# Describe Ti



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

I know I use a lot of Ti but I wonder whether I'm picking up on the right parts of me and identifying them as Ti.

Here are my thoughts, please would people be able to argue these out or add some!

1) Ti sees others as talking about the "symptoms" of an issue rather than the "cause" - it is more interested in the root and does not get caught up in the multitude of results of that root, which can distract away from the cause and appear to be an issue in and of themselves.

2) Ti notices that these things are "symptoms" because they "feel" inconsistent (not universally true). A missing part is intuited and Ti looks for that missing part.

3) Ti does not make assumptions based on experience, facts or reports of behaviour. Ti makes assumptions based on an innate understanding of the network of drives that leads to these facts, experiences, behaviours. Thus Ti is less provable but feels to the user as a more "universally true"

4) However, this means that Ti may not see the importance of issues that are "symptoms" of a larger issue but which actually do need to be resolved or looked into - Te therefore is more adept at practical application, efficiency and meaningful action.

Perhaps a slightly ethical example would be: 
Te might think about ways in which crime statistics can be lowered (even if they do realise it's not the big picture)
Ti might think about the ways in which crime statistics can be skewed or misrepresentative and therefore may ignore or distrust them. More likely to focus on the cause of crime and any universal causes behind criminal activity, but may not actually provide ideas for implementation on how to resolve the issue.

I have a strong feeling I'm wrong about all of this but I would like feedback to see whether I am completely off in some other world or are beginning to get to grips with this!

Thanks
Discuss!


----------



## Judas (Aug 11, 2010)

This sounds very much like the way i think at least.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Vilen said:


> This sounds very much like the way i think at least.


Well, take it with a *bowl* of salt because it's becoming more and more obvious to me that I'm not very good at separating out functions yet! I'm starting to think this has more to do with Ni, or perhaps I'm using a lot of cognitive functions here  I really haven't got to grips with it yet at all!


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

@ukinfj, @Vilen

This is really useful, possibly because of Ne+Ti.

I was already made aware of the subjectivity of my Fe, but now that I read this description I realized that my constant drive and firm "belief" that:

1. There is an underlying principle, even if it is not universal since that term rubs me the wrong way - is there anything universal at all.
2. "Understanding" that principle is of uttermost importance and once understood it can be applied to a variety of objectives with slight alterations to fit the context.

I "felt" this is the "right" way to do it, and not looking for that principle but rather stop at the objective (Te) or subjective (Fi) representations of the principle is not sound logic.

Now I understand that my belief is not "universally right" but rather a subjective one. Ti strives for objectivity, yet it appears to be subjective in its nature and design. This appears to cause a lot of internal struggle where Ti strives to shed its "imperfect" subjective nature to achieve its end goal - objectivity. Which seems to result in a self-destructive desire to abolish itself, at least in me. 

I have already noticed a tendency in Ti users to actively question the results from their Ti and seek objective opinion, especially in matters regarding itself (the OP and I demonstrate that by seeking criticism of our Ti).

Does this make sense to Ti users and have you arrived and even applied it to yourselves?:

"I have logically arrived at the conclusion that my logic is flawed, thus I am going to do what is illogical to "see" what happens".
I believe ENTPs to be more prone to such a conclusion but wish to get your opinion if this makes sense and why.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

@ukinfj


> 2) Ti notices that these things are "symptoms" because they "feel" inconsistent (not universally true). A missing part is intuited and Ti looks for that missing part.


Could the feeling of inconsistency be a Ni thing too? It could be related to the '' intuition '' of made assumptions.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

ukinfj said:


> 1) Ti sees others as talking about the "symptoms" of an issue rather than the "cause" - it is more interested in the root and does not get caught up in the multitude of results of that root, which can distract away from the cause and appear to be an issue in and of themselves.


Well, it doesn't allow for the symptoms to be mistaken as the cause. Instead, everything is labeled according to the part it plays in the system; the "essence" of each part and how it fits into the system is defined. (Kind of like Object Oriented Program; we see the objects and how they interrelate to compose the system, but most people get caught up in the instances of the objects and thus don't really see the system itself clearly.)



> 2) Ti notices that these things are "symptoms" because they "feel" inconsistent (not universally true). A missing part is intuited and Ti looks for that missing part.


True. For it to be Ti, of course, it has to work regardless of Se or Ne secondary, so I'd be careful with the word "intuit" which signifies N. However, basically, we can see where the gaps are in the cause/effect of the system. If we get a particular effect, then we can tell when the cause has been insufficient and thus something is missing, and we can even suggest what sorts of things might fill that space.

(This "gap sense" is part of the Ti "bullshit" detector. Ti knows when something doesn't make sense and therefore someone's got their data wrong or perhaps even purposefully lying.)



> 3) Ti does not make assumptions based on experience, facts or reports of behaviour. Ti makes assumptions based on an innate understanding of the network of drives that leads to these facts, experiences, behaviours. Thus Ti is less provable but feels to the user as a more "universally true"


Yes, it's more vague than Te, because it deals with the essence of the system parts and the system, kind of like a seeing the big flow / network diagram. Te deals more with using systems in order to produce a defined outcome; Ti is informative rather than directive, so it cares less about producing an outcome and more just about defining the system and its parts all in honest relation to each other.

Because it deals with objects rather than instances, thus, it is universal -- the object and flow can be mapped into ANY appropriate situation.

I would say, though, that Ti does benefit from actual data and experience in order to properly understand the system. Ti has issues when a system is envisioned without firm enough anchor points in tangible reality; Ti wants to generalize specific systems into the most universal form. So the more data one has and the more experience one has, the more examples one has of "how reality works," and thus the system derived from those instances is going to be more reflective of reality. Ti does need good data in order to develop an accurate model.

But I do think you are saying that Ti is not hung up on the experience, fact, reports, etc. Once it gets some concepts in place, in fact, it can operate totally on that level and not have to keep referencing the hard data; it preserves the relationships between the data points in how it plays with the system model. 



> 4) However, this means that Ti may not see the importance of issues that are "symptoms" of a larger issue but which actually do need to be resolved or looked into - Te therefore is more adept at practical application, efficiency and meaningful action.


Agreed. Ti can be naive in some ways; it's good at seeing flaws in system design, but not necessarily in noting actual tangible system errors like Te is. Te is a "get 'er done" function; it is directive and wants to produce a particular outcome via an instance of what Ti has modeled. 



> Perhaps a slightly ethical example would be:
> Te might think about ways in which crime statistics can be lowered (even if they do realise it's not the big picture)
> Ti might think about the ways in which crime statistics can be skewed or misrepresentative and therefore may ignore or distrust them. More likely to focus on the cause of crime and any universal causes behind criminal activity, but may not actually provide ideas for implementation on how to resolve the issue.


Well, that might be too hard a line. Ti is capable of imagining broad ways of reducing crime... but it's all conceptual, it is not in the sense of understanding the in's and out's of the particular solution offered. 

Compare it to strategic vs tactical sense, for example. A general will develop broad strategies about where to leverage resources and particular battlefields, etc., and those strategies are hopefully built not just on how we understand the qualities of the soldiers and the armies and the land formations but also real-life historical precedence.... but it is the tactician -- the sergeant who is actualy on the battlefield leading a specific group of soldiers around the battlefield -- that will determine how that battle actually plays out and whether or not the effort DOES succeed. Te is more tactical in that sense, I think. it is more about making a specific instance of a strategy work, where Ti is really more about the overall strategy.

(Just my initial thoughts in response to your ideas. I didn't really try to think outside your ideas, I just positioned myself in relation to them.)



Istbkleta said:


> Now I understand that my belief is not "universally right" but rather a subjective one. Ti strives for objectivity, yet it appears to be subjective in its nature and design. This appears to cause a lot of internal struggle where Ti strives to shed its "imperfect" subjective nature to achieve its end goal - objectivity. Which seems to result in a self-destructive desire to abolish itself, at least in me.


Ti is funny that way -- a "subjective" pursuit of objectivity. Let's be clear about what subjective in this context means, though... any introverted function is subjective because it occurs within the observer, rather than just observing or manipuating the raw data itself like extroverted functions do. So the observer/actor is a necessary part of the process. The dark irony of a subjective viewpoint needing to demystify itself is not lost on me, and kind of fits the IxTP dry humor sense. I think, however, that IxTP naturally will acknowledges the subjectivity as a way of becoming more objective -- we consciously try our best to detach and remove ourselves from the equation as much as possible, even as we are still formulating this perspective of how the world works. We do this instinctively even in situations where personal values are actually central to deciphering a situation. Again, kind of amusing.

I think you also said that nothing can be truly known... which is correct. We are within the system, not outside of it, so our knowledge is imperfect. That's something we need to acknowlege. However, we can still recognize pervasive patterns and thus have a "decent sense" of what things seem to be uniform and what things are anomalies. I don't really like this weird postmodern tendency to assume that, just because ALL experience involves some level of subjectivity, all ideas and all POVs are suddenly "equal". No, we can actually still evaluate ideas based on the internal consistency to themselves as well as how well they actually fit the real data.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Carola said:


> @ukinfj
> 
> 
> Could the feeling of inconsistency be a Ni thing too? It could be related to the '' intuition '' of made assumptions.


Yes. I think what I have described here is actually Ni working with Ti as Ni doesn't exactly pin things down and Ti helps to ground it and make decisions - I THINK! But I'm not sure!


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

@Jennywocky Excellent! Thank you, this clears things up for me. I agree with you on the example I used. The moment I started writing that bit I was thinking - this isn't exactly what I mean....Totally agree with your take on it.


----------



## Verrsili (Jun 13, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> I know I use a lot of Ti but I wonder whether I'm picking up on the right parts of me and identifying them as Ti.
> 
> Here are my thoughts, please would people be able to argue these out or add some!


Well if you _want_ me to debate I will. Keep in mind though, I might actually agree with you on some (possibly all) of it.


> 1) Ti sees others as talking about the "symptoms" of an issue rather than the "cause" - it is more interested in the root *and does not get caught up in the multitude of results of that root*, which can distract away from the cause and appear to be an issue in and of themselves.


The bolded is not really true. Ti seeks to master and explore systems. A system has _many_ multitude results of different "roots" or paths.

Let's say there is a system like this:










The top is the "root" and each path it goes is a different cause. Ti would master and know every single cause of this system (like programming) and not just the top root.


> 2) Ti notices that these things are "symptoms" because they "feel" inconsistent (not universally true). A missing part is intuited and Ti looks for that missing part.


I'm not sure what "things" you are talking about.


> 3) Ti does not make assumptions based on experience, facts or reports of behaviour.


More or less. Experience helps to gain a knowledge which feeds Ti. For example, memorizing a specific logical fallacy makes it tremendously easier to spot. If it hadn't been memorized (or just looked at at one point in time) it might be a lot harder and take longer to identify the mistake in reasoning.


> Ti makes assumptions based on an innate understanding of the network of drives that leads to these facts, experiences, behaviours. Thus Ti is less provable but feels to the user as a more "universally true"


On the contrary, Ti is more provable because it has perfect iron-bound logic (if correct). Ti views things as deductive, while Te views thing as inductive.

In other words, Ti views something as either 100% true or 100% false. If one mistake in logical reasoning is made, the whole argument fails and becomes false. Te, on the other hand, is more comfortable with saying (fallacious!) things like: well it's 60% true, etc. etc.

(^ That is, of course, all simplified)



> Ti might think about the ways in which crime statistics can be skewed or misrepresentative and therefore may ignore or distrust them. More likely to focus on the cause of crime and any universal causes behind criminal activity, but may not actually provide ideas for implementation on how to resolve the issue.


I disagree that this has anything to do with Ti.

Yes, Ti would seek to see what the cause of crime is _first_. Then it is up to the user what to do with it. A Ti might seek the cause _so they know how to fix the cause._ Another Ti might not care.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Verrsili said:


> Ti seeks to master and explore systems. A system has _many_ multitude results of different "roots" or paths.
> 
> Let's say there is a system like this:
> /\
> ...


Yes. They are aware of the branches that come from the root. But they are more interested in the root than the branches - is this true? Do they not intend to strip away to get to the bottom of things? 

Is it possible that Te makes remarks about what it sees around it without seeing the hidden connections surrounding the issue (or is this part of the N function?) So, would a Te tend to look for evidence in the real world but then perhaps miss something that is behind it?



Verrsili said:


> I'm not sure what "things" you are talking about.


Yeah, I'd got it wrong here anyhow, I think. I mean that Ti sees inconsistencies, which is how it is unable to deal with 60 per cent truth rather than 100 per cent. If it is true that 60 per cent of people experience x, then 40 per cent of people don't. Thus it is inconsistent. Like you say in your post.



Verrsili said:


> On the contrary, Ti is more provable because it has perfect iron-bound logic (if correct). Ti views things as deductive, while Te views thing as inductive.


I'm coming back to this because I feel I disagree but I don't know why yet. By the way - is it Ti that does that? Gives you the strong feeling of "something wrong here" but you are unable to pinpoint it exactly. Or is it Ni+Ti that does that? Regardless, I'm coming back because I'm going to say that your argument itself _might_ be inductive. Give me time to work out what I mean!


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> Yes. I think what I have described here is actually Ni working with Ti as Ni doesn't exactly pin things down and Ti helps to ground it and make decisions - I THINK! But I'm not sure!


 Mh , i've thought about this and i don't know if i've really got the meanig of your post.
When you say '' inconsistent' do you mean logically inconsistent?
To me , there is a constant sense of inconsistency , but not only on a logical level . When i listen to someone that say something , or i read something or i get information in other ways i've a sense that there is something behind , that we are talking only about the surface , not on a deep level. And i doubt of the ''truth'' of everything.So , i usualy try to go behind the concept that are considered true. This concept are the''symptoms''.So, i've a drive to go on , toward something ,toward '' the real truth'' , but i don't assume that there is really a truth , and i don't assume that there isn't a truth (to me , this is an assumption too) . 
So , it isn't only a matter of logical consistancy and gasps in systems.Logical inconsistancy helps this process (and often is the start of it), It is a part of this thing, but it is more a sense of ...I don't know how i can call it ! sorry...
Was that what you meant?Or is the mine a total different function at work?

EDIT : in your last post you talk about the strong sense of "something wrong here" ..and yes , it is part of what i'm talking about! But sometimes it isn't so clear the reson of this ''feeling'' ...to me

EDIT2: sorry! i' ve found another way to describe it..It is like a sense of something ''intangible'' , something that peraphs you could touch but actually you can't do it. SO you have the need to try to go towards , but you don't really know what you will find , if you will find something.And maybe you have the feeling that that thing is really intangible and that you 'll never touch it , but you need to go ''behind '' anyway(you will do that thinking more about something , reading more..etc) .


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Carola said:


> Mh , i've thought about this and i don't know if i've really got the meanig of your post.
> When you say '' inconsistent' do you mean logically inconsistent?
> To me , there is a constant sense of inconsistency , but not only on a logical level . When i listen to someone that say something , or i read something or i get information in other ways i've a sense that there is something behind , that we are talking only about the surface , not on a deep level. And i doubt of the ''truth'' of everything.So , i usualy try to go behind the concept that are considered true. This concept are the''symptoms''.So, i've a drive to go on , toward something ,toward '' the real truth'' , but i don't assume that there is really a truth , and i don't assume that there isn't a truth (to me , this is an assumption too) .
> So , it isn't only a matter of logical consistancy and gasps in systems.Logical inconsistancy helps this process (and often is the start of it), It is a part of this thing, but it is more a sense of ...I don't know how i can call it ! sorry...
> ...


Hi. I recognise all of this. I think that might be Ni at work. Ti generally tries to complete a whole. The deductive argument URL given earlier in the thread explains it quite well actually. Ti works alongside Ni in types which prefer those functions. There's some really good posts on Ni on the cognitive functions thread that you might want to take a look at.

Ni doesn't believe in irrefutable truth. It occurred to me after I wrote the last post that the reason something felt wrong was because of the absolute way in which the poster said Ti's truth was better than Te's truth. Because I use Ni, I consider this impossible. Does that make sense? 

If we were to rely completely on Ni, we would get nowhere, because Ni sees metaphors and constant shifting and never rests on any kind of truth. Because Ni believes there are no constants and there are no truths. Ti is used to bring that back down to Earth a bit, because you can't really go around thinking like that all day! If you did, you wouldn't get anything done because - according to Ni - nothing actually really exists! So you would never really make a decision. 

The inconsistency bit comes in when you are presented with an argument and you interrogate it. Again, I'm learning too and I'm totally sure on this so bear with me! When I work on something, I look at the theory put before me and I feel that there is a gap missing. Were I to find this gap, this inconsistency, and fill it then I would have a theory that felt watertight and thus near enough true for me to feel convicted in it. So, for instance, someone tells you a theory and something in your brain says "not true for everyone". How about, say, someone tells you that "white people are generous" (this came from a comment a user put on some forum somewhere....). Now Ti looks at that and says it is not possible. The person that is saying "White people are generous" is working on generalisations or his/her own experience. Perhaps they have been around a lot of generous white people, perhaps they saw a statistic saying that white people donate 30 per cent more to charity than other races or perhaps they read it in a newspaper or it is simply part of their culture to believe that white people are generous. But Ti says this is a myth. It looks at that statement and says "this can't be true for everybody". Obviously, not all white people are generous. Ti might say that the trait of generosity is developed out of many things regardless of skin colour. The country that white person has been brought up in, the actions of their parents, what they have learned at school and their personality itself may all have contributed to a person being generous. These are not things that are limited to white people, of course, so it is no more true to say that white people are generous than black people are generous regardless of any statistics that came out to say otherwise (btw, so that I don't start a race fight here, this is an example and I do not know of any statistics that show white people as being more generous!) So Ti rejects this statement as being inconsistent with reality.

Now lets say a statistic came out to say that 90 per cent of hispanic people give to charity and 70 per cent of white people give to charity. Does that mean that hispanic people are more charitable? A Te user might say yes. This statistic, though only an approximation seeing as not all hispanic people and not all white people were part of the survey, may be enough for them to say that hispanic people give more to charity. A Ti user will say, again, that this is impossible, because we know that to say one race is more charitable than another is not a possible statement to make. And that statement will not be true all over the world and for every person - it's a generalisation.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

@ukinfj


> - according to Ni - nothing actually really exists! So you would never really make a decision.


It could be true for me , but maybe it is in a more unconscious way , because all of that i've talked about before is more like a ''feeling''.There is constantly something missing.And this feeling don't let me consider something logical consistently true.I've the same suspiction that there is something wrong , or missing even if it seems logical, even if i don't know what(sometimes, when there is really something missing , i'll understand after , after a lot of time too, i don't know if in these cases it is Ti at work, because i can't immediately grasp the gap )
It is like thinking'' it is logical and consistent ,but i could miss something...or could be something that i can't see now''



> So, for instance, someone tells you a theory and something in your brain says "not true for everyone"


Yes it happen all the time ! And usually i try to test it and i will find the assumption that meke the statement ''not true for everyone'' , even if not immediately all the time 



> There's some really good posts on Ni on the cognitive functions thread that you might want to take a look at.


What thread specifically?

Thanks a lot for the previous post anyway :wink:


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Carola said:


> @ukinfj
> It could be true for me , but maybe it is in a more unconscious way , because all of that i've talked about before is more like a ''feeling''.There is constantly something missing.And this feeling don't let me consider something logical consistently true.I've the same suspiction that there is something wrong , or missing even if it seems logical, even if i don't know what(sometimes, when there is really something missing , i'll understand after , after a lot of time too, i don't know if in these cases it is Ti at work, because i can't immediately grasp the gap )
> It is like thinking'' it is logical and consistent ,but i could miss something...or could be something that i can't see now''
> 
> ...


I might need a bit of an example from you to get at what function your using. Do you know your personality type?

On Ni, here's a bit of self-promotion from me because I was quite proud of this thought:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/25454-i-need-understand-ni-6.html

And here's a better explanation!
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/56401-down-rabbit-hole-introverted-intuiting.html

You might need to read through the threads to get a picture, but you sound like you use Ni anyway so I think you might be able to recognise it. 

I recognise the "something missing" thing and I *think* that's Ti. If you give me an example - like a time you thought it - then that might help.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

@_ukinfj_ 

I've already read something on that thread , anyway thank for the links.
I'm not able to recognise it because i find a lot confusing to distinguish Ti from Ni . Than , if i'm an Ni user i'm an INFJ ( so i use Ti too) , becase i've a total lack of Te , that's simple to understand !
I thought that i was an INTP , but lately i'm doubting because i seem to be some sort of F ( someone on this forum told me that i seem an F) , and than i've noticed that i don't make decison based on logic, and i'm too much idealistic i think .Then , i find in me a lot of likely Ti traits but i don't have that structure in my mind , i don't think so.That ''objective principle that i can apply in other situations'' like i've read by Ti users .Or maybe i'm not aware of it !
Then, from the beginning i feel that i'm not an Ne user. I think that i 'm an N because i'm so little practical,i've real interest on something only when it gives me something to think about , to contemplate.So i'm assuming that i'm not an S(and usually i can't find myself in S descriptions), but i can't really exclude it.
However i find some Ni description a lot confusing ,because i can't know if some thoughts are absorbed by education or what.Then , i don't made the ''assumption'' that there is nothing true, simply i 'm a lot prone to doubt and when i discuss in particular i tend to focus on the concepts that we are using , and i tend to discuss them and to break the castle from the foundation (i think'' are we sure that it is in this way?'' so , i discuss the definition of that concept) . And i'm a lot prone to think '' this is for your experience , are we sure that this can be universal? peraphs there isn't really a truth in this kind of things'' in particular in existential discussion . In general I tend to think that there is something that has been simplified , this in scientific fields too. 



> An INFJ is more likely to write a story by having a vague concept in their mind and they will mull over it and get frustrated that that picture doesn't make sense and then they stop thinking about it for a couple of days and then one morning they're in the shower and - POP! Not just part of the story but the complete story. All laid out waiting for you seemingly obvious.


I don't know if it is the same exact thing. For example , there was a math concept (i was trying t find a ''dimostration'' ,to figure out 'why' that rule was true, even if valid for me only, not a rigorous one) that i couldn' understand , i thought about it but i can't figura out. Some week later , i had to make a travel so , while i was in the car , that cncept turned in my mind and after a little time i understood , even if in a realyl vague way. Than the same thing happened with a puzzle : i was quite obsessed by it ,i really can't figure it out. I went to sleep and when i was awake and trying to avoid to think about it, but it returned in my mind, the solution came out(even if i wasn't reallly reasoning about it , i was only vaguely rewieving some existing track of previous thought . Then i had to think better about it , these kind of things usually are strange , images but not rigorous , somewhat ''representative''. 

Another thing : i've had the feeling that ''there was something wrong'' with my teacher '' something behind'' , that she wasn't that stable as she wanted us to believe (even if she imply that she had problems in the past) , but i don't know if she had yet said that , i can't really remember(because with people i sometimes weave the clues almost unconciously and then i've to think about it to know why i think what i think) .Anyway , she proved me that really she is a lot emotive , she is not that rational , she isn't that ''stoic'' and indifferent , she really mind about too much things ( i got that from the beginning , i couldn't believe that she was that way). And she has the same inner torment that i have, i just knew that( and lately she had some emotive behaviour , and sometimes she said taht she was so disappointed by a student behaviour , she sometimes says that she really doesn't love life and things like that , even is it isn't true, she is simply full of anger just like me , even if she wants as to think that she is detached ).
The same with a friend , i made the hypothesis that he was projecting his needs on me and his own mind , and he conrfimed that when he told me what i had to write in a message . With another friend too , i guessed that his behavoiur wasn't really too much self - confidence but too much insicurity ( the feeling'' there is something behind'') , i told him and he confirmed.
So , these are really guess that i do watchig to my experiences and weaving various sources of information , and sometimes to understand i have to analyze and then i'll view all the clues(really it is a mixture of councious and unconcious puzzling) .
Sorry , i wrote a lot! i've tryed to explain it in the better way i can.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Carola said:


> @_ukinfj_
> 
> I've already read something on that thread , anyway thank for the links.
> I'm not able to recognise it because i find a lot confusing to distinguish Ti from Ni . Than , if i'm an Ni user i'm an INFJ ( so i use Ti too) , becase i've a total lack of Te , that's simple to understand !
> ...


Don't apologize! That was useful. I am also an INFJ and I recognise what you're saying. The part of what you're describing that is Ni is the "just knowing" part. You don't logically go through processes when you're doing maths or puzzles, just as I don't. If I try to logically go through processes I might get stuck. The answer appears to come spontaneously - even if it's vague that's fine. It's the fact that you're not sitting their figuring it out through a logical, rational, linear process. I hope that makes sense. That's the bit that is Ni.

I'm also struggling with Ti. I think Ti is the part of you that feels the inconsistency. 

So if I was to try and work this out, but I'm in the same position as you here, I don't definitely know, I'd say:

Ni: Sudden conclusions that come from nowhere
Ti: Intuitive feeling of "something missing" - that's the doubt over some things.

A lot of these functions are unconscious. You won't be aware of them happening. Which is why I'm struggling a bit to understand!

I'll give it some thought and see if I come up with anything. If I do, I'll let you know. I'd be grateful if you tagged me in if you found out anything more 

Nice to meet you, by the way! x


----------



## blit (Dec 17, 2010)

It's shaped like a rectangle without a bottom, has an accent on the top left, and a couple of holes on the top right. Ti could be simplified as Troll logic.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

@_ukinfj_ 


> I'm also struggling with Ti. I think Ti is the part of you that feels the inconsistency.


It is really really confusing because i've found description that talks about reinterpreting sings , like here Introverted Intuition .Sometimes that impression of inconsistancy is linked to a sense of simplification of the stuff , as if i know that that intepretation isn't full. 
'' is an attitude of "seeing through" the distortion that any interpretation creates, to see the underlying reality(...)''(from the previous link , at the end of the ''second proposed definition'' , the third says something similar too '' is a way of orienting yourself to your environment by consciously attending to the expected interpretations of things. In this manner of orientation, you hold agnostic about whether those interpretations are true(...)'' ). It could be linked , by these definition , to the '' something missing or wrong'' too. 
But really i don't know...

Nice to meet you for me too :laughing:

EDIT:here there is another potentially (and short ) useful link(there is a comparison between Ti and Ni) http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=3694


----------



## themartyparade (Nov 7, 2010)

This forum needs more sensors.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Carola said:


> @_ukinfj_
> It is really really confusing because i've found description that talks about reinterpreting sings , like here Introverted Intuition .Sometimes that impression of inconsistancy is linked to a sense of simplification of the stuff , as if i know that that intepretation isn't full.
> '' is an attitude of "seeing through" the distortion that any interpretation creates, to see the underlying reality(...)''(from the previous link , at the end of the ''second proposed definition'' , the third says something similar too '' is a way of orienting yourself to your environment by consciously attending to the expected interpretations of things. In this manner of orientation, you hold agnostic about whether those interpretations are true(...)'' ). It could be linked , by these definition , to the '' something missing or wrong'' too.
> But really i don't know...
> ...


I think we're getting there! Thanks for link. I got some great answers on the INFJ forum about Ti: http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/58548-how-do-infjs-use-ti.html#post1399498


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> Yes. They are aware of the branches that come from the root. But they are more interested in the root than the branches - is this true? Do they not intend to strip away to get to the bottom of things?


Yeah. You might even call it "reductionistic". Ti loves the idea of causality and completely mapping out an explanation for something.



> I'm coming back to this because I feel I disagree but I don't know why yet. By the way -  is it Ti that does that? Gives you the strong feeling of "something wrong here" but you are unable to pinpoint it exactly. Or is it Ni+Ti that does that?


That might be the fact that it is tertiary Ti. When you have it better developed it will tell you more quickly and give you greater clarity. Ti dominance would pinpoint it more exactly still, but even with us it is still not quite there, as introverted functions are difficult to express and more unconscious than extroverted ones (which is why Ni is seen as "just knowing", it is both introverted and amorphous like intuition generally is, though my Ti wants to add that "just knowing" is a shoddy explanation for how Ni really works :wink. This is party why you describe "Ti" as intuitive (introversion being primarily experienced as gut feelings), and partly also because Ti is not dependent on experience but can come to its own conclusions of its own accord (I strongly disagree with @Verrsili on this one, no Ti-dom _needs_ to memorize fallacies...actually I saw that part of philosophy class as a waste of time...I already have a built in detector :wink.

I very much relate to that "strong feeling" that something is wrong, it is an extremely powerful part of my mind, which suggests it is part of Ti. I have actually described Ti in that very way on these boards (though I called it a "reeling feeling"), though likewise that might be Ti-Ne. Still, a well developed Ti tells you exactly what is wrong and also does it "intuitively", however bear in mind it is going to be hard to explain it in words. Ti is not a linguistically oriented function and normal language tends to lack the precision needed to articulate its understanding of concepts.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> I think we're getting there! Thanks for link. I got some great answers on the INFJ forum about Ti: http://personalitycafe.com/infj-forum-protectors/58548-how-do-infjs-use-ti.html#post1399498


 Ok , i've read some threads .I think i'm more an F .I think .I'm a lot idealistic , watching on what is wrong and what is right, how the society should be .Especially What is fair to the others and what is not. How the other will interpret my behaviour and what i 'll become for the others, how they will see me if i'll do something wrong, i'm afraid to hurt others.I think i'm not a T .These traits are too strong.
So now , i've to figure out if i use Fi or Fe.
I'm still confused about Ti and Ni anyway! but this is helping me to understand that it is more likely that i'm a feeler and not a thinker.Even if i still use a lot of T( it is more likely Ti, by what i'm reading) .
I could still be an S , by the way.
Thanks for the link!


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Carola said:


> Ok , i've read some threads .I think i'm more an F .I think .I'm a lot idealistic , watching on what is wrong and what is right, how the society should be .Especially What is fair to the others and what is not. How the other will interpret my behaviour and what i 'll become for the others, how they will see me if i'll do something wrong, i'm afraid to hurt others.I think i'm not a T .These traits are too strong.
> So now , i've to figure out if i use Fi or Fe.
> I'm still confused about Ti and Ni anyway! but this is helping me to understand that it is more likely that i'm a feeler and not a thinker.Even if i still use a lot of T( it is more likely Ti, by what i'm reading) .
> I could still be an S , by the way.
> Thanks for the link!


