Ti vs. Te <split>

[Nocapszy]

I was going by the Myers-Briggs/Jungian definition.

I command you to stop.

SW/BW's writing is more based on questioning (Ti), whereas a Te (or Te auxiliary) would be more directive.

The directions...

No wait.... Guff's right. This thread is stupid.

Someone close it shut as tight as the minds of the people posting in it.


Oops I shouldn't say that -- someone might catch on that I'm ENTJ

 

[Gabe]

You know, because we can't come to an agreement here, I'm pretty sure this signifies that we have an assload of mistyped people here.

Oh, very true.

 

[Gabe]

An INTJ would probably get his point across much more concisely than SolitaryWalker/BlueWing does. There is more of a Ti structure in his writing. He provides sound reasoning in his posts.

When someone says "sound reasoning" I usually hear "extraverted thinking"

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

This thread is horribly wrong for the most part. First the House thread, now here.

Ti sorts and comes up with the cleanest organization.

To quote: "Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point."

Yes Ti chooses words carefully. (This is what I've been saying the whole time. :rolli If a xxTP type uses one sentence then it appears to the reader to get exactly to the point. If you string a whole lot of these sentences together though some people can become confused, because a lot of the subtler meaning is lost in the large quantity of ideas. In other words a lot of Ti sentences put together become difficult to understand, because the focus is on precision rather than making the writing easy to understand.

This is exactly what a BlueWing post is like. He clearly chooses his words carefully. For example he started a thread once, "How to agonize people". A lot of people responded that he should have typed "antagonize" instead of "agonize". But he always meant "agonize". He chose his word so carefully that it confused people.

Also to quote: "In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else’s logic, sequence, or organization."

Te lays out all the steps. Not Ti.

I think you missed the part of that quote that says the reasoning is easy to follow. Te uses bulletpoints, flow charts, etc.... It puts things in a format that is easy to follow, which is the exact opposite of a BlueWing post.

Yes, long, excruciating reasoning is the EXACT definition of Ti I posted above.

INTPc is full of this!

You seem to be saying that INTP's are never wordy. Look at various people's blogs and see which tend to be the wordiest. Jennifer's blog is pretty wordy. If you look at many INxP blogs they are quite wordy. This is typical when introverted judgement is the dominant function and intuition is the auxiliary. In contrast look at the blogs of the various NTJ's. Often if the posts get long they are spelled out in some type of list so they are easy to read. Other than that they are often pretty short. Better yet read most of the posts made by Maveric or htb on this site. They are usually pretty short and Te is their dominant function.

In writing INxP's can be very wordy, especially if they are posting their original thoughts about something rather than responding to what someone else has said.

 

[MacGuffin]

Yes Ti chooses words carefully. (This is what I've been saying the whole time. :rolli If a xxTP type uses one sentence then it appears to the reader to get exactly to the point. If you string a whole lot of these sentences together though some people can become confused, because a lot of the subtler meaning is lost in the large quantity of ideas. In other words a lot of Ti sentences put together become difficult to understand, because the focus is on precision rather than making the writing easy to understand.

This is exactly what a BlueWing post is like. He clearly chooses his words carefully. For example he started a thread once, "How to agonize people". A lot of people responded that he should have typed "antagonize" instead of "agonize". But he always meant "agonize". He chose his word so carefully that it confused people.

That's the problem. Ti doesn't string sentence after sentence after sentence. It's boiling the ideas down to concise words... not a mass of them.

I think you missed the part of that quote that says the reasoning is easy to follow. Te uses bulletpoints, flow charts, etc.... It puts things in a format that is easy to follow, which is the exact opposite of a BlueWing post.

Hey, I never said he was good at it.

You seem to be saying that INTPs are never wordy. Look at various people's blogs and see which tend to be the wordiest. Jennifer's blog is pretty wordy. If you look at many INxP blogs they are quite wordy. This is typical when introverted judgement is the dominant function and intuition is the auxiliary. In contrast look at the blogs of the various NTJ's. Often if the posts get long they are spelled out in some type of list so they are easy to read. Other than that they are often pretty short. Better yet read most of the posts made by Maveric or htb on this site. They are usually pretty short and Te is their dominant function.

