# Introverted Thinking Reality



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

_Inspired by @Abraxas's thread: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/577449-introverted-intuitive-reality.html. 

This post is about how I experience Introverted Thinking. I expect that not everyone experiences it in quite the same way, but in any case I hope this post will at least have usefulness as an example._


Introverted Thinking is a mindset that focuses on conceptual shape and logical relationships within reality. It moves away from the logical facts of the objects themselves and instead prefers to focus on what makes these objects logically fit or not fit together.

When we perceive things with our senses: the colors, the shapes, the sounds, we say that these things are real. They exist because we can detect them. When we experience emotions, we say that these are real too, because we can feel them. Introverted Thinking detects another aspect of reality that is just as real, one that cannot be physically seen but is detected mentally.

What Introverted Thinking detects is that each object has a unique logical "shape" which changes the meaning of everything in combination with it. This is difficult to describe because I'm not speaking of literal shapes, but rather a sort of conceptual structure that feels almost mathematical, as if one were gazing into the logical essence of objects, the shape of their simplest universal form. Ti "sees" these shapes and recognizes conceptual similarity and distinctions between them. It can therefore determine what is logical based on the internal structure of factors and arguments. Because this happens very quickly, I may spend most of my time trying to find words to explain and articulate what I understood.

If Ti were to express in drawings what it sees and what it wants to communicate, there would be a large emphasis on symbols conveying logical relationships. Symbols such as >, <, -->, /, +, etc. These symbols are ways of attempting to describe properties of the logical shape which can be mentally glimpsed at, but which cannot be fully expressed through any medium, be it drawing or writing.

So here I am, staring at holes and examining their shapes, their structure. Will this peg fit into this hole? Surely not, I don't need to try to push it in to see that it won't fit. I know it because I understand it.

But others don't seem to see this. They are too optimistic, taking their hammers and pounding square pegs into round holes. They are shape-blind. "It'll work out," they say. "You're just overthinking this," they say. How does one describe color to a blind person? I'm not overthinking, I'm just seeing what's there. If you see it and understand that it's real, you can't ignore it.

So what do you do? The only thing to be done is to continually align oneself to truth, according to the logic one sees. It isn't even a desire, just the natural consequence of the fact that nothing else exists. If it isn't true it isn't real. 

Can I even say that truth is something I value? Perhaps not. It would be like saying one values color simply for seeing and accepting its existence. It's like that--it just simply is.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

"What Introverted Thinking detects is that each object has a unique logical "shape" which changes the meaning of everything in combination with it. This is difficult to describe because I'm not speaking of literal shapes, but rather a sort of conceptual structure that feels almost mathematical, as if one were gazing into the logical essence of objects, the shape of their simplest universal form"
Sounds like Ne?

"They are too optimistic, taking their hammers and pounding square pegs into round holes. They are shape-blind."
Sounds like Se?

"So what do you do? The only thing to be done is to continually align oneself to truth, according to the logic one sees. It isn't even a desire, just the natural consequence of the fact that nothing else exists. If it isn't true it isn't real."
Sounds like Te?

Ti is subjective?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> "What Introverted Thinking detects is that each object has a unique logical "shape" which changes the meaning of everything in combination with it. This is difficult to describe because I'm not speaking of literal shapes, but rather a sort of conceptual structure that feels almost mathematical, as if one were gazing into the logical essence of objects, the shape of their simplest universal form"
> Sounds like Ne?
> 
> "They are too optimistic, taking their hammers and pounding square pegs into round holes. They are shape-blind."
> ...


Gotta take it in context with the rest. Pay attention to the first paragraphs and use that to light your way through the rest.

My best way to describe what it feels like is when you think about something, if it's "wrong" it is like mental nails on a chalkboard and you naturally realign yourself to correct what's off. Little by little you whittle your whistle(ok couldn't help myself). But seriously, I get an actual emotion about wrong things. And when that emotion goes away I know I'm correct. Or when I'm mentally searching for an answer and I feel relief, I know I'm right. It's weird. 

