User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 29

  1. #11

    Default

    As a Te-Ni user, people are amorphous blobs in my mind that are layered by whatever data the unconscious mind stores. They're visually represented with colours, jagged, straight or curved lines around them. There are emotional nuances layered into these concepts. Patterns are ascertained, the greater amount of data populated into the conception.

    Not all Ti users are inconsistent. Of the Ti users, INTPs, ENTPs and ESTPs are in my subjective opinion, more inconsistent than ISTPs.
    Likes CitizenErased liked this post

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    As a Te-Ni user, people are amorphous blobs in my mind that are layered by whatever data the unconscious mind stores. They're visually represented with colours, jagged, straight or curved lines around them. There are emotional nuances layered into these concepts. Patterns are ascertained, the greater amount of data populated into the conception.

    Not all Ti users are inconsistent. Of the Ti users, INTPs, ENTPs and ESTPs are in my subjective opinion, more inconsistent than ISTPs.
    Dont object-ify us. We are people, not blobs or blobs with boobs...
    Im out, its been fun
    Likes meowington, geedoenfj liked this post

  3. #13
    Complex paradigm Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    13,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenErased View Post

    Non-Ti users, do you find Ti user inconsistent? Do you construct people into systems?[/B][/I]

    As clear Te user I would say that I construct systems out of people. Also inconsistent as the word is pretty vague and there are a number of ways you can be inconsistent. I have noticed that Ti users often bother too much with definitions instead of impacts, so they can miss the point of the story. But this isn't inconsistency in the standard meaning of the term.
    Likes CitizenErased liked this post

  4. #14
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6,719

    Default

    in soviet russai, ti discuss you

  5. #15
    Clean Slate
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poki View Post
    As a dom Ti I am pretty good at knowing a person on a social level. Now what I will not claim is that I will get it right everytime because I really have no control over the person external environment outside of mine and their conversation. I am pretty good at picking up those moments after the fact. I may even directly challenge the person in a manner that makes them go "this is whats bothering me" as well. Its all part of the internal understanding I build of how systems work. People fit into that very well and have been told by many that I am actually VERY good at learning people because I actually listen, process, understand as that's the most important part of building a system.
    That's what I'm talking about. The act of processing all the information you receive from one person and turning it into a single concept called [insert name of said person].

    What I will never claim to know is how a person will react upon meeting them, I don't apply "stereotypes" or abstractions unless I know they fit. I don't say, oh thats a guy he will be like this. I may group "guys" into a stereotype, but never a person into a guy until I know that person. That's a more extroverted thing and the way an introvert actually has to get around that is just flat our not knowing and running with it. I don't really have much faith in external systems or abstractions unless I actually know it fits. At that point I have internalized it.

    I find most people very consistant, even if the consistency is that there is a lack of consistency. My ex is one that to this day baffles me, I know her very well, I know what she values, cares about, etc. but I could not even come close to devising a system to determine her thoughts or answers as they have no consistency and are very emotionally driven goal based without any sense what so ever even when you know her goal. My system says "flip a coin is the best you will get to a good vs bad response as that is actually the accurate probability". I will adjust probability as time goes on and the probability will slide back and forth. That's as close to consistant as I can get.
    That was what I was trying to make clear in the OP. It's not about making a person fit in an already created system (like a stereotype, I don't trust them either). It's more like I said before, a condensation of a person into one idea instead of tagging them with a label it already exists.
    That's what I always say, "I'm consistent at being inconsistent", hahaha But knowing you will flip a coin (regardless of what the outcome is) is consistent with your personality (maybe), so it still stands true!

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    Yes I do this as a Fi type.
    Before I discovered typology I already picked up on these patterns, but I had no language for it.
    I very much pick up on an invididual's pattern as well as larger patterns in people. It is definitely a system and I can often predict behaviors or responses by it. But it's so theoretical for me. In real time, I am a helpless observer who can analyze, but not put it into use.

    So where I fail is the dynamics of social interactions, aka the extroverted stuff. I understand people's internal motivations better, sometimes motivations they seem unaware of themselves (people hate when NFs claim this, but then they love it when we help them uncover those motivations).
    I understand! Yes, it's theoretical, though I can't help but seeing people as machines, and I try to foresee what they're going to do/what they're going to choose, according to how I constructed them inside my head. This doesn't help in any way, but it's fun to try to predict what people will do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Population: 1 View Post
    I'm able to figure most people out fairly quickly in person. People leave little breadcrumb trails to their underlying topography and I can often follow them back to their own little realm. Well at least the outskirts. Note I said in person. Online is completely void of tiny physical cues and tone and inflection so I have to read between the lines going off of what they don't say as much as what they do and also how they word things.

    I have some kind of system but if you asked me to give you a detailed breakdown of it I'll likely start blathering and become really perplexed because apparently it's as much a subconscious process as it is a conscious one for me and I can't clearly define it for myself.