Not sure you're an S, you sound N to me. The whole feelings of things not being right is a very N thing, I believe.

As for Fi and Fe, this took me ages to take on board. But the words you said just there appeared to be Fi. Fi considers the world using its own personal value system, while Fe borrows its value system from the rest of the world Fe focuses on the group while Fi focuses on the individual. So, to Fi, the idea of the individual is that it is "authentic". Perhaps they may have a stronger grasp of who they are, or what they believe themselves to be, they could have a stronger grasp of their emotions.

, I know how I feel about someone cheating, I know how I feel about someone putting themselves above others - these things are hardwired. Fe believes x is wrong and y is right. That's not to say we don't take circumstances into account, we're not necessarily stuck in our ways, but we will have a stronger sense of moral absolutes that we feel quite strongly about. These are societal values that we impose. 

However, Fi might not have that absolutism. It might say that cheating is not inherently wrong, it depends on the situation. Now to me, cheating is wrong in 99.9 per cent of situations so I consider it to be wrong. This is how Fe is like Te - if something is generally true, we believe it to be true. However, Fi will say well it is incorrect to say that cheating is wrong, per se, because sometimes it isn't. 

So Fi kind of works like Ti except about morals and emotions and relationships. Fe kind of works like Te in those areas. Fe is also more likely to feel the emotions of the person outside of themselves while Fi notices their own. Fi might judge a situation by how it makes them feel, while Fe will judge a situation by either moral absolutes or by how it affects the wider community or group.


----------



## Carola (Apr 26, 2011)

ukinfj said:


> Not sure you're an S, you sound N to me. The whole feelings of things not being right is a very N thing, I believe.
> 
> As for Fi and Fe, this took me ages to take on board. But the words you said just there appeared to be Fi. Fi considers the world using its own personal value system, while Fe borrows its value system from the rest of the world Fe focuses on the group while Fi focuses on the individual. So, to Fi, the idea of the individual is that it is "authentic". Perhaps they may have a stronger grasp of who they are, or what they believe themselves to be, they could have a stronger grasp of their emotions.
> 
> ...


Thaks for the explanation!
Usually i tend to consider instinctively wrong something regardless of the situation .For example i 'm uncompromising with cheating : sometimes i've discussed about cheating in football with my brother , and he tend to justify them bacause '' it is the aonly way to the success'' , i understand , but i don't really mind ;i have to force myself to think that it isn't so wrong.Then i hate when i've to copy , even if it is really a small cheating , but i really value honesty . Even i often take circumstances into account .
At the same time , i ive a strong sense of individuality and autehnticity. When i help a friend with studying i want him to do that thing , i don't want to say how he has to do the work , i'm a supervisor. I want the work to be a reflection of him and his mind, not mine.
I'm traits of both Fi and Fe.
Sorry , i'm really OT !Thanks a lot however.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

Carola said:


> Thaks for the explanation!
> Usually i tend to consider instinctively wrong something regardless of the situation .For example i 'm uncompromising with cheating : sometimes i've discussed about cheating in football with my brother , and he tend to justify them bacause '' it is the aonly way to the success'' , i understand , but i don't really mind ;i have to force myself to think that it isn't so wrong.Then i hate when i've to copy , even if it is really a small cheating , but i really value honesty . Even i often take circumstances into account .
> At the same time , i ive a strong sense of individuality and autehnticity. When i help a friend with studying i want him to do that thing , i don't want to say how he has to do the work , i'm a supervisor. I want the work to be a reflection of him and his mind, not mine.
> I'm traits of both Fi and Fe.
> Sorry , i'm really OT !Thanks a lot however.


It took me AGES to get Fe/Fi. There's a really good post on the INFP forum describing the difference. I'll fish it out later.


----------



## Verrsili (Jun 13, 2010)

nevermore said:


> (I strongly disagree with @Verrsili on this one, no Ti-dom _needs_ to memorize fallacies...actually I saw that part of philosophy class as a waste of time...I already have a built in detector :wink.


 I never said that a Ti-dom _needs _to memorize them. I just said that sometimes it makes it easier to spot/makes it take less time. You may think you have a built in detector that recognizes all errors in reasoning, I used to also. But sometimes I will recognize more obscure ones immediately that I otherwise wouldn't have (or I would have but it might have taken longer).


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

ukinfj said:


> 3) Ti does not make assumptions based on experience, facts or reports of behaviour. Ti makes assumptions based on an innate understanding of the network of drives that leads to these facts, experiences, behaviours. Thus Ti is less provable but feels to the user as a more "universally true"


I think a little of that is related to Ti, but what you're describing is more N than Ti. You're emphasizing information gathering and perception, not information processing. ISTP doesn't fit this description as well as it should if this were a purely Ti description. Personally, I would omit it from your otherwise good list.


----------



## ukinfj (Apr 15, 2011)

B-Con said:


> I think a little of that is related to Ti, but what you're describing is more N than Ti. You're emphasizing information gathering and perception, not information processing. ISTP doesn't fit this description as well as it should if this were a purely Ti description. Personally, I would omit it from your otherwise good list.


Cheers for the feedback!