*cough*

I think it was Jennifer who mentioned a while back that she really had to develop her Te in writing because a lot of the times people couldn't understand her big picture writing because they couldn't understand the processes, so she had to learn to explicitly state each idea and connection which invariably led to more wordy detailed writing.

Anyway, it's not about being wordy, it's about being concise. BW takes paragraphs to do what can be done in a few sentences.

No amount of spinning can result in BW's posts being described as "express{ing} an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point."

 

[bluebell]

Ti people do have an advantage when the same system fails twice, because they've figured it out before, but that's less efficient than just solving problems as they come up.

i know i have a bunch of "how stuff works in depth" entries in my memory that i will never use again.

It's not about efficiency. It's knowledge for knowledge's sake. I expect I'll probably never use 95% of what I know.

INTP's are very short with their words when speaking. Also when writing fiction INTP's tend not to be too descriptive, so they are pretty short there too. When writing in a technical fashion, especially when explaining their reasoning, they can be very long winded because their though process is very elaborate. CC is right about legalese. Long technical legal documents use a lot of Ti. Also there are lots of 1000+ page philosophy books writen by INTPs. If they describe their reasoning process then they get very long winded.

Legalese is not Ti. It's not concise and it does my head in. My reaction to wading through contracts =

That's the problem. Ti doesn't string sentence after sentence after sentence. It's boiling the ideas down to concise words... not a mass of them.

Hey, I never said he was good at it.

*cough*

Anyway, it's not about being wordy, it's about being concise. BW takes paragraphs to do what can be done in a few sentences.

No amount of spinning can result in BW's posts being described as "express{ing} an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point."

Werd. /concise

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

That's the problem. Ti doesn't string sentence after sentence after sentence. It's boiling the ideas down to concise words... not a mass of them.

So you are saying that INTP's do not come to conclusions, and then follow those conclusions with even more? In other words you are saying that INTP's do not start with a premise and then after much thinking develop a conclusion that may be quite far from where they originally started? Well that is exactly what Einstein did...and Darwin...and lots of other people commonly typed as INTP. Either Einstein is not an INTP or INTP's do go from conclusion to conclusion reaching results far from the beginning. Which one is it?

I think you are confused. First the "definition" you posted is not even a definition. It is a fragment taken from a description. A description is not a definition and a fragment is even less so. Secondly and more importantly the fragment says that Ti chooses the right word. It does not say that Ti users are incapable of putting together a whole sentence or even a whole paragraph. It says that Ti users choose their words carefully.

Hey, I never said he was good at it.

You haven't really said much of anything other than BW isn't INTP, because he's not like other INTP's. Well he isn't like INTJ's either. He isn't like most other people in general. If you are so certain about his type, then why not post your reasoning process. From my perspective you only seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying because you do not like my conclusion.

*cough*

Go read seveal INTP and INTJ blogs and then get back to me.

Anyway, it's not about being wordy, it's about being concise. BW takes paragraphs to do what can be done in a few sentences.

No amount of spinning can result in BW's posts being described as "express{ing} an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point."

I do not see how I am spinning anything. You have taken a fragment of a description and called it a definition, and then you misinterpreted that fragment. That seems like spin to me. I am trying to clarify the original meaning.

 

[redacted]

It's not about efficiency. It's knowledge for knowledge's sake. I expect I'll probably never use 95% of what I know.

are you an INTP? i forget.

 

[MacGuffin]

So you are saying that INTP's do not come to conclusions, and then follow those conclusions with even more? In other words you are saying that INTP's do not start with a premise and then after much thinking develop a conclusion that may be quite far from where they originally started? Well that is exactly what Einstein did...and Darwin...and lots of other people commonly typed as INTP. Either Einstein is not an INTP or INTP's do go from conclusion to conclusion reaching results far from the beginning. Which one is it?

I think you are confused. First the "definition" you posted is not even a definition. It is a fragment taken from a description. A description is not a definition and a fragment is even less so. Secondly and more importantly the fragment says that Ti chooses the right word. It does not say that Ti users are incapable of putting together a whole sentence or even a whole paragraph. It says that Ti users choose their words carefully.

When did I ever say Ti users are incapable of putting together sentences and paragraphs? They do, but they are usually concise about it.

You haven't really said much of anything other than BW isn't INTP, because he's not like other INTP's. Well he isn't like INTJ's either. He isn't like most other people in general. If you are so certain about his type, then why not post your reasoning process. From my perspective you only seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying because you do not like my conclusion.

Before this forum existed, a fair number of INTPs came to the conclusion he was INTJ. We got so tired of reading his lists (yeah, he wrote a lot of lists) that we moved them all into one thread.

He starts with a conclusion. The end is always in sight. This is common of primary Ni users. He makes it worse by never deviating from the conclusion no matter how much evidence is brought in opposition. Many immature INTJs do this. They cling to their precious conclusions like drowning men cling to a life preserver. Everything goes to this end. He then builds his arguments to support this conclusion. He lays all this out in copious detail, even detail that could be discarded. This is Te, building the framework to support the conclusion. Good Te users learn to remove the extraneous info, he has not yet.

Extraverted thinking lays out the entire line of reasoning. This is why it is external - all the workings are laid out. Introverted thinking is done internally. What is finally exposed is the boiled down essence of that thinking. NOT the entirety.

Go read seveal INTP and INTJ blogs and then get back to me.

I read dozens, how many do I have to read?

I do not see how I am spinning anything. You have taken a fragment of a description and called it a definition, and then you misinterpreted that fragment. That seems like spin to me. I am trying to clarify the original meaning.

I took a sentence from the description.

Here is the full description:

"Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a “leverage point” that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what’s observed."

Nothing that follows that first sentence changes its meaning.

 

[Gabe]

So you are saying that INTP's do not come to conclusions, and then follow those conclusions with even more? In other words you are saying that INTP's do not start with a premise and then after much thinking develop a conclusion that may be quite far from where they originally started? Well that is exactly what Einstein did...and Darwin...and lots of other people commonly typed as INTP. Either Einstein is not an INTP or INTP's do go from conclusion to conclusion reaching results far from the beginning. Which one is it?

I think you are confused. First the "definition" you posted is not even a definition. It is a fragment taken from a description. A description is not a definition and a fragment is even less so. Secondly and more importantly the fragment says that Ti chooses the right word. It does not say that Ti users are incapable of putting together a whole sentence or even a whole paragraph. It says that Ti users choose their words carefully.



You haven't really said much of anything other than BW isn't INTP, because he's not like other INTP's. Well he isn't like INTJ's either. He isn't like most other people in general. If you are so certain about his type, then why not post your reasoning process. From my perspective you only seem to be misinterpreting what I am saying because you do not like my conclusion.



Go read seveal INTP and INTJ blogs and then get back to me.



I do not see how I am spinning anything. You have taken a fragment of a description and called it a definition, and then you misinterpreted that fragment. That seems like spin to me. I am trying to clarify the original meaning.

Carl Jung characterizes Darwin's work as extraverted thinking.

John Beebe believes that Einstien was an INTJ.

 

[SillySapienne]

Ti ~ concise?!?!?!?



Hells to the no it is not!!!!

One word, BlueWing.

 

[MacGuffin]

Ti ~ concise?!?!?!?



Hells to the no it is not!!!!

One word, BlueWing.

Exactly why he's not.

 

[SillySapienne]

Who is responsible for the long meandering, never-ending posts on this site?!?!?

Yup, you got it, E/INTPs!!!

Glad we can agree on this.

 

[MacGuffin]

Who is responsible for the long meandering, never-ending posts on this site?!?!?

Yup, you got it, E/INTPs!!!

Glad we can agree on this.

No, that's clearly the ExxPs!

 

[SillySapienne]

No, that's clearly the ExxPs!

Prove it, oh wait, that's right you can't, why?!?!?

Because you are wrong.

 

[MacGuffin]

Prove it, oh wait, that's right you can't, why?!?!?

Because you are wrong.

Shhh!

This is a thread for thinkers!

 

[SillySapienne]

Shhh!

This is a thread for thinkers!

Well, in response to this, a string of emoticons shall do...

 

[MacGuffin]

Well, in response to this, a string of emoticons shall do...

*pats on head*

So cute!

 

[SillySapienne]

*pants on head*

So cute!

I think you meant, *pats on head*



Ahh, you thinkers are so berry, berry Quut!!

^__^

 

[MacGuffin]

I think you meant, *pats on head*



Ahh, you thinkers are so berry, berry Quut!!

^__^

Yeah, but we'll go with panting too!