Ti, Te and "Systems"

[simulatedworld]

Sorry. You're clearly a female INFJ who decided to see what being a dude was like. Since the ENTP is the compliment, it's clear that's the persona you decided to take.

I apologize for not realizing it before. Mea culpa.

I'm a female? Sweet, I'm gonna go sell my body on the street and then get an abortion! Girl power!

Wow. Why the hell do simulatedworld and Jaguar shit up threads constantly? I think that this forum would be a better place if they didn't do that. Jaguar is obviously never going to answer him straight and will continue trolling him, and simulatedworld will obviously keep arguing just because it's a game to him.

The worst possible consequence of thread clutter is you having to spend a couple extra seconds scrolling down a web page. Somehow I don't understand why this is so catastrophic.

 

[Venom]

To the OP:

I'm not sure about this. I don't think Te automatically takes systems to be normative. Te can be about systems of 'rules to follow', but it can also be about finding and acknowledging structure that's already there. Analysis isn't uniquely the domain of Ti.

That said, there may be some truth in it - for example, if someone thinks they're INFP but that they use a lot of Ni, and someone else tells them that they aren't using Ni because they're an INFP, or that it's unhealthy for them to do so and they should work on changing it, then I'd say that's a normative and inappropriate application of the system. But that's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw in someone's use of it. But then, maybe this is a Te perspective and a Ti user can point out where I've gone wrong - I don't know.

I actually interestingly enough think that there are some normative properties to MBTI. Perhaps I'll start another thread. In short, even the MBTI practitioner who used to post here said it once (he/shes INFJ i think). Un-differentiation is not the goal of MBTI. People who are undifferenitiated (XXXX) are not "healthier" according MBTI.

Sorry. You're clearly a female INFJ who decided to see what being a dude was like. Since the ENTP is the compliment, it's clear that's the persona you decided to take.

I apologize for not realizing it before. Mea culpa.

 

[Totenkindly]

Introverted Thinking (Ti) As an epistemological perspective, Ti leads one to trust only things that you understand first-hand for yourself, preferably through direct, hands-on interaction. You must see for yourself how a given thing or subject makes sense. Knowledge must emerge from the concrete reality itself, not from preconceived categories or criteria, and the search for knowledge must follow wherever logic and the subject matter lead, regardless of how people feel about it.

Massive resonance on that one.

I am having so many crapfights with family right now because they're using other ways to define truth... but what you described above is how I need to approach it or it's not real to me.

ps. Whassup with the rest of this thread? It's hard to unentangle jabs and pokes with the serious interwoven commentary... what a conundrum.

 

[onemoretime]

Massive resonance on that one.

I am having so many crapfights with family right now because they're using other ways to define truth... but what you described above is how I need to approach it or it's not real to me.

ps. Whassup with the rest of this thread? It's hard to unentangle jabs and pokes with the serious interwoven commentary... what a conundrum.

Yup. It doesn't exist unless we understand the underlying logic. Which strangely enough, is why so many of us are into math, but still don't quite trust it - the a priori principles are too ineffable. I don't think I'm being presumptuous when I say that Ti users generally think if you understand numbers, you essentially understand the essence of God.

 

[Totenkindly]

Yup. It doesn't exist unless we understand the underlying logic. Which strangely enough, is why so many of us are into math, but still don't quite trust it - the a priori principles are too ineffable. I don't think I'm being presumptuous when I say that Ti users generally think if you understand numbers, you essentially understand the essence of God.

Math is considered the "universal language." It describes principles of tangible reality that transcend language, culture, politics, and religion.

Equations are broad derived principles that describe portions of reality. If you know the equation(s), you can predict what happens within the system.

Ti naturally "models" things.

In that sense, if God is assumed as a primary creator, Ti is almost like a "re-creator" -- developing more and more complex models that capture the essence of reality in an understandable or at least predictable fashion.

Which leads me to say that yes -- once you have the equations, you have the mind of "God."

 

[Poki]

Massive resonance on that one.

I am having so many crapfights with family right now because they're using other ways to define truth... but what you described above is how I need to approach it or it's not real to me.

ps. Whassup with the rest of this thread? It's hard to unentangle jabs and pokes with the serious interwoven commentary... what a conundrum.

