped) What you explained sounds a bit like holding on to your own values, which is also described in Fi users. The 'not wanting to accept something/a fact' because it doesn't sound logical to them. I'd say that could be based on feelings and values. Or do I have to picture this as; it doesn't make sense to them because they can't relate/tie it to what they already know/have already gathered?

This is a valid question; The way that I phrased this, looking back, does very much apply to both Ji functions to a degree (and I have seen both illogical and logical Fi users do this as well; I hyper generalized my description). I didn't really take the value thing into account because I briefly forgot that existed. It very much comes down to the bolded, they cannot tie it back to what they already know or have gathered. Logical high Fi often also strongly values being separate from the external, more in regards to their values and self/individualism than in systems because they are very much connected to these things.

As a personal example of illogical Ti (ie. myself being an idiot and low Ti), there was a point in my chemistry class that I literally could not remember certain pieces of information not because I couldn't understand them, but because they completely contradicted everything I knew about the subject prior to learning about these things (despite those specific pieces of information being semi-proven to be correct and commonplace in textbooks). Until I went back and rationalized how those pieces of information fit into the concept I had built of the subject (and by extension, readjust my system of understanding), I literally continued to discard the information unconsciously because "this piece of information was obviously some sort of misconception, there had to be something more correct."

I'm not sure this is helpful. If this still sounds Fi-esque, I could just be wrong, lmk. I'm still in the process of reorienting myself with mbti definitions, so if it's off my definitions could just be off.
 

Maou

Mythos
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
6,116
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ive always seen it as Ti-users dont think emperical data is the end all be all solution. They think its the best so far and are always looking for things that can replace it. Te users, accept the emperical data as total truth until proven otherwise. A ti user can easily swap "truths", while a te user wouldn't waste time and efficiently with "what ifs".

This is kinda from an NT perspective though. I could be deadass wrong. :unsure:
 

skimpit

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
717
Ive always seen it as Ti-users dont think emperical data is the end all be all solution. They think its the best so far and are always looking for things that can replace it. Te users, accept the emperical data as total truth until proven otherwise. A ti user can easily swap "truths", while a te user wouldn't waste time and efficiently with "what ifs".

This is kinda from an NT perspective though. I could be deadass wrong. :unsure:
I agree with this interpretation. Te takes facts as they are. So if a number set says "1, 2, 3, 4", a Te-user will gladly take that and say, "Is there a pattern?" They can still discern it using the other functions in their stack, but a Ti-user will more quickly catch on to the fact that each number goes up by one each time (if this were an IQ test, for example). Ti-users think of ways to twist logic to arrive at a truth about the data, singularized and honed through analysis. Te-users see data as something that speaks for itself.
Burner said:
One thing I'm confused about by the descriptions of Ti vs. Te is their relationship to empirical data. The descriptions of Te paint it as making its judgments on the basis of interpreting, structuring, and organizing empirical data. Ti, on the other hand, makes its judgments on the basis of internalized logic and methods. But, there's something about this description of Ti as I've found through multiple websites and resources that isn't quite clicking for me. I understand these points in the abstract, but one thing I can't seem to find is how Ti deals with empirical data (e.g. statistics).

1) Am I interpreting the differences between these two functions correctly?

2) Everyone relies on empirical data to some degree, and I find it hard to believe that Ti, as a function, wouldn't manifest or rely on empirical data to some degree in its judgment. Could any Ti-users or people more knowledgeable in this area clarify this for me?
1) Yes, I think you are.
2) Ti-users rely on Te data. If there was no external data, there'd be nothing to analyze internally as Ti does. That's why everyone has both functions, and why both types of users exist in this world.
 

Burning Paradigm

Vibe Curator & Night Owl
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
2,146
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
731
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I agree with this interpretation. Te takes facts as they are. So if a number set says "1, 2, 3, 4", a Te-user will gladly take that and say, "Is there a pattern?" They can still discern it using the other functions in their stack, but a Ti-user will more quickly catch on to the fact that each number goes up by one each time (if this were an IQ test, for example). Ti-users think of ways to twist logic to arrive at a truth about the data, singularized and honed through analysis. Te-users see data as something that speaks for itself.

1) Yes, I think you are.
2) Ti-users rely on Te data. If there was no external data, there'd be nothing to analyze internally as Ti does. That's why everyone has both functions, and why both types of users exist in this world.

Yeah, I felt like a bit of a dumbass for asking this question, but I figured that was the case. I was just confused by a lot of the descriptions I've read. Thinking of Ti as seeing existing empirical data as just one way makes more sense to me.
 

Vendrah

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,947
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
I think some few people here might be doing a conceptual mistake; Ti alone does not deal with any data at all. TP, or Thinking-Perceiving, does (that is one of the few differences between TP and Ti, these are hard to spot and some people might confuse TP and Ti because they are the same in a lot of points, but not all of them). Ti is an introverted function, its oriented through internal psyche, while Te as an extroverted function is oriented by external and environment. Ti does not gather data because there is no data for internal psyche, mostly (I dont know if we could count our own personality tests results as data for internal psyche, perhaps).

However, people forget that cognitive function by themselves doesnt actually do that much and it is kind of rare to find them on a really pure form. Instead, in a lot of times they work together, and not only necessarily on pairs or with the "thought trains" are presented out there, but in a way more free way.

