[MBTI General] xNTPs: how do you define Ti / when do you use it?

[UniqueMixture]

Retrosynthesis to derive base components for aggregate formulation

 

[Redbone]

You know what I believe? I believe a Ti user would never fully be able to explain how Ti works. That is just what Ti is.

 

[WALMART]

My Ti has turned me into an egotist hell-bent on intimately fondling the universe.

 

[Fluffywolf]

My Ti has turned me into an egotist hell-bent on intimately fondling the universe.

That explains the rainy days I've been having lately.

 

[WALMART]

That explains the rainy days I've been having lately.

Ran out of crevices to fondle?

 

[Fluffywolf]

Ran out of crevices to fondle?

It's become so slippery, I've been unable to reach said crevices.

 

[WALMART]

It's become so slippery, I've been unable to reach said crevices.

*reaches out and hooks your vest with a carabiner*

 

[Fluffywolf]

*adjusts miner's helmet and puts on a pair of latex gloves*

Let's do this!

 

[Heddy]

I use Introverted Thinking when I am reading. I automatically diagram sentences. Several operations are going on. First, each word is weighed for its full semantic range (my INFP husband weighs them for linguistic origin, slightly different), then I decide on the point within those ranges which is being targeted based on the other words that are being used and the way they lean on one another (indicating which direction the sentence as a whole is leaning.) (Here intuition comes in as I leap to probabilities, shortening the process.) Then syntax and structure are analyzed, impossible meanings are instantaneously ruled out, and the precise intention of the sentence is arrived at. If the composer of the sentence has not been precise, I use Si to recall the phrases and verbal shortcuts such people use and insert their memorized meanings. Am I autistic? Are all autistics INTP's? I do not know. However, there are texts which no one I have ever met has understood properly and it's painful to hear them nattering on about "interpretation." It's impossible for me to communicate to such people because whatever proofs I may offer will not be accepted as such by them, simply because they would have to take a course in logic to understand those proofs. And yet I am certain and they are merely opinionated. I know the difference.

I use the passive to describe this process because it feels almost passive; this is something I do because I must, whenever I glimpse a sentence. At the same time I feel that I own the process - it makes me certain of what, precisely, a sentence has been able to express and what it has not. People often think their sentences have said far more than they actually have. However, these people are considered to have said what they intended to say so long as their audience "got the gist." But of course, gist-ing can be a relief even for me when verbalization has worn me down. Ultimately, I have thoughts and translate them into words, rather than thinking in words. Language is suitable to clothe thoughts because for me, the structure of thought is analogous to the structure of known languages and I think it is the same for most people. However, my thoughts exist prior to the words and do not need them and I think that may be the difference. The thoughts form an invisible structure, a permanent one, in which the whole nature of reality is represented in my mind as I constantly sort everything that enters for its position in a hierarchy of causation and relation. However, if you want to visualize what this is like for me, the structure has floating, not very particular components which can be adjusted or exchanged at any time. It's like a 4-dimmensional flow chart of reality in my brain that somehow ends up looking like a castle from a distance; the goal is to multiply components, make them smaller, insert more connections between them, and detect similarity in patterns between completely different types of systems. Sometimes I wish I were a physicist but unfortunately, I do not enjoy math as it's the wrong type of labeling for my kind of logic. I have theories about all subjects of study but am especially interested in the range between electronics and neuro-psychology.

What is Ti? Where Fi sees invisible essence and qualitas, Ti sees invisibly necessity and consequence. Fi sees beauty; Ti sees truth. (Not fact, truth.) However, truth is a kind of radiance so it is really very easy to appreciate the INFP's viewpoint as well. I believe that none of us experiences our functions singularly, but always as a union. So an INFP would experience Fi differently from an ENFP, and so with an INTP and ENTP (or ISTP, even more so.) It's difficult to distinguish what nature refuses to separate, but of course trying is the fun of it.

When I was 16 I was reading the dictionary and I happened upon the word 'syllogism' and read the definition. The example given I have never forgot: First premise: Socrates is a man. Second premise: All men are mortal. Conclusion: Socrates is mortal. In that moment the entire structure of formal logic appeared instantly in my mind. I was surprised, later, to find that instructors wished to assure me that, had the second premise read "Some men are mortal" the conclusion would not have been logically valid, however true. That should have been obvious - it was consequent upon the whole structure, it was implicated in the very existence of - EVERYTHING! All logic can be reduced to the simple statement "IS" and thus reality proves itself and faith is not the major leap everyone thinks it is. Faith does not tell you that something "IS" - that's logic. Faith, then, is confidence in the goodness of existence as opposed to the idea that "IS" = evil.

But I wonder if other INTP's will agree with me that what we call reality or existence does not really need to take into account each everyday event, which are somehow lacking in IS-ness since they pass away so quickly. Does rigidity, to use the negative word, or permanence, to use the positive one, go along with Ti more than other functions? I suspect so.