    Edit: I hope that made as much sense to everyone as it did to me. Sometimes I'm actually concise with my thoughts. Sometimes.
    1) I envy your vocabulary. If I were a cartoon, my iris would be two hearts right now.

    2) It made complete sense to me.

    3) Proper answer: I'm also blind when it comes to people online. I just take what has been written literally most of the time (I'm a firm believer of Poe's Law). Years ago I'd watch the series "Lie to Me" and I would practice pointing out micro-expressions on people walking around. How people word things is essential to me, at least because I believe there are no synonyms (I think every synonym is better suited in a certain context... you should see me "trying to find the right words" in my native language, I can spend half an hour trying to decide which word is better for what I want to express).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeego View Post
    I used to turn people into systems more than I do now, and learning about the Grant/Beebe stack and Socionics made that even more intense for a while. I still do it now to some extent (I think it's just a part of how I process the world), though not as much as I used to. I take more of an "analog" approach to mentally modeling people, which might be why I've been putting less stock in a lot of cognitive function models lately.

    I am inconsistent in that my personality is a bit self-contradictory. I often find myself fluctuating between extremes of rationality and irrationality, logic and emotion, science and spirituality. I've been interested in those kinds of dichotomies for a while, whether they are naturally opposites or artificially so, and I like exploring both sides of them.

    As for other people, I've come to accept the fact that the universe is ruled by chaos, and people can often be unpredictable even to themselves. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just how humans are.
    100% agree with everything you said. Only that you put it in an organized way, unlike me (my scattered thoughts take a while to become one full sentence).

    Indeed, that's how I process the world. I make little packages of information and build them into a "consistent" system. I always say I'm a pool of coexisting contradictions, and I like to try to understand how they can live together and make "me" a system. It's difficult to make an abstract concept of myself.

    I agree that people can be inconsistent even to themselves, though most of the time they follow some inner logic, and that's what I like to find out about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by MDP2525 View Post

    I tend to take people as they come. What do you mean by "abstractions" here?

    Do I know them? Makes a difference. I think people as a whole are predictable but not necessarily consistent.
    By "abstractions" I meant that I take X person, listen to them, watch them talking, moving, etc, and then I "extract" what I believe it's their "core essence". I make a concept model of the person inside my head. If I had to ask something to X person, maybe I'd think first what my abstract model of them would answer, and then answer the real X to see if my "abstraction" of them as a system works fine.

    Of course it makes a difference, if I don't know the people I don't have any material to work on. Well, yes, predictable is a form of consistency, I think. If you always change your values, you're consistent at changing, and that makes you somewhat predictable in saying "they will probably think differently than they did the last time".


    Quote Originally Posted by EcK View Post
    People ARE SYSTEMS

    sys·tem
    ˈsistəm/
    noun
    1.
    a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular.



    Regarding the inconsistency thing not sure I follow. Maybe it's a function of youth. My ethics etc have been pretty consistent so far. With the occasional fuck up. But rare.
    Though i agree that yes humans are generally inconsistent but isn't it the "job" of a function like Ti to make us internally consistent ?
    Correct. People ARE systems, only that I tend to realize that while I'm talking to them. I don't know if I'm creating them as machines in my head or devoiding them of all "humanity" in real life.

    Ti makes us consistent. Only that, as I see it, if I gather more information and update my way of analyzing further information, it will be internally consistent but it may not look that way from the outside. That was what I was wondering (agh too many Ws).

    Quote Originally Posted by bechimo View Post
    As a Te-Ni user, people are amorphous blobs in my mind that are layered by whatever data the unconscious mind stores. They're visually represented with colours, jagged, straight or curved lines around them. There are emotional nuances layered into these concepts. Patterns are ascertained, the greater amount of data populated into the conception.

    Not all Ti users are inconsistent. Of the Ti users, INTPs, ENTPs and ESTPs are in my subjective opinion, more inconsistent than ISTPs.
    Quoting myself a week ago: "I see people as genderless plasticine figurines moving around" (though I was talking about when I'm concentrated on an idea and the surroundings become irrelevant).

    I like the idea of layers rather than gears/bubbles connected to each other to form concepts (that's how I imagine them). Do certain layers taint/colour the ones under them or they're considered separately? I'm really interested in how people see data inside their minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by Virtual ghost View Post
    As clear Te user I would say that I construct systems out of people. Also inconsistent as the word is pretty vague and there are a number of ways you can be inconsistent. I have noticed that Ti users often bother too much with definitions instead of impacts, so they can miss the point of the story. But this isn't inconsistency in the standard meaning of the term.
    Definitely. Speaking for myself here, I get lost in the technical (or not so technical) aspects of the idea, that it becomes a huge monster of "ad hocs" than one solid idea. Well, I believe the word "inconsistent" could be refined, but for the moment is the only one I know that gets close to what I purposely intend to mean.
    Likes rav3n, Zeego, geedoenfj liked this post

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenErased View Post
    Quoting myself a week ago: "I see people as genderless plasticine figurines moving around" (though I was talking about when I'm concentrated on an idea and the surroundings become irrelevant).