In a very involved process you will have a lot of this feedback, and once the negative emotions go away, you know you have a completely harmonious answer. So you can be very specific about anything simply by thinking about it and not giving up until that feeling goes away.

I don't like the emphasis on symbols, but I do notice myself relying on that kind of thing.

It's all very natural, yes. Just like breathing, you put things down on paper in a certain way or they come out of your mouth a certain way and you can tell exactly why you said it the way you did. Hell, I don't even like this explication as a way to well...explicate, because it's a lot more intense and involved, and not nearly as free and detached as it sounds.

Anyway, my two cents.

Also... it isn't perfect. You can get to a very specific understanding, but sometimes you simply can't generate(your brain just doesn't give them to you) the sort of points that are clear enough to get to that specific understanding. But you'll know your answer when you see it, so that works.


----------



## Negativity Bias (Jan 27, 2013)

Beautifully put. Tried for a while to put it in to words what Ti was in my perspective, and you accomplished it seemingly with ease. Well done.

I actually made a post about one particular section of your thread without realizing it.



> Can I even say that truth is something I value? Perhaps not. It would be like saying one values color simply for seeing and accepting its existence. It's like that--it just simply is.


http://personalitycafe.com/intp-forum-thinkers/582114-implying.html

To add to this I just wanted to say that, Subjectivity and Objectivity are not the same and can coexist. I can acknowledge a system is more logical and overall a better choice and at the same time personally disagree or even hate it and choose not to value or accept it. This personal opinion doesn't interfere or even really interact with the reality that it's the most logical choice or action. 

Like, I don't think that Welfare in the US is a logically sound system and it would probably be better if it were replaced or just outright removed yet I collect Disability and Food Stamps and value both.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> I don't like the emphasis on symbols, but I do notice myself relying on that kind of thing.


Well to be clear, I don't see Ti as thinking in symbols (and I don't). More like symbols are translations of aspects Ti sees, which can be used to communicate. I was trying to think of a way to describe more concretely what a "logical shape" is like, so I thought of what it might visually look like. And symbols expressing logical relationships were the closest I could come up with.

Actually, a while back in a game thread I was asked to draw the concept of "good enough". I drew this:









I've noticed that in general when I try to draw words or concepts, I tend to use a lot of arrows, crossing things out, symbols, etc. to convey meaning.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Silveresque said:


> Well to be clear, I don't see Ti as thinking in symbols (and I don't). More like symbols are translations of aspects Ti sees, which can be used to communicate. I was trying to think of a way to describe more concretely what a "logical shape" is like, so I thought of what it might visually look like. And symbols expressing logical relationships were the closest I could come up with.
> 
> Actually, a while back in a game thread I was asked to draw the concept of "good enough". I drew this:
> 
> ...


Heh, that looks a hell of a lot like a wage differential(gap) illustration from a labor class I took.

Right, so I do agree, and it sort of caught me off guard that you mentioned it, because I do do this but I'm almost blind to what I'm doing. I don't know...do you get the sense in describing this thing that you have to externalize something that shouldn't have to be? Maybe that's just me. When you draw a symbol, you're not really drawing the symbol, you're caught up in the thing you're talking about. It just seems sort of misrepresentative to focus on the symbols when they are just a contingency for how things get done. Dunno, just a little OCD thing I'm experiencing here.

But I understand the challenge, I think. So don't think I'm disagreeing with you.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

tangosthenes said:


> Heh, that looks a hell of a lot like a wage differential(gap) illustration from a labor class I took.
> 
> Right, so I do agree, and it sort of caught me off guard that you mentioned it, because I do do this but I'm almost blind to what I'm doing. I don't know...do you get the sense in describing this thing that you have to externalize something that shouldn't have to be? Maybe that's just me. When you draw a symbol, you're not really drawing the symbol, you're caught up in the thing you're talking about. It just seems sort of misrepresentative to focus on the symbols when they are just a contingency for how things get done. Dunno, just a little OCD thing I'm experiencing here.
> 
> But I understand the challenge, I think. So don't think I'm disagreeing with you.


Yeah, I see what you mean and I agree. It's not Ti itself, it's just a medium for the communication of Ti. Ideally it wouldn't have much of a place in a Ti description. But I don't think there is actually a way to directly describe what Ti sees, at least not concretely. It gets a bit like trying to describe color with words, the true experience of it is lost in translation.


----------



## s2theizay (Nov 12, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> "What Introverted Thinking detects is that each object has a unique logical "shape" which changes the meaning of everything in combination with it. This is difficult to describe because I'm not speaking of literal shapes, but rather a sort of conceptual structure that feels almost mathematical, as if one were gazing into the logical essence of objects, the shape of their simplest universal form"
> *Sounds like Ne?*
> 
> "They are too optimistic, taking their hammers and pounding square pegs into round holes. They are shape-blind."
> ...


1. Nope. Ne (from a Ti dom's pov) can come in flashes. There isn't much depth to the revelations it brings and they can be over in a flash. It is Ti that takes this information and gives it a shape, assignment or meaning.

2. I'm not sure if you are asking if the people are using Se or if the op is using Se, but I definitely identify with the op's observation. It's when people do things that to me, make absolutely no sense, but they just can't see it. They can't seem to understand if something fits/is true or not.

3. Extroverted thinking tends to manifest itself in control over the environment, not so much how one aligns themselves internally.

4. Introverted functions are often called subjective and extroverted functions are considered objective.

(I realized that this being numbered almost looks like an attack, but it isn't. Just wanted to correspond my answers to each question.) Also, @Silveresque, please correct me where I'm misunderstanding/representing anything you said.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

s2theizay said:


> 1. Nope. Ne (from a Ti dom's pov) can come in flashes. There isn't much depth to the revelations it brings and they can be over in a flash. It is Ti that takes this information and gives it a shape, assignment or meaning.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure if you are asking if the people are using Se or if the op is using Se, but I definitely identify with the op's observation. It's when people do things that to me, make absolutely no sense, but they just can't see it. They can't seem to understand if something fits/is true or not.
> 
> ...


1. OP is listed as LSI. This was to point out that he is using Ne in Ti's place, while also saying he has Ne PoLR. His descriptions of a form that isn't physical is him describing his perception of Ne and his corresponding action to order it into something physical

2. He is describing force as opposed to seeing the inherent properties of an object, with the undertone of doing something by force being a negative quality. Unvalued Se.

3. He is speaking of the truth of something, which only exists in objective reality. He is referencing verifiable data on logic, which is the realm of Te.

4. He is ascertaining that Ti is objective. Ti is subjective, by definition of fields and subjectivity. He is describing Te.

It's cool. Just pointing out that most of his descriptions of Ti use wordage ascribed to the valued elements of SLI, not LSI.

P.S.- I now see OP is a female. Sorry, but too lazy to correct all the masculine words now lol


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Awwwww hell. This ain't socionics forums... Sorry guyyyyyyssss!!!!!

*hauls arse*


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> 1. OP is listed as LSI. This was to point out that he is using Ne in Ti's place, while also saying he has Ne PoLR. His descriptions of a form that isn't physical is him describing his perception of Ne and his corresponding action to order it into something physical
> 
> 2. He is describing force as opposed to seeing the inherent properties of an object, with the undertone of doing something by force being a negative quality. Unvalued Se.
> 
> ...


As an ILI, I cannot remotely relate to any of what was addressed in the OP. It's staunchly Ti. The only thing that comes close to this is that I too get an intuitive idea of what's logical or sound which comes very naturally. Te is more about procedures and logical outcomes: what's the best or most efficient method to accomplish a certain goal and how do we accomplish this goal? 

For example, I want to write a post about Te with the goal to educate the masses. First I need to gather information on what Te is. I'll consider all the sources and facts such as what other prominent authors say on the subject. I will then arrange the information in a post, using quotes to back up my points. I will then simply post the post and be done. I have now, in my mind, successfully educated everyone on what Te is. There's no need to discuss the finer nuances or definitions or who said what and why. It's all laid bare to see, the facts are there and it's objective. If someone has a disagreement they disagree with the authors I quoted, not I. The logic does not belong to me and at best belongs to the authors I quoted, though Te will usually take the stance that logic does not belong to anyone particular as much as we all contribute to agree upon principles of logical arrangement i.e. we all agree upon that this [factual nugget] is an objective truth and why should we question it? We just agreed on that it's true. In such a way, Te assigns logic to the environment. 

I honestly couldn't care less if a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole and make sense of why or why not it doesn't fit which Ti does. I'll simply observe that it doesn't work and that it is an inefficient procedure to try to make the square peg fit the hole and look for another peg to use. If I was really asinine about it, I'd even effectivize the procedure by coming up with an idea of how to always get the right peg for the right hole. That way we'd save a lot of time and trouble to get the wrong peg to begin with and we can all actually spend the time we are supposed to spend on the actual purpose of what we are supposed to do because again, logic is assigned to the environment via logical purpose and seeking logical outcomes.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> 1. OP is listed as LSI. This was to point out that he is using Ne in Ti's place, while also saying he has Ne PoLR. His descriptions of a form that isn't physical is him describing his perception of Ne and his corresponding action to order it into something physical


Are you saying everything that isn't physical is Ne? That doesn't even make sense. What is it you think Thinking is? I mean, it's by definition non-physical. 



> 2. He is describing force as opposed to seeing the inherent properties of an object, with the undertone of doing something by force being a negative quality. Unvalued Se.


I think you took my "pounding square pegs into round holes" metaphor too literally. It had nothing to do with actual force. (I also don't agree with the popular socionics notion that Se = force because that notion is illogical and unrealistic.)



> 3. He is speaking of the truth of something, which only exists in objective reality. He is referencing verifiable data on logic, which is the realm of Te.


Since when does Ti not speak of truth?



> 4. He is ascertaining that Ti is objective. Ti is subjective, by definition of fields and subjectivity. He is describing Te.


Are you saying it's objective if it is true? That all subjective functions are simply made up opinions? That's not the right distinction.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@Silveresque

Just ignore it. Entered this thread thinking it was in socionics forum. Must have clicked wrong forum lol.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @_Silveresque_
> 
> Just ignore it. Entered this thread thinking it was in socionics forum. Must have clicked wrong forum lol.


It might as well be about socionics, man, it doesn't matter. When you make your suggestions it will be known that you make them in the realm of socionics one way or another. Find a way to fit a sign of this in if you're uncomfortable.

You've got me thinking about this Ti is subjective thing. When I think, I aim at getting the right answer whether it's open ended or not. I think it's objective, though. It's as objective as asserting anything about the environment. Saying something is subjective gives it an air of illegitimacy to me.

So how would you back up subjectivity if challenged on it?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@tangosthenes

Objective is that which can be observed independent of subject
Subjective is that which can be observed which cannot be separated from subject

It does NOT mean that subjective is only "your own personal," rather it is that it describes a relationship between two things that is not independent of the subject. One may accurately use "subjective" with the self as the subject, or with another as the subject. Fields are subjective, as they cannot be described other than by one subject to another body.

With Ti in mind, the phrase "this block fits into this spot well" is an entirely subjective statement. The observation made is strictly dependent upon the subject's (block) relation to the object (spot), while the "well" is entirely dependant upon the subject making the statement. 

Taken from rickdelong.com
"objects and fields in human perception 
Objects:
Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields:
Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject"


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Silveresque, amazing. I love this. I feel like you got at the essence of Ti. 

Also, instead of seeing components of a thing or object like Te does, would you say you focus more on its attributes? Its essential or inherent quality. Like, seeing past the object itself to get to the core of what it is that differentiates it (or makes it similar) to other things. Maybe that is why when I think about Ti, I think of form and structure (so I think I understand what you mean when you say mention "shape").


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Julia Bell said:


> Also, instead of seeing components of a thing or object like Te does, would you say you focus more on its attributes? Its essential or inherent quality. Like, seeing past the object itself to get to the core of what it is that differentiates it (or makes it similar) to other things. Maybe that is why when I think about Ti, I think of form and structure (so I think I understand what you mean when you say mention "shape").


No, I think what you're describing may be more Ne-Te. I mean, there is a logical essence, but I would say Ti is not focused on the objects themselves so much as the logical relationships between them, so that essence is more removed from the attributes of individual objects. It's more about the essence of the whole situation, of the relationship between X and Y in a particular context and the logic that underlies it. Ji is focused on that sort of abstract, relationship between, mechanics/structure rather than the separate properties of objects themselves. 

If it helps, here's how I picture it (the person/subject could be replaced with another object, especially in the case of Ti which is impersonal):









Ti can actually work without the details of objects. An example of this was when in one of my classes a student was told to draw on the board a circle to represent a problem in her life, and another circle to represent herself. The circles by themselves were meaningless representations, it would be pointless to look at their individual attributes. But in combination they implied a certain logical relationship. The teacher asked the class to interpret and I said I noticed she drew the circle for herself larger and around the circle for her problem, which might imply that she feels bigger than the problem, that she has it enclosed and under control.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> Can I even say that truth is something I value? Perhaps not. _It would be like saying one values color simply for seeing and accepting its existence_. *It's like that--it just simply is.*


The bolded sounds like an Se-valuing bias, IMO. I find myself saying the same thing, actually, as an ISXP: It is what it is. I think the underlined is where I differ. In a way, I can relate to Ji-doms like IXTPs quite well, having considered typing at IXTP myself in the past (I think it can potentially be a common mistype). I think Ji-doms like to ask:

WHY? - Ti would attack it from the standpoint of perfecting a logical system... what makes sense? Fi I think might go: Well, why do we desire to live? Why do people fight so hard to survive? What is the point of this? Fi, rather than perfect a logical system, perfects a system of ethics (not just morality, but aesthetics, tastes, agreeableness, etc.).

*In response to the underlined*: Value is value. 

Why do you want to live? To enjoy life, perhaps. To understand it. 
Why do you want to enjoy life? Why do you want to understand it?
Because it feels nice. Because I like to learn. Or... because it will help me survive.
Well, why do you want to survive?

Keep asking why, I find, and there comes a point where we have to come up empty handed. Like the child that keeps pestering the parent: Why this? Why that?

Eventually, the parent grows exasperated, but it reveals something important, I think: There is a limit to our knowledge and our ability to rationalize (Ji) our understanding of the world. 

I see nothing wrong whatsoever with valuing the existence of objects, to see the hues of the objects around you, whether they be office supplies, the texture of the tree bark, or the haze of smoke. I used to struggle a lot more with purpose, and perhaps I've grown complacent. Perhaps I've given up on ambition or building a life worth living, instead, I only desire at this point in my life the desire to live and enjoy myself. To explore and learn, that is about it. To me, value is an axiom where you can dig and dig into why you value something, but ultimately, there comes a point where the value simply IS. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think you've done a good job (as usual) at capturing the introverted attitude of Ti, which often gets lost in translation with the "logical" aspect of describing thinking in general. True, Introverted Thinking is attuned to logical systems, but it's very... hm, conceptual and I'd say, _imaginative_ in its conceptualizations. This isn't to say "creative" or "artistic" per se, but like you said with the peg and the hole... Ti likely will focus on understanding the "fitness" of the pieces of the puzzle, understand their characteristics, rather than actively try to force them together empirically (whereas Te I'd say is more heavily empirical, trial and error, cause and effect). Do these fit? Not empirically, but in regards to "does this make sense?" 

It is in that regard, the conceptualization, that I agree with @Abraxas that