Ti can be combined and used in data analysis, Ti can be used to make sense of data that it is presented. For example, to figure out how a machine works, maps and schemes might be drawn; Depending on the complexity, these draws will come and be gathered/perceived from Se or Ne or both. Then Ti can be used to make sense of the map and how it works using its own logic, so the map scheme reading and all stuff we see in a lot of websites related to Ti relies on Ne and Se. Ne and Se perceives the data; Ne connects the dots; Ti is used to make sense in what are we reading and drawing dynamics. Sometimes, we might even go back and forth between the functions.

When we talk about data, although, it might be discussable if Se or Ne does the job. In my opinion, it is still pretty much Te works. While Te might be used for data orientation and to gather data, Ti can be used to make sense of that data, Ne can go in to make connections and dots between data (yep, a Te-Ne combo), and the process can go back and forth a lot of times (gather, connect, make sense, gather, make sense, connect, etc... In a lot of different orders).

Just as an extra: Te can back up a lot of functions in a supportive way, although in non-essential (while Ti can do the same). Te-data can be used to back and support Ti logic systems, to give them validation and to ground them more on reality (although this latter is more Se related), can be used to support Ne connections, can be use as a support for Fe values, I have been creatively using it to track Fi primordial values (although I do think that is kind of an impure support), well, it can be combined with almost all cognitive functions (although I think combining Te with Fe and Fi might be problematic). Ti-logic can be used to make sense of Se and Ne stuff, to detect something wrong with data gathered by Te (data is not matching expected dynamics), I dont see much use on Si but I wouldnt be surprised if someone figure how, Ti can be used to make some sense of Fi values and to help make sense of Ni-insights, although Fi can do completely fine without that, and I dont think see much good ways to mix Ti and Fe.

This is a valid question; The way that I phrased this, looking back, does very much apply to both Ji functions to a degree (and I have seen both illogical and logical Fi users do this as well; I hyper generalized my description). I didn't really take the value thing into account because I briefly forgot that existed. It very much comes down to the bolded, they cannot tie it back to what they already know or have gathered. Logical high Fi often also strongly values being separate from the external, more in regards to their values and self/individualism than in systems because they are very much connected to these things.

As a personal example of illogical Ti (ie. myself being an idiot and low Ti), there was a point in my chemistry class that I literally could not remember certain pieces of information not because I couldn't understand them, but because they completely contradicted everything I knew about the subject prior to learning about these things (despite those specific pieces of information being semi-proven to be correct and commonplace in textbooks). Until I went back and rationalized how those pieces of information fit into the concept I had built of the subject (and by extension, readjust my system of understanding), I literally continued to discard the information unconsciously because "this piece of information was obviously some sort of misconception, there had to be something more correct."

I'm not sure this is helpful. If this still sounds Fi-esque, I could just be wrong, lmk. I'm still in the process of reorienting myself with mbti definitions, so if it's off my definitions could just be off.

Cognitive function skills and preferences are entirely different things.
Being a Ti-tard and scoring low on Ti on cognitive function means that the person is not using Ti much (since that is directly the interpretation of the person marking "not me" on Ti questions). If a person doesnt use Ti much, that does not necessarily means that a person is bad at using Ti. This field is quite unexplored, but as far as I know the best speculation is that Ti and Te good or bad use are a lot influenced by Ne and a little bit by Ni use. I say that because Ti and Te relies somewhat on IQ, and IQ has been, by research, somewhat predicted by intuition dimension on dichotomy (and a little bit on Perceiving, Thinking and Introversion). IQ tests uses a lot of abstract stuff, and abstract stuff is related to Intuition on MBTI, which means that the competency of Ne and a little bit of Ni does influence Ti and Te use.

Connecting piece of information is Ne related, making sense of the whole is basically a Ti and Ne combo.
Actually, Ti-Ne or Ne-Ti does even form some sort of studying tactics on their own. Its basically switching back and forth between conceptualizing and doing mind maps and connections, and, on a very meshed way, to make conceptualized connections. Thats pretty much the NTP recipe for studying, and it is one that NFPs can also take advantage of and perhaps STPs too. Also, Jung directly pointed out that memorization has nothing to do with the functions (even some posts of mine relates memorization to Si). I never saw any study between long-term memorization capacity and MBTI types.

But wait... I dont remember you [MENTION=34313]RadicalDoubt[/MENTION] being bad at using Ti.
And wait... ISFJ? Where that came from?
Well, that is already off-topic although.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,036
MBTI Type
NiFe
Well yes Ti represents the rational approach and Te represents the empirical approach, but that doesn't mean that Ti is 100% empiricism free. You could argue that it gets empiricism because Te is brought into it too, or because Ti itself includes some aspects of empiricism, but the point is that a Ti dominant say, will still rely on empirical data to some degree.

Another way of looking at Te versus Ti is that Te is active, and Ti is reflective. Te is more about doing something - building something (?), operating something, making a plan - whereas Ti is more where you go inward to reflect on the logic behind something, perhaps following a line of deduction, or choosing between 2 alternatives.
 

Pionart

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
4,036
MBTI Type
NiFe
Here's a good way to explain this: maths (or logic).

In maths, the equations studied need not be linked to the external world at all. They're not empirical, they're logically and abstractly defined propositions about how well defined structures behave.

However, then you have applied maths, where these formulae are imposed onto features of the environment to explain how it functions. So, in that sense, Ti is not just a model in one's own mind, but reflects a way that the environment itself is ordered. You can think of the logical structuring of the environment as the Ti of it. It's not something you can see directly, but is there in terms of how everything relates.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
As others have said, Ti's philosophical disposition towards "empirical data" is that it's not the complete picture and that it is fundamentally an expression of deeper mechanics or structure. Te users don't really get in to that, but will explore those same connections and reflect on them with their Pi functions.



OjEsMds.png
 
Top