• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Ti] Ti, inconsistency, and turning people into systems

CitizenErased

Clean Slate
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
552
Hey!

I've been discussing about Ti's tendency to build systems (the same way it builds its own system to analyze/revisit information) with other INTPs and we all agreed that, to some extent, Ti also constructs systems of other people, being able to predict some of their actions (though not to a social level in which you know something you say is going to make someone mad). It's as if every person we encounter becomes an abstraction, a system (like a stereotype of its own?), and every "system" (person) becomes consistent. It's different from labelling people, because every person is a separate abstraction, I just wanted to make that clear.

Unless it's another Ti-user, or oneself. We were also discussing that the way Ti updates itself (mainly when it's dom/aux) makes us seem inconsistent sometimes, because we always change our values, meanings, preferences, etc depending on how we evaluate them.

So, do you turn people into systems? If so, do you find it convenient/comfortable or you try to neglect the "abstractions" you make of people? Do you believe it's because of Ti or not (or a mix between Ti and some other function), or just Ti-doms?

As a Ti user, do you often find people consistent? Do you find yourself or other Ti users inconsistent?

Non-Ti users, do you find Ti user inconsistent? Do you construct people into systems?
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Hey!

I've been discussing about Ti's tendency to build systems (the same way it builds its own system to analyze/revisit information) with other INTPs and we all agreed that, to some extent, Ti also constructs systems of other people, being able to predict some of their actions (though not to a social level in which you know something you say is going to make someone mad). It's as if every person we encounter becomes an abstraction, a system (like a stereotype of its own?), and every "system" (person) becomes consistent. It's different from labelling people, because every person is a separate abstraction, I just wanted to make that clear.

Unless it's another Ti-user, or oneself. We were also discussing that the way Ti updates itself (mainly when it's dom/aux) makes us seem inconsistent sometimes, because we always change our values, meanings, preferences, etc depending on how we evaluate them.

So, do you turn people into systems? If so, do you find it convenient/comfortable or you try to neglect the "abstractions" you make of people? Do you believe it's because of Ti or not (or a mix between Ti and some other function), or just Ti-doms?

As a Ti user, do you often find people consistent? Do you find yourself or other Ti users inconsistent?

Non-Ti users, do you find Ti user inconsistent? Do you construct people into systems?


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. :shrug:

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.


If you wanna see the INTP side search for EricB on here

Don't confuse with a Te system.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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).
 
Joined
May 19, 2017
Messages
5,100
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.
 

Zeego

Mind Wanderer
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
390
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So, do you turn people into systems? If so, do you find it convenient/comfortable or you try to neglect the "abstractions" you make of people? Do you believe it's because of Ti or not (or a mix between Ti and some other function), or just Ti-doms?

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.

As a Ti user, do you often find people consistent? Do you find yourself or other Ti users inconsistent?

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.
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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. .

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.....





So, do you turn people into systems? If so, do you find it convenient/comfortable or you try to neglect the "abstractions" you make of people? Do you believe it's because of Ti or not (or a mix between Ti and some other function), or just Ti-doms?


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


As a Ti user, do you often find people consistent? Do you find yourself or other Ti users inconsistent?

Do I know them? Makes a difference. I think people as a whole are predictable but not necessarily consistent.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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 am more like a rock in that instance. They end up between a rock and their own hard place. I try to avoid destroy the world style...man does it build up though. Ex-GF used to say dont poke the sleeping bear. Most dont :laugh:
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I am more like a rock in that instance. They end up between a rock and their own hard place. I try to avoid destroy the world style...man does it build up though. Ex-GF used to say dont poke the sleeping bear. Most dont :laugh:

I was just going to say, how can it not be destroy the world style with an ENFJ?? That's who I had in mind when I thought of that. :laugh:
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.

I agree with detailed breakdown. Its complicated as shit, but eady for me to navigate
 

EcK

The Memes Justify the End
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
7,708
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
738
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 ?
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
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.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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 :laugh: or blobs with boobs...:drool:
 

Virtual ghost

Complex paradigm
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
19,769
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.
 

CitizenErased

Clean Slate
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
552
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. :shrug:

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!

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.

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).

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.

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".


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).

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.

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.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
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.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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.
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
[MENTION=26997]CitizenErased[/MENTION]
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.
 

GavinElster

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2017
Messages
233
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
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
 
Top