Is this dominant Si? or Ti? or Ti-Si loop?

[Such Irony]

I've been thinking about more the way I process information and its like I have this big storehouse of information. Put me in a new situation and I have to see how it relates to what I already know and experienced. If some situation doesn't seem to relate at all to anything I know or have experienced, I'm going to be very agitated and confused as to how to proceed. On the other hand, doesn't everyone feel this to some extent? Some people claim to thrive on unfamiliar situations but I seriously doubt they are as effective in them as they would be in an area where they have experience.

With time, the database expands itself and new possibilities are considered for addition. In a way its as if Ne is serving Si. Ultimately, the aim for me seems to be avoiding situations where I'm confused and have no idea how to use the information or take action. Doesn't this sound like stronger Si than Ne? I think so.

Since the database gets larger and larger with time and more and more possibilities are included in the database the likelihood of dealing with a completely unfamiliar situation lessens and lessens but never reaches zero.

However, what still makes me consider dominant Ti is how the new information and experiences gets added to the database. It isn't quite enough to just put it in there, I need to know precisely how the new information relates to which pieces of information already in there. In other words, there is a classification scheme that's taking place. Isn't classification the hallmark of Ti?

Thoughts?

I'm especially interested in hearing perspectives from both dominant Si and dominant Ti types to see how much they relate to this.

 

[Hazashin]

Does this sound like you?

INTP/ISFJ: Ti/Si or Si/Ti--Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Most commonly seen in INTP dom/tert loops (Ti+Si), it results in totally giving up on attempting to obtain the social/interpersonal connections that inferior Fe drives them to unconsciously desire. Schizotypal people are seen (and typically see themselves) as having such unusual thoughts and behaviors that widespread social acceptance is nearly impossible. Ti thinks, "I cannot find any logical explanation for social rituals," and Si reinforces this self-isolating, risk-averse behavior by constantly reminding the user: "Remember how badly this went last time you tried?" If Ne were doing its job, it would remind the user to continue experimenting to find a new approach. In the ISFJ version, Si becomes ultra risk-averse and refuses to try anything new or unfamiliar. If Fe were doing its job, the ISFJ would learn that some risk is necessary in order to uphold obligations to others and avoid living in total solitude. Deep down, these types really do want social connection and ritual (Fe), but have found themselves so poor at it that they simply give up trying.

 

[lunalum]

I've been thinking about more the way I process information and its like I have this big storehouse of information. Put me in a new situation and I have to see how it relates to what I already know and experienced.

We all have storehouses of information, it's called memory And to a certain extent all of us have to rely upon some previous knowledge/experience to figure out the new situation. Maybe describe to what extent and detail you draw upon past experiences?

If some situation doesn't seem to relate at all to anything I know or have experienced, I'm going to be very agitated and confused as to how to proceed.

There has to be a balance between the amount of known and the amount of unknown. It's pretty universally confusing when there is nothing to build upon. How do you build skyscrapers when the earth isn't even solid yet? Or teach calculus to a child who is still working on understanding the concept of multiplication?

On the other hand, doesn't everyone feel this to some extent? Some people claim to thrive on unfamiliar situations but I seriously doubt they are as effective in them as they would be in an area where they have experience.

Thriving and effectiveness are very different things

With time, the database expands itself and new possibilities are considered for addition. In a way its as if Ne is serving Si. Ultimately, the aim for me seems to be avoiding situations where I'm confused and have no idea how to use the information or take action. Doesn't this sound like stronger Si than Ne? I think so.

Sounds a little like it. But if they are squished in the middle of your function order, who's serving who can seem to switch...

And your discomfort with learning totally new things on the spot might have more to do with I>E than any other function dynamic.

However, what still makes me consider dominant Ti is how the new information and experiences gets added to the database. It isn't quite enough to just put it in there, I need to know precisely how the new information relates to which pieces of information already in there. In other words, there is a classification scheme that's taking place. Isn't classification the hallmark of Ti?

The whole database thing and tweaking things precisely to certain relations looks like Ti-Si. It still can look like an INTP processing style because there's such a focus on understanding.... weaving together the old information with new ideas to get things to work and for the universe to make sense.

 

[Such Irony]

Does this sound like you?

Does this sound like you?





INTP/ISFJ: Ti/Si or Si/Ti--Schizotypal Personality Disorder. Most commonly seen in INTP dom/tert loops (Ti+Si), it results in totally giving up on attempting to obtain the social/interpersonal connections that inferior Fe drives them to unconsciously desire. Schizotypal people are seen (and typically see themselves) as having such unusual thoughts and behaviors that widespread social acceptance is nearly impossible. Ti thinks, "I cannot find any logical explanation for social rituals," and Si reinforces this self-isolating, risk-averse behavior by constantly reminding the user: "Remember how badly this went last time you tried?" If Ne were doing its job, it would remind the user to continue experimenting to find a new approach. In the ISFJ version, Si becomes ultra risk-averse and refuses to try anything new or unfamiliar. If Fe were doing its job, the ISFJ would learn that some risk is necessary in order to uphold obligations to others and avoid living in total solitude. Deep down, these types really do want social connection and ritual (Fe), but have found themselves so poor at it that they simply give up trying.

I relate to the INTP version of this. I'm not as risk averse as the ISFJ version describes. I will take risks if I know that nothing too important is at stake. Any risk I take though is very calculated. I need to know what I'm getting myself into, what the likely consequences are and their rough probabilities and should the worst case scenario happens- will I be able to cope with it and how?

We all have storehouses of information, it's called memory And to a certain extent all of us have to rely upon some previous knowledge/experience to figure out the new situation. Maybe describe to what extent and detail you draw upon past experiences?

There has to be a balance between the amount of known and the amount of unknown. It's pretty universally confusing when there is nothing to build upon. How do you build skyscrapers when the earth isn't even solid yet? Or teach calculus to a child who is still working on understanding the concept of multiplication?

True. Maybe I'm just more aware of this thought process than others.

What inspired me to post this thread is that I encounter this sometimes at work. I'm a librarian and I specialize in handling reference questions. Every now and then a customer will ask a question in an area I absolutely know zero about. I know so little about the area that I can't even ask good clarifying questions and I have absolutely no clue where to even begin looking for an answer. All I know that its the type of question where Google searching won't help. The customer has a pressing need for information and I feel very confused and agitated especially if there's no one around at the time with greater expertise.

With some areas, I don't know a whole lot but I know just enough to know what might be a good place to look for an answer.

And your discomfort with learning totally new things on the spot might have more to do with I>E than any other function dynamic.

Actually when I think of about this, the real reason for my discomfort with learning new things on the spot is fear of having my ignorance exposed and feeling like I'm being pressured by other peoples demands. They insist on an answer that's not readily available. I also hate it when I'm wrapped up in some engaging project and I'm forced to temporarily set it aside because a customer asks me a question in an area I have absolutely no interest in and I have feign some interest. Maybe its time for a new career.

I actually love learning new things but I want to do it on my own terms in my own time and have control over what I learn and how I'll do it.

The whole database thing and tweaking things precisely to certain relations looks like Ti-Si. It still can look like an INTP processing style because there's such a focus on understanding.... weaving together the old information with new ideas to get things to work and for the universe to make sense.

Yes, I think you're right.

INTP has stronger Ne than Si but it seems like for me Ne is serving Si rather than the other way around. I'm having trouble coming up with examples where my Si is serving my Ne. So am I just in a Ti-Si loop or am I not an INTP?

 

[Eric B]

Yes, that sounds like tertiary Si, and the tertiary often "inflates" itself, to the point that it seems to be even stronger than the auxiliary at times. (It also "deflates", exposing its weak vulnerable character after awhile, as well).
So the "tertiary Temptation" is where we run to the tertiary because it is the next function to maintain the dominant orientation. Therefore, the auxiliary might appear to be "serving" it, because the auxiliary serves the dominant, and the tertiary is aligning with the dominant.

 

[Such Irony]

Yes, that sounds liketertiary Si, and the tertiary often "inflates" itself, to the point that it seems to be even stronger than the auxiliary at times. (It also "deflates", exposing its weak vulnerable character after awhile, as well).
So the "tertiary Temptation" is where we run to the tertiary because it is the next function to maintain the dominant orientation. Therefore, the auxiliary might appear to be "serving" it, because the auxiliary serves the dominant, and the tertiary is aligning with the dominant.

That clears things up. Thanks.

 

[Andy]

I've been thinking about more the way I process information and its like I have this big storehouse of information. Put me in a new situation and I have to see how it relates to what I already know and experienced. If some situation doesn't seem to relate at all to anything I know or have experienced, I'm going to be very agitated and confused as to how to proceed. On the other hand, doesn't everyone feel this to some extent? Some people claim to thrive on unfamiliar situations but I seriously doubt they are as effective in them as they would be in an area where they have experience.

With time, the database expands itself and new possibilities are considered for addition. In a way its as if Ne is serving Si. Ultimately, the aim for me seems to be avoiding situations where I'm confused and have no idea how to use the information or take action. Doesn't this sound like stronger Si than Ne? I think so.

Since the database gets larger and larger with time and more and more possibilities are included in the database the likelihood of dealing with a completely unfamiliar situation lessens and lessens but never reaches zero.

However, what still makes me consider dominant Ti is how the new information and experiences gets added to the database. It isn't quite enough to just put it in there, I need to know precisely how the new information relates to which pieces of information already in there. In other words, there is a classification scheme that's taking place. Isn't classification the hallmark of Ti?

Thoughts?

I'm especially interested in hearing perspectives from both dominant Si and dominant Ti types to see how much they relate to this.

Well, functions don't lie abilities, but rather desires and motivations. The motivations you describe are indeed more Si then Ti. Strong Si creates a desire to be sure of the most reliable way to proceed, which fits in with what you are describing. How you go about determining that course actually lies outside function theory.

Ti is about a strong sense of what has technical worth, rather than just being practically useful - which is why many INTPs are more interested in astrophysics than cement laying.