So I think that Introverted Thinking is the process of or is related to formal logic. And what, in the subject of logic, other people must learn with labor, we primary Ti users prefer by nature. But an ISTP uses formal logic on a different kind of premise than an INTP does. Our premises, those toward which Ne inclines us, are basically philosophical. Theirs may be religious but require far more concreteness and seem to prefer physical facts to work with, such as the dimensions of an interior space or the sequence followed by an internal combustion engine (or verses of scripture as opposed to theological concepts. Are all fundamentalisms invented by ISTP's? I would not be surprised.)

Ti is different from the kind of logic which knows how people perform practical operations and which tells you how to get them done. I have been weeping over my housekeeping, and my husband, an INFP, tapped into his inferior Te to help me set up some household systems - placement of trash bins, extra laundry hampers, things of that sort - which instantly solved many problems I was having. Despite my high scores in certain tests regarding verbal intelligence, I was incapable of seeing THAT sort of consequence - the kind that relates to organizational processes which people perform.

I also think it's worth saying that Ti, like Fi, is constantly analyzing. (My husband and I love one another as much for the amazing analytical conversation we have as for everything else combined, children excluded!) Isn't that different from Te and Fe somehow? My brother in law is an ENTJ and I would say that when he goes on about something, he is describing something which exists fully formed in his mind. When I go on about something I am putting words to what I believe to be a part or a member or a contributing factor to something which I see as real and not fully possessed by myself internally.

However, I do not expect most people to understand a word I say anymore. Sigh. That is, I can say things they understand but such things are repetitive and boring. How many connections must I indicate, how many components of the internal flow-chart must I name, before they begin to see something of the picture I see? I haven't found out yet.

 

[Fluffywolf]

However, I do not expect most people to understand a word I say anymore. Sigh. That is, I can say things they understand but such things are repetitive and boring. How many connections must I indicate, how many components of the internal flow-chart must I name, before they begin to see something of the picture I see? I haven't found out yet.

I suppose you're enneagram 4?

Most INTP's can translate their thoughts into words in such ways they can be quite easily understood by their target audience through the use of analogies and metaphors. But I've seen some 4's not really going into that and rather word themselves in their own prefered way.

Whilst I, as a 9, am pretty much the other side of the INTP coin. The lengths I would go through to be understood can be immense, and I would do so willfully and lovingly.

Also, welcome to the forum.

 

[greenfairy]

really good explanation, thanks.

I've heard that people with Te tend to think best while in motion (pace frequently, solve problems best on paper, etc.), while the opposite is true for those who use Ti. I know it seems like a pretty simplistic differentiation, but it applies to almost everyone I can think of off the top of my head. What do you think?

Edit: Sorry, I'm (probably) not XNTP; I answered without looking closely at the title. But there's a chance I could be, and I think my information is useful even if it's Ti in INFJ.
I'm pretty sure I'm a Ti user, and I frequently think in motion or on paper. But in these cases I already know the essence of the big picture or the theory, and I'm trying to work out the details. I'm a very visual person. But I see everything in my head.

My mind is like in infinitely large filing cabinet. Details get filed away in folders and subfolders in drawers, and most of the time I won't remember all of them because they're hidden away- I just know about them based on where they are. It's a lot like how information is organized on a computer, and how I access the information is similar. I can compare the size of folders, look for patterns in the information, run statistical analysis, and find everything that contains a search word. Things always remind me of other things, like googling a word.

As far as the puzzle goes, I think I go about it from all angles. I can look at a bunch of random pieces and put some of them together, like an eye or a window, or I can put the whole thing together. But other times I look at the pieces and put it together in my mind, then have to figure out how the pieces fit together. Or I'll have parts of it put together and suddenly see the whole picture like an epiphany (this happens often). Or I'll see something that needs to be illustrated and create the puzzle pieces myself, like an art project from found objects. To me the whole world is a puzzle and I see its structure in my mind. I just have to find all the pieces and make the physical (illustration of the) structure of the puzzle more intricate.

 

[INTP]

T is the function that defines perceptions, concepts etc etc. by defining things what i mean is looking at its structure and seeing the logic behind them. In introverted attitude, it defines them based on internal factors and has hard time accepting external definitions, unless they go hand in hand with the internal one.

I've heard that people with Te tend to think best while in motion (pace frequently, solve problems best on paper, etc.), while the opposite is true for those who use Ti. I know it seems like a pretty simplistic differentiation, but it applies to almost everyone I can think of off the top of my head. What do you think?

Te is only good with that if it can apply already known principles. Thats because Te is about learned logic and applying it to external world. Ti is more spontaneous with thinking, it doesent try to assume so much based on what happened before, so it might not work that fast in situations which allow already known things to be applied in it, but works better when the problem is completely new and needs to be found a new creative solution.

 

[Heddy]

Fluffywolf: Thanks!

Well, I don't know about enneagrams. I think that's very hardy of you to go to such lengths. I think if someone else's mind is differently formed than mine, any verbalization I do is pretty much going to be a trade-off between accuracy and resonance. I think my attitude about this probably has a lot to do with previous experience as well but perhaps there's something temperamental with it.

 

[Istbkleta]

I do not expect most people to understand a word I say anymore. Sigh.

:hi:
Other Ti people do. Don't let your Fe fall in despair!

I have thoughts and translate them into words

That's why Ti people make models and equations with SYMBOLS, not concrete NUMBERS (like Te people).

That's why Ti people spend time first AGREEING on the exact meaning of the words before being able to communicate their thoughts to each other. To outsiders this may seem like nitpicking or petty arguing.

That's why you can feel them be PRECISE in their word choice (when they care). Behind every word there is a mile long thought process.

That's why listening or reading to INTPs might feel like putting a clock mechanism together from a diagram Heddy's post is a PERFECT example.

 

[Tamske]

To me, it's sort of:

Ti: is it true?
Fe: is it kind?
Te: does it get the job done?
Fi: is it good?

Ti is constantly examining and cross-examining worldviews or ideas. A small-scale example of this is me trying to think out stories. The main task, creating ideas, is of course Ne work. Ti is the one making sure that there's enough time for the antagonist to prepare a trap, that past experiences aren't forgotten, that the gunman defeats the swordsman even if the swordsman is powered by love.

An example of Ti getting in the way: when students are rude, I tend to not call out on their rudeness (Fe), because my first worry is "are they saying the truth?" Maybe it ISN'T fair that I make little mistakes on the blackboard and still deduct points if they make them on their tests... never mind that the student complaining about this is blurting it out mid-lesson. Of course, this isn't very good teaching. But still Ti gets there first. Only after five minutes or so I realise "hey it isn't allowed to shout in class - but now it's too late to remark that."
Which results, of course, in a shouting match class. And harming the good students who actually want to learn something and have their fingers in the air wanting to ask whether nitric acid is a strong or a weak one.

 

[Froody Blue Gem]

I would say ti is a means of viewing the world, that gathers information, and can do nuanced things with it, paired with ne. It plays a role in the workplace, to an extent dealing with people paired with the lower fe, and also in creativity. It quietly observes things, but it can be critical if things don't quite add up. It's very about the process, how things work and "what if." A bunch of new ideas and possibilities spawn, sometimes they can be random, and it's up to ti to sort through those ideas. Ti takes the little bits of information, makes sense of them, and makes new things with it. It is an introverted function, so it it's more inward than outward.

Ti can be flexible, fitting things together, but it can also be stubborn and single-minded. With ne being secondary, I also find that strong ti-users are often inside of their own heads, trying to sort through things, and with ideas for projects, academic knowledge, or even silly things like knowledge about fictional worlds and lore.

It also takes time to put ti-related ideas into words, and I often fail to properly do so. I have the ideas, and I am sure of them, but I lose some of that sureness when trying to translate those ideas into something that can be explained.

 

[Maou]

I see Ti as internal logic, kinda like "common sense" that is unique to me. Its how I peiced together all of my information that may or may not have employed external data.

 

[wildmoon]

For me, a large part of Ti is about gathering information and theories and integrating them together in a harmonious way, because really, it's all one big theory. I focus a lot on interconnectedness. It's like every idea is part of a library and an idea is like a book that's sitting not just on one shelf but on multiple shelves at the same time. And the shelves all interact with each other. And if a new idea is introduced to the system, the entire system has to shift to make room for it, because the new idea is not actually a separate thing, it's a previously unseen part of the whole. Ti can be a bit of a nuisance that way, because it wants to make things 'many' and 'one' all at once. So for example when people talk about being a big picture person or a details person, it doesn't really resonate for me because the big picture and the details are both equally important. An example of Ti (or maybe Ti + Ne) at work is when I'm reading a non-fiction book, I'm comparing it to other books I've read, spotting the similarities and differences, picking out the ideas that I want to keep and rejecting the ideas that I don't want to keep (because I disagree with them for one reason or another.)

The other part of Ti for me is life hacks. I try to make the day go as smoothly and easily as possible. E.g. if I eat all my vegetable servings in the morning I don't have to bother with vegetables for the rest of the day, or if I buy packets of baby food that contain pureed vegetables, I can sneak in some veggie servings with nearly no effort at all. I've researched productivity hacks that are based on neuroscience (rather than capitalism's praise of 'the grind') and I try to avoid pseudo-work as much as possible. I like to think that there's always an easy way, and I just have to find it. (If you're interested in the sorting hat chats typing system, Ravenclaw secondary is a really good example of this aspect of Ti.)