----------



## NeedMoreKnowledge (Nov 2, 2010)

For me it's just the constant questioning of everything done around me, and by me. I try to make sense of everything (too much for my own good) and I decide if something makes sense/is right without any outside influence, or at least nothing that I didn't validate with my own conclusions. It is very impersonal so it doesn't take into account anyone elses perspective when making decisions, which can get me into trouble. If I voice my concern about someone doing something wrong and only focus on exerting my Ti without any Fe brought in for better communication the point many times can fail to get across to the other person. I'd say unless you're a social scientist it's best to keep Ti out of trying to analyze social situations, and use it for understanding basically everything else.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

Verrsili said:


> I never said that a Ti-dom _needs _to memorize them. I just said that sometimes it makes it easier to spot/makes it take less time. You may think you have a built in detector that recognizes all errors in reasoning, I used to also. But sometimes I will recognize more obscure ones immediately that I otherwise wouldn't have (or I would have but it might have taken longer).


Yeah, but I recalled you saying it makes things "tremendously easier", as if it were greatly reliving us of something that would have been very difficult otherwise, but I don't think picking out logical errors is much of a strain for a TP type. They just sort of leap out at me (and I sort of hate it, because it means I am bothered by things that don't really matter when others can just move on, oblivious to the issues and not caring because the practical impact they make is very slim).

It's just, like, the impression I am getting is that you think there is some sort of "list" of possible logical fallacies "out there" that people can name and teach (like when you used the term "obscure ones", as if it were some sort of little-known album from a popular band). Really there is not a list of several fallacies; they are just (admittedly very useful) pointers, concrete manifestations that signify when someone is going off the wrong path. But Ti is following the argument, and when a false step is made, it knows. It doesn't matter what it is, it will know, because to Ti all fallacies are but the absence of perfect logic (I don't like the term "truth" since something can be logical and not true, and Ti, at least with Ne, doesn't naturally care about backing up premises with concrete facts and puts hypothetical validity before concrete truth, and will make valid but unsound arguments frequently if Ne/Se is neglected). Ti sees the false step more than anything else, and for this reason does not need to study a book of fallacies (Si style) to identify "all errors". This is because you don't need to know about errors at all, just have a good internal sense of what is logical and speak up when a line of thought goes off that path (unless the mental process is by its natural alogical).

No, I don't think I have some kind of perfect detector that recognizes "all errors" in reasoning (as if there were a finite number, which is a deceptive way of thinking about improper reasoning even if true, and as if they were ultimately of distinct types *from a logical point of view*; obviously they are distinct psychologically, but logically and especially for Ti everything ultimately relates back to one thing: does logic permit me to make this step, based on the premise that everything must be equal to itself). Rather, I recognize "error" in reasoning generally as opposed to a list of concrete, distinct rules I need to make sure others don't violate. You don't need to memorize if you just keep a good handle of what logic is in your head, and anytime when others words don't take a logical step that is compatible with ones other statements it you know something is up.

I don't know, your recommended approach also seems pretty Si...not the best way for an N to do it. As an N, it would be easier for you to follow intuitive hunches that something is logically wrong than memorizing a list of rules.

(I'm sorry for all that, it's just my Ti-dom self resents other people telling me how to reason and doesn't take well to the idea of looking up rules of logic in a book, which represents someone else's idea of logic. I have this feeling - and it's just a product of me being INTP, I know - that if you aren't reasoning on your own and abasing it off other's procedures you are bound to be caught up in their own assumptions and preconceptions that might be obstacles to you coming to your own conclusion).


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Ti pretty much creates universal truths based on probability (which base on personal experiences throughout one's lifetime), as opposed to Te, which tries to be absolute.

@Galldune posted a decent definition of the two flavors logic is served as.



> Deductive and inductive reasoning
> 
> Deductive reasoning concerns what follows necessarily from given premises (if a, then b). However, inductive reasoning—the process of deriving a reliable generalization from observations—has sometimes been included in the study of logic. Correspondingly, we must distinguish between deductive validity and inductive validity (called "cogency"). An inference is deductively valid if and only if there is no possible situation in which all the premises are true but the conclusion false. An inductive argument can be neither valid nor invalid; its premises give only some degree of probability, but not certainty, to its conclusion.
> 
> The notion of deductive validity can be rigorously stated for systems of formal logic in terms of the well-understood notions of semantics. Inductive validity on the other hand requires us to define a reliable generalization of some set of observations. The task of providing this definition may be approached in various ways, some less formal than others; some of these definitions may use mathematical models of probability. For the most part this discussion of logic deals only with deductive logic.


----------



## Galldune (Mar 22, 2010)

2 things...
that's just a psychology 101 description I posted before... I could go deeper but not going to right now...
and knowing logical fallacies 
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its not a hindrance to coming up with your own conclusions..that's very ignorant to say..
I think most Ti types would benefit from taking a uni 101 logic class at the very least...so they don't come up with false conclusions..and spread them...nothing I hate more than stupid people...and zombies..
Its another tool to use when you are trying to solve your own problems as well as in a debate....

and now that Erbse's summoning is over...I'm going back to my home in the realm of the ISTP...


> Ti seeks precision, such as the exact word to express an idea. It notices the minute distinctions that define the essence of things, then analyzes and classifies them. Ti examines all sides of an issue, looking to solve problems while minimizing effort and risk. It uses models to root out logical inconsistency


----------