    I like the idea of layers rather than gears/bubbles connected to each other to form concepts (that's how I imagine them). Do certain layers taint/colour the ones under them or they're considered separately? I'm really interested in how people see data inside their minds..
    The bolded sounds like Ne, imagery of connectivity, similar to trees/branches, heartless arterial systems, etc.

    Yes, there can be bleedout or not, swirls of colours, movement, pulsation, primordial sludge bubbling, fractals, there's no end to individual conceptions.
    Likes CitizenErased liked this post

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MDP2525 View Post
    I don't know about you but I don't like getting there because when I do? I often haven't thought about the aftermath too much. It's like, I got this and I'm going to show you yourself here. Then I become Oppenheimer, destroyer of worlds. Keymaster of drama. Breaker of Chains. Khaleesi.....







    I tend to take people as they come. What do you mean by "abstractions" here?




    Do I know them? Makes a difference. I think people as a whole are predictable but not necessarily consistent.
    Abstractions for me are pulling out concepts into generalizations. It creates a spider web that is loosely overlaid over people. I dont generally name them or define them, but i still pull out the understanding and similarities. MBTI gave me names and kinda definitions. I find descriptions of types as well as functions pretty inconsistant and half ass. So i tweaknand modify for consistancy. Its why i focus on healthy and unhealthy, etc. As opposed to a theory based view i want a reality based view. That requires a large amount of pattern matching across people as well as picking up on the different polar opposits within people.
    Im out, its been fun

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,301

    Default

    @CitizenErased
    By "abstractions" I meant that I take X person, listen to them, watch them talking, moving, etc, and then I "extract" what I believe it's their "core essence". I make a concept model of the person inside my head. If I had to ask something to X person, maybe I'd think first what my abstract model of them would answer, and then answer the real X to see if my "abstraction" of them as a system works fine.
    Ok gotcha. I guess it's mostly automatic and not something I'm actively conscious of. I have never thought about how I think about people before. *inception music*

    I definitely pay attention to body language, tone of voice, inflection, eye contact. Those are what I find myself overlapping over time and that sort of gives me a quick impression. This is who I think you are (subject to change caveat).

    What they say builds upon this, confirms, changes or fleshes out. Eventually yeah, you see the same types of body language, tone inflections and the ability to read those get more refined. But I don't ever get to that "core essence" of that or a specific person because I don't believe it exists. I can see it being a fun idea to play with but it's not an idea I've played with personally.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Ne
    Posts
    226

    Default

    My view tends to be that any T type has to work with logical consistency very strongly, not just Ti-doms. In fact, this is something I often struggled with in earlier stages of thinking about this stuff.

    The distinguishing feature of a Ni vs a Ti dom to me is that introverted functions are about a priori constraints imposed by the mind, and Ni deals with mental constraints, Ti with logical ones. In this sense, Ti types are a lot more prone to be conscious of the framework they are committing to, whereas Te types tend to have a "whatever you can do with the framework" attitude. Where "do" is NOT MEANT in a pragmatic way, but can mean things like logical implementation of an idea that is of no practical value in the sense of money/that type of thing.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,466

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GavinElster View Post
    My view tends to be that any T type has to work with logical consistency very strongly, not just Ti-doms. In fact, this is something I often struggled with in earlier stages of thinking about this stuff.

    The distinguishing feature of a Ni vs a Ti dom to me is that introverted functions are about a priori constraints imposed by the mind, and Ni deals with mental constraints, Ti with logical ones. In this sense, Ti types are a lot more prone to be conscious of the framework they are committing to, whereas Te types tend to have a "whatever you can do with the framework" attitude. Where "do" is NOT MEANT in a pragmatic way, but can mean things like logical implementation of an idea that is of no practical value in the sense of money/that type of thing.
    I make no concious effort to focus on if something is logical. World is a system, it has to follow its system of an extreme parallel cause and effect. I try to understand it as best i can to navigate it as best i can. Reality trumps my understanding period. Logical or not. Its about understanding reality. Application refines it by exposing reality more.

    Logical is limited by ones understanding of it
    Im out, its been fun

Similar Threads

  1. People that are strong in Ni,Ti,Te and Ne
    By Virtual ghost in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-05-2018, 01:13 AM
  2. [MBTItm] Bloody INFPs and their capacity to turn INTJs into fuzzy hug addicts.
    By Cranky in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 403
    Last Post: 03-22-2010, 12:57 PM
  3. Ti, Te and "Systems"
    By VagrantFarce in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 02-20-2010, 08:15 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO