[Ti] Difference between Ne and Ti for the NTPs out there

[Dreamer]

This may seem like an oddball comparison, at least when comparing the two functions based on their often given generalized descriptions, but every so often, I wonder if my Ne, is in fact Ti.

I think in very spatial terms, almost as if I can visualize my brain as literally this 3 dimensional black mass where concepts float around and I piece them all together in understanding within this space, as singular essences, removed from all externalized notions placed on them by society and the general public.

I certainly have the quickness and external relationship and understanding with my environment as Ne does, but do any of you relate at all to what I describe as my internal thought process? Are you able to give an almost real "place" to your inner workings??

 

[Mustafa]

I have a book about 'awareness' and it suggests everyone has/should have an internal rheater where thoughts are quotes of different actors anf feelings are the genre.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

This may seem like an oddball comparison, at least when comparing the two functions based on their often given generalized descriptions, but every so often, I wonder if my Ne, is in fact Ti.

I think in very spatial terms, almost as if I can visualize my brain as literally this 3 dimensional black mass where concepts float around and I piece them all together in understanding within this space, as singular essences, removed from all externalized notions placed on them by society and the general public.

I certainly have the quickness and external relationship and understanding with my environment as Ne does, but do any of you relate at all to what I describe as my internal thought process? Are you able to give an almost real "place" to your inner workings??

Some believe, such as E.A. Bennet: What Jung Really Said, 1967, and David Keirsey, Please Understand Me II, 1998 that intuition, and not introversion, is an element of introspection.

In, Marie-Louise von Franz: Lectures on Jung’s Typology, 1971, she commented that: “An extravert’s [introspection] is especially genuine and especially pure and deep. Extraverts are often so proud of this that they boast loudly about what great introverts they are. They try to make it a feather in their cap – which is [again] quite extraverted.”

I know not to long ago I used confuse myself for an introvert because of this introspective side I have which is pretty huge. I'd even make sure to tell people I'm an introvert when they would ask why I seem to be thinking so much. It wasn't until Jungian typology, and to a lesser extent, other typologies like Big Five that put some of these things into perspective for me. I think you as an intuitive dominant suffer from the same internal questioning of ourselves that it seems most intuitive dominants suffer from as we are the type to most likely question our own type all the time.

But to answer your question more succinctly, I don't know if its all that easy to confuse Ti with Ne. Ti is system building analysis while Ne is exploring objective possibilities and associations. Something that N and Ti share in common is abstraction and I think that's where it can get confusing. For someone like me, Ne or exploration of objective associations in my environment is the purpose or "project" itself while Ti is merely my primary tool box because I like to logically deduce the right tool for the right job. I use this tool box on every project I go to. Another way to put it is Ne is the jungle and Ti is my machete. For the Ti-dom the toolbox itself is the project instead of the environment the tool box is meant to be used in. So what this means is that Ti-doms want to perfect the tools they use to explore the environment. INTPs 'test' their tools in multi-faceted 'environments' but the main point isn't to explore but rather to test the tool. ISTPs typically have more intense focus than INTPs and will tend to stick to mastering their tools for a specific purpose/craft while INTPs are more multi-faceted.

This is important to remember because it distinguishes the Ne dom from the Ti or Fi dom. Ne dom = exploration of our environment is the primary objective where as our tools (Ti-Fe or Fi-Te) are just there to assist us in making sense of it all. Ti or Fi dom = the tools themselves are the project and the environment in which they are used only serve to sharpen or refine the tools, the exploration is not the primary objective, mastering the tools for exploration is.

Make sense? Maybe this helps?

 

[Dreamer]

Some believe, such as E.A. Bennet: What Jung Really Said, 1967, and David Keirsey, Please Understand Me II, 1998 that intuition, and not introversion, is an element of introspection.

In, Marie-Louise von Franz: Lectures on Jung’s Typology, 1971, she commented that: “An extravert’s [introspection] is especially genuine and especially pure and deep. Extraverts are often so proud of this that they boast loudly about what great introverts they are. They try to make it a feather in their cap – which is [again] quite extraverted.”

I know not to long ago I used confuse myself for an introvert because of this introspective side I have which is pretty huge. I'd even make sure to tell people I'm an introvert when they would ask why I seem to be thinking so much. It wasn't until Jungian typology, and to a lesser extent, other typologies like Big Five that put some of these things into perspective for me. I think you as an intuitive dominant suffer from the same internal questioning of ourselves that it seems most intuitive dominants suffer from as we are the type to most likely question our own type all the time.

But to answer your question more succinctly, I don't know if its all that easy to confuse Ti with Ne. Ti is system building analysis while Ne is exploring objective possibilities and associations. Something that N and Ti share in common is abstraction and I think that's where it can get confusing. For someone like me, Ne or exploration of objective associations in my environment is the purpose or "project" itself while Ti is merely my primary tool box because I like to logically deduce the right tool for the right job. I use this tool box on every project I go to. Another way to put it is Ne is the jungle and Ti is my machete. For the Ti-dom the toolbox itself is the project instead of the environment the tool box is meant to be used in. So what this means is that Ti-doms want to perfect the tools they use to explore the environment. INTPs 'test' their tools in multi-faceted 'environments' but the main point isn't to explore but rather to test the tool. ISTPs typically have more intense focus than INTPs and will tend to stick to mastering their tools for a specific purpose/craft while INTPs are more multi-faceted.

This is important to remember because it distinguishes the Ne dom from the Ti or Fi dom. Ne dom = exploration of our environment is the primary objective where as our tools (Ti-Fe or Fi-Te) are just there to assist us in making sense of it all. Ti or Fi dom = the tools themselves are the project and the environment in which they are used only serve to sharpen or refine the tools, the exploration is not the primary objective, mastering the tools for exploration is.

Make sense? Maybe this helps?

Oh God, this makes SO much sense. THANK YOU. Ya, it was the abstraction bit that was tripping me up, and also the fact that I can be a slow learner, but what makes me slow, is I'm often just sitting there thinking how this new piece of information sits in a larger framework. So questions I typically ask when I don't understand something revolve around finding contextual clues to this new concept, rather than asking more direct, to the point, questions of "what is this?". Based on various Ti threads and how they think on an abstract level, taking their time etc., I was wondering if I've been using Ti this whole time, and not Ne.

But I really like your explanation of Ti/Fi doms exploring, in order to sharpen their tools. As that toolbox is their primary object or project rather than the exploration. I totally understand what you mean. I feel I still don't have a total grasp of Ti, but you definitely spelled the difference out clear enough to tell me I'm not a Ti user after all. Also, I can totally relate to constantly questioning this or that on everything, including my personality type. I just like to try on new clothes to see how they fit.

I guess it just takes another Ne dom to explain the more abstract stuff to me. I feel we're totally speaking the same language.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Oh God, this makes SO much sense. THANK YOU. Ya, it was the abstraction bit that was tripping me up, and also the fact that I can be a slow learner, but what makes me slow, is I'm often just sitting there thinking how this new piece of information sits in a larger framework. So questions I typically ask when I don't understand something revolve around finding contextual clues to this new concept, rather than asking more direct, to the point, questions of "what is this?". Based on various Ti threads and how they think on an abstract level, taking their time etc., I was wondering if I've been using Ti this whole time, and not Ne.

But I really like your explanation of Ti/Fi doms exploring, in order to sharpen their tools. As that toolbox is their primary object or project rather than the exploration. I totally understand what you mean. I feel I still don't have a total grasp of Ti, but you definitely spelled the difference out clear enough to tell me I'm not a Ti user after all. Also, I can totally relate to constantly questioning this or that on everything, including my personality type. I just like to try on new clothes to see how they fit.

I guess it just takes another Ne dom to explain the more abstract stuff to me. I feel we're totally speaking the same language.

We are speaking the same language

Even by your reply to my post I can tell you are not a Ti dom or aux because we high Ti users tend to break posts line by line and respond in this manner instead of replying to the whole thing. Ti is a reductionist approach, it wants to strip naked everything irrelevant from a claim or argument and just see its logical foundation(s). Ti in some sense is exclusive because it excludes what's not logically sound where as Ne is inclusive and wants to bring in all information not paying attention right away whether it makes logical sense or not. For the Ti-Ne or the Ne-Ti this can be a challenge since there are two powerful forces within us tugging in opposite directions but thankfully this usually creates a pretty good synthetic solution or answer.

So going back to the toolbox vs. environment example we can look at the INTP vs. the ENTP. The INTP wants to create a logically airtight system to evaluate his environment. The Ne aux in INTPs will then test this system by exposing it to multiple 'environments' which include concepts about objective reality. The INTP will use this input to 'touch up' his internal system. In some sense its kind of a quest for perfection but the Ne in the INTP realizes that it will never be perfect but it will be closer to a higher standard the INTP imposes on himself. The ENTP OTOH, will use a system only so far as to examine multifaceted reality. The Ti tool merely needs to be 'good enough' with occasional refinement but so long as it remains useful in exploring new environments then its acceptable. There isn't really a feedback loop with ENTPs because its sort of like observation>system>more observations instead of the INTP system>observation>feed back into system. When an INTP figures out something new its pretty exciting for them because they can incorporate it into their 'grand design' and find its proper place in their internal system. When an ENTP figures out something it kind of sucks because that thing loses exploratory potential and the ENTP wants to look for more information without necessarily putting the old information in some repository to refine a system( shitty Si ) However, the ENTP's tertiary Fe plays an interesting role because instead of wanting to bank the Ne information (Si) the ENTP wants to share his observations with others and get external feedback based on how people receive his insight or Ne. The INTP really can give a shit less about people's personal feedback since they already have an internal loop of validation with Ti-Si. The fact that I'm responding to your interesting question as an ENTP is me trying to appeal to your interest(Fe) with my hopefully logical (Ti) insight (Ne). Make sense?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

So going back to the toolbox vs. environment example we can look at the INTP vs. the ENTP. The INTP wants to create a logically airtight system to evaluate his environment. The Ne aux in INTPs will then test this system by exposing it to multiple 'environments' which include concepts about objective reality. The INTP will use this input to 'touch up' his internal system. In some sense its kind of a quest for perfection but the Ne in the INTP realizes that it will never be perfect but it will be closer to a higher standard the INTP imposes on himself. The ENTP OTOH, will use a system only so far as to examine multifaceted reality. The Ti tool merely needs to be 'good enough' with occasional refinement but so long as it remains useful in exploring new environments then its acceptable. There isn't really a feedback loop with ENTPs because its sort of like observation>system>more observations instead of the INTP system>observation>feed back into system. When an INTP figures out something new its pretty exciting for them because they can incorporate it into their 'grand design' and find its proper place in their internal system. When an ENTP figures out something it kind of sucks because that thing loses exploratory potential and the ENTP wants to look for more information without necessarily putting the old information in some repository to refine a system( shitty Si ) However, the ENTP's tertiary Fe plays an interesting role because instead of wanting to bank the Ne information (Si) the ENTP wants to share his observations with others and get external feedback based on how people receive his insight or Ne. The INTP really can give a shit less about people's personal feedback since they already have an internal loop of validation with Ti-Si. The fact that I'm responding to your interesting question as an ENTP is me trying to appeal to your interest(Fe) with my hopefully logical (Ti) insight (Ne). Make sense?

Very nice insight.

I use Ti/Ni together and I'm not sure which one more, I think I have the ability (as I get to know myself better) to shift these 3 functions around ad lib depending upon my circumstances and interactions (Fe included, and to a degree Si as well). So for me, the bolded would be more like exposing my Ti to Ni (which has historically rubbed shoulders with Fe, Si, and Ne) to come up with the One Truth of something, versus exposing it to multiple environments--eek!--I will work Ti and Ni together, culling through those memory banks of Si to come up with some strange new ideology. Most would say this is not healthy and most believe that to be healthy you have to combine extraverted with introverted functions, and I would not disagree with them vehemently. However, I do know that the more I turn inward, the more I am tapped into a whole nuther world that cannot be reached from 'out there', only 'in here'. I believe in these times God reveals truth to me, God being the Ultimate Ne Originator.

You see, I am not satisfied with not striving for perfection, though I can live in a non-perfect state. I am always seeking the One Truth of something and I'm afraid for me Ne will not suffice.

I believe perfection IS attainable if we but keep questing for it. And ironically, spiritual perfection is nothing like worldly perfection. So to understand what I really mean here, someone will have to rethink their notion of what they believe perfect is.

~thank you.

 

[ZNP-TBA]

Very nice insight.
I use Ti/Ni together and I'm not sure which one more,

Functionally this probably makes you an ISTP or INFJ ( or possibly an ENFJ or ESTP) but squarely puts you on the Ti/Fe and Ni/Se axes. It just a matter of what configuration explains your cognitive process the best.

I think I have the ability (as I get to know myself better) to shift these 3 functions around ad lib depending upon my circumstances and interactions (Fe included, and to a degree Si as well).

No doubt all relevant functions are used to some degree or another but it's a matter of finding out which function is 'in command.' Like I gave for my ENTP and INTP description clearly showing which function is 'in command.' For the ENTP Ne-exploration trumps Ti-system building and vice-versa for the INTP. I can see your possible confusion though. Across my run-ins with the typology community I've seen plenty of INFJs, INTPs, and to a lesser extent ISTPs get cross typed simply because they didn't know how to distinguish dominant Ti from dominant Ni. But let me take an amateur stab at it!

As stated before, dominant Ti is an internal system building function like a tool (think Swiss army knife) that uses input from Se or Ne to add refinement to that process and then that 'knife' is repeatedly tested in the Se or Ne environment and then a feedback mechanism is developed with assistance of the tertiary function (Ni or Si) to be fed back into the system (Ti). It s a system which uses deductively analyzes the tool (knife) itself based on how its effected by the environment.

Dominant Ni sounds similar but is rather different. Both Ti and Ni are abstracting which makes them similar but they differ greatly in what they are looking for. Ti looks for accuracy where Ni looks for meaning. So what's the difference? Let's say Ti wants what's true and accurate but doesn't consider beyond that much. Ni is concerned with what all that means in a grander scheme of subjective associations. Both are narrowing down but while Ti looks for accuracy in logical application Ni is basically looking for THE explanation to explain all things sort of like finding or synthesizing a single perspective to encompass all perspectives. In your case you capitalize 'Truth' and then make the subjective association to 'God' and you probably believe "all things start from Him." A dominant Ni, an INFJ exclusively, is going to have Ti as their tertiary function which can easily cause an uncertainty within an INFJ that may not be so visible in the INTJ. Because sometimes there is a battle of sorts. Ni is constantly abstracting to find that synthetic meaning for everything but Ti is sort of a buzz kill because it wants to double check the accuracy of that synthetic meaning by subjecting it to ruthless logical consistency. The Ni tertiary in an ISTP acts differently and doesn't present this conflict so much mainly because Se data is concrete and usually objectively settles any dispute between Ni and Ti. For the ISTP the Ni gives them an imaginative bend because it allows them to abstract the meaning of Se data into useful associations which is then added on to Ti's system building. Where as the INTP uses a concrete repository for abstract data the ISTP uses an abstract pool of ideas based on and derived from concrete data.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Functionally this probably makes you an ISTP or INFJ ( or possibly an ENFJ or ESTP) but squarely puts you on the Ti/Fe and Ni/Se axes. It just a matter of what configuration explains your cognitive process the best.



No doubt all relevant functions are used to some degree or another but it's a matter of finding out which function is 'in command.' Like I gave for my ENTP and INTP description clearly showing which function is 'in command.' For the ENTP Ne-exploration trumps Ti-system building and vice-versa for the INTP. I can see your possible confusion though. Across my run-ins with the typology community I've seen plenty of INFJs, INTPs, and to a lesser extent ISTPs get cross typed simply because they didn't know how to distinguish dominant Ti from dominant Ni. But let me take an amateur stab at it!

As stated before, dominant Ti is an internal system building function like a tool (think Swiss army knife) that uses input from Se or Ne to add refinement to that process and then that 'knife' is repeatedly tested in the Se or Ne environment and then a feedback mechanism is developed with assistance of the tertiary function (Ni or Si) to be fed back into the system (Ti). It s a system which uses deductively analyzes the tool (knife) itself based on how its effected by the environment.

Dominant Ni sounds similar but is rather different. Both Ti and Ni are abstracting which makes them similar but they differ greatly in what they are looking for. Ti looks for accuracy where Ni looks for meaning. So what's the difference? Let's say Ti wants what's true and accurate but doesn't consider beyond that much. Ni is concerned with what all that means in a grander scheme of subjective associations. Both are narrowing down but while Ti looks for accuracy in logical application Ni is basically looking for THE explanation to explain all things sort of like finding or synthesizing a single perspective to encompass all perspectives. In your case you capitalize 'Truth' and then make the subjective association to 'God' and you probably believe "all things start from Him." A dominant Ni, an INFJ exclusively, is going to have Ti as their tertiary function which can easily cause an uncertainty within an INFJ that may not be so visible in the INTJ. Because sometimes there is a battle of sorts. Ni is constantly abstracting to find that synthetic meaning for everything but Ti is sort of a buzz kill because it wants to double check the accuracy of that synthetic meaning by subjecting it to ruthless logical consistency. The Ni tertiary in an ISTP acts differently and doesn't present this conflict so much mainly because Se data is concrete and usually objectively settles any dispute between Ni and Ti. For the ISTP the Ni gives them an imaginative bend because it allows them to abstract the meaning of Se data into useful associations which is then added on to Ti's system building. Where as the INTP uses a concrete repository for abstract data the ISTP uses an abstract pool of ideas based on and derived from concrete data.

I see. So you believe in the classic cognitive function theories proposed by berens and biebe and kiersey and the others?

 

[D'Ascoyne]

Functionally this probably makes you an ISTP or INFJ ( or possibly an ENFJ or ESTP) but squarely puts you on the Ti/Fe and Ni/Se axes. It just a matter of what configuration explains your cognitive process the best.



No doubt all relevant functions are used to some degree or another but it's a matter of finding out which function is 'in command.' Like I gave for my ENTP and INTP description clearly showing which function is 'in command.' For the ENTP Ne-exploration trumps Ti-system building and vice-versa for the INTP. I can see your possible confusion though. Across my run-ins with the typology community I've seen plenty of INFJs, INTPs, and to a lesser extent ISTPs get cross typed simply because they didn't know how to distinguish dominant Ti from dominant Ni. But let me take an amateur stab at it!

As stated before, dominant Ti is an internal system building function like a tool (think Swiss army knife) that uses input from Se or Ne to add refinement to that process and then that 'knife' is repeatedly tested in the Se or Ne environment and then a feedback mechanism is developed with assistance of the tertiary function (Ni or Si) to be fed back into the system (Ti). It s a system which uses deductively analyzes the tool (knife) itself based on how its effected by the environment.

Dominant Ni sounds similar but is rather different. Both Ti and Ni are abstracting which makes them similar but they differ greatly in what they are looking for. Ti looks for accuracy where Ni looks for meaning. So what's the difference? Let's say Ti wants what's true and accurate but doesn't consider beyond that much. Ni is concerned with what all that means in a grander scheme of subjective associations. Both are narrowing down but while Ti looks for accuracy in logical application Ni is basically looking for THE explanation to explain all things sort of like finding or synthesizing a single perspective to encompass all perspectives. In your case you capitalize 'Truth' and then make the subjective association to 'God' and you probably believe "all things start from Him." A dominant Ni, an INFJ exclusively, is going to have Ti as their tertiary function which can easily cause an uncertainty within an INFJ that may not be so visible in the INTJ. Because sometimes there is a battle of sorts. Ni is constantly abstracting to find that synthetic meaning for everything but Ti is sort of a buzz kill because it wants to double check the accuracy of that synthetic meaning by subjecting it to ruthless logical consistency. The Ni tertiary in an ISTP acts differently and doesn't present this conflict so much mainly because Se data is concrete and usually objectively settles any dispute between Ni and Ti. For the ISTP the Ni gives them an imaginative bend because it allows them to abstract the meaning of Se data into useful associations which is then added on to Ti's system building. Where as the INTP uses a concrete repository for abstract data the ISTP uses an abstract pool of ideas based on and derived from concrete data.

That was so good.

 

[entropie]

How can one mistreat ne for ti? Are you sober?

https://youtu.be/uJuHHDJwRL4

 

[Entp/infjGal]

We are speaking the same language

Even by your reply to my post I can tell you are not a Ti dom or aux because we high Ti users tend to break posts line by line and respond in this manner instead of replying to the whole thing. Ti is a reductionist approach, it wants to strip naked everything irrelevant from a claim or argument and just see its logical foundation(s). Ti in some sense is exclusive because it excludes what's not logically sound where as Ne is inclusive and wants to bring in all information not paying attention right away whether it makes logical sense or not. For the Ti-Ne or the Ne-Ti this can be a challenge since there are two powerful forces within us tugging in opposite directions but thankfully this usually creates a pretty good synthetic solution or answer.

I used to do that on a board I visited for years, seemed quite natural as you dont want to get anything lost in a maze....and then I realised it was very much correlated with the tendency towards online flame-wars. Someone advised to respond to entire posts and at first, I thought it made no sense but soon realized by experience it did make a difference. There is just something about answering to an entire post that doesn't come off quite so pointed and sharp to the other person. When you respond point for point, it somehow looks merciless, as you are destroying the foundations of the other party's arguments without leaving anything unturned. Actually, I don't know why exactly, but there definitely is a corelation. People tend to reach for the kitchen sink sooner than if you responded to the whole post and just zeroed in on the main point.

 

[entropie]

I am pretty much the definition of NeTi. I see relational and process oriented. Like neurons in the brain. To me an entity is always the sum of its connections. I cant see static, its all fluent dynamics. As an example the terms "true" and "false" loose their meaning to me, with the counter-question: in what time and what dimension?

 

[entropie]

I'm still not 100% convinced I am not an extrovert.

And you wont ever find the one answer, if you keep searching for only one answer. MBTI shouldnt tell you who you are. You rather can tell via mbti, who you like to be, most of the time