I agree with the massive resonance. You cant possibly steer a Ti dom with your perception all you can do is give it to us and we will decide what we think of it. No matter what type of degree someone has or how much someone else thinks this person is an expert of something, I will judge on my own if you make sense and really I will do this with everything you say. I will follow your perceptions, judgements, etc. and when I do this I experience firsthand and the result is what allows me to trust it. I dont hold Lenore as some personality god, I take what she has to say and judge how well it fits with my perception and I have no qualms going against it even though she knows much more then I do about it, but I am not gonna discredit everything because it doesnt fit 100%, I simply discredit parts that I dont see and take in parts that I do. Its a matter of knowing what to discard and what not to discard.

I may trust some bum off the street more then a college professor if he makes more logical sense then the professor. To me professors as people can be steered in what they believe, so are they teaching what they believe or what others have made them believe. You know how many people believed Pluto was a planet because they were taught that even though they didnt know what defined a planet(I honestly care less either way so I never looked into what defined a planet, just an example). Because of who I am and what I do, I realize how easy it is to steer someone to logically believe something. Its nice when someone can take my logic, analyze it and not always take it as truth even if it makes perfect logical sense, but a guess or a belief and see how it fits with their perception, then openly discuss. Its like perception swapping and we judge internally what we trust and what we dont.

Its frustrating when someone takes my logic tries to use it and comes back and judges me based on it. I prefer to have the results of what I do judged as opposed to my thought process. I try to take everyones perception into consideration and judge it myself internally. Because of people like this is why some of us use "IMHO" because we are presumptious, we know we may not be correct, we have an internal idea of how correct we are. This internal idea of how correct we are is used when we take MBTI into consideration so we dont hold it as a golden rule that is truth and we dont judge it all based on some inaccuracies.

So what functions does what I just wrote sound like? Curious as how things come across externally, especially online as most of this explaining doesnt come out IRL.

 

[onemoretime]

Math is considered the "universal language." It describes principles of tangible reality that transcend language, culture, politics, and religion.

Equations are broad derived principles that describe portions of reality. If you know the equation(s), you can predict what happens within the system.

Ti naturally "models" things.

In that sense, if God is assumed as a primary creator, Ti is almost like a "re-creator" -- developing more and more complex models that capture the essence of reality in an understandable or at least predictable fashion.

Which leads me to say that yes -- once you have the equations, you have the mind of "God."

You're talking to the guy who thinks the Romans got it right when worshipping Fortuna. If there is some sort of deity, its will is expressed through probability.

 

[Nocapszy]

ps. Whassup with the rest of this thread? It's hard to unentangle jabs and pokes with the serious interwoven commentary... what a conundrum.

I still think he's a dumbass.

it's not that hard to differentiate...



[that's a Ti joke by the way dudes. with the provided information, it's internally consistent. but if i were to bring more information into the 'equation' Ti would compel me to retroactively assess the situation and reconfigure, if not completely overhaul my conclusion.]

 

[tcda]

My only objection to a lot of functions theory is that, while I'm not an empiricist, the "essence" has to have some effect on the "appearance" and be obervable as a tendency, or else the only thing to go by when choosing between two "internally coherent" logical system, is, erm, blind faith.

I think you can't have either a philosophical theory seperate from empirical evidence, nor can empirical evidence be understood without an overarching philosophical "narrative".

 

[Qre:us]

OK, So I was thinking about how some Extraverted Thinkers on this forum seem to have a major problem with what the MBTI is, and I had a thought that I felt like sharing:

Extraverted Thinkers (being the Extraverted Thinkers they are) automatically think of systems as external rules and procedures to follow - and so some look at the MBTI and assume that this system is telling people how they should be acting. These are rules that are meant to "enlighten" people to the correct way they should be living their lives - what a horrible, soul-destroying thought that must be! INFPs must have it the worst - not only it is telling people how they should act, it's even assuming that it can categorise billions and billions of unique individuals into 16 categories of thought and behaviour!

Introverted Thinkers probably see it differently - this isn't telling you how you should be acting, it's an attempt at observing and describing an ongoing process. It's not an external ruleset, it's an internal ruleset - an attempt to understand what is being perceived. So the author isn't really telling you what to do and how to live, the author is telling what they've learned from observation - "the spectator sees more of the game" and all that.

Does this ring true at all? Or am I just talking bollocks?

INFP = INTROVERT.

dumbass

Epic T-fail!

 

[Andy]

So you posted a potential definition of Te, for consumption and so that it can be corrected by others. And immediately Te people start fighting/shoving back about what your intentions were.

...That part, at least, matches your theory.

I still do feel a bit muddled, though, on exactly what Te complaints would be about MBTI, or whether your concept is accurate.

I personally don't have any. The theory is both interesting and useful.

 

[htb]

Ti analyzes and defines, Te organizes and applies.

Take Eric B's webpage on typology, rich with information and effectively a journal of Eric's discoveries and reflections. I find it an unreadable, garrulous mess that should be pruned of all but the essentials, set in outline form, and summarized in no more than five bullet points.

 

[Eric B]

Have you seen it recently? I divided it all up, with the original "Part 2" (in the link in the signature) now just building the type code and theory up from scratch (much shorter), and the "journal of discovery" is now spun off into a separate "part 2a", and there's also a part 3 and 4, and a new "Type Ideas" page which is a summary of the tables, images and some of the novel ideas.
So the Ti will be "backed up" by some Te.

 

[htb]

Have you seen it recently? I divided it all up, with the original "Part 2" (in the link in the signature) now just builds the type code and theory up from scratch (much shorter), and the "journal" is now spun off into a separate "part 2a", and there's also a pert 3 and 4, and a new "type ideas" page which is a summary of the tables, images and some of the novel ideas.
So the Ti will be "backed up" by some Te.

Really? Nice. I'll take a look.

 

[Totenkindly]

Ti analyzes and defines, Te organizes and applies.

Take Eric B's webpage on typology, rich with information and effectively a journal of Eric's discoveries and reflections. I find it an unreadable, garrulous mess that should be pruned of all but the essentials, set in outline form, and summarized in no more than five bullet points.

You guys crack me up.
But yes, that highlights the differences nicely.

 

[yenom]

Te is associated with willpower,l planning and self-discipline.
Ti does not.

I am curious of how INTJs use Te though.

 

[Ginkgo]

what are you guys all bickering about?

I'd guess Te comes in a multitude of flavors depending upon what it is paired with and where it falls into the natural function order.

Fi doesnt like to be boxed. It's unique and special.

My Te fucking loves boxes. I'll box anybody. Even better I will fiddle with all of the boxes when I find out the first boxes were not quite the right shape and then I rebuild the boxes. My favorite take on MBTI actually involves four boxes with each of the 16 types plus a 17th category for folks who dont fit in the first 16 groups. Box 17 is really the "yet to be fully understood" box.

It isnt about static structures-more about observable results. Did the first box work? yes or no. No? change it to make it fit external data.

Yet within each box, there is still room for infinite variety due to free will and the fact that each function is like a sliding continuum of intensity.

Once you understand what the pattern is, then you can change the pattern. Trying to change the pattern without understanding the pattern is much more difficult I'd imagine.


So first you get boxed with Te, then I use NeFi to blur all the box edges together. How could this every actually get boring?

+1, though I fear it does get boring. The boxes meld together enough to include anyone. We reinvent it from the same stuff of subjective perception. So, ultimately, it is never truly reinvented - only viewed from distinct angles at distinct times and frames of reference.

Every archetype is a Rubik's Cube. Each Rubik's Cube has 8 colored function cubes which are configured in a unique order juxtaposed to the order of the function. As we process, we rotate the axis of the Cube to adapt. However, we rest in a particular lax order.

The colors were observed, not determined by the makers; just as we first observed the 3 primary colors upon birth. The colors always lined the causeways of inner-reality because they were always outwardly real. This is the battle between Pi and Pe; so we will maintain this difficulty of determining cause-and-effect relationships via communication.

You must pull the sock of your mind inside-out to understand. Does the system act upon us, or do we act upon the system? The reality is: both; for these opposites are reliant upon each other, just as we are reliant upon each other for clarification.

I hope you understand me. It's fun to be cryptic.

 

[htb]

You guys crack me up.
But yes, that highlights the differences nicely.

When in doubt, demonstrate.

And so: two, count them, two messy pages of meticulous research.

ERIC YOU LURED ME WITH PROMISES OF BULLET POINTS

 

[JustHer]

VagrantFarce does not understand functions at all!

 

[Eric B]

When in doubt, demonstrate.

And so: two, count them, two messy pages of meticulous research.

ERIC YOU LURED ME WITH PROMISES OF BULLET POINTS

I promised no such thing! (though the contents lists at the beginning are bulleted, and there are some other bulleted lists throughout as well).
If you can break the whole theory down and explain it with bullet points, I'd like to see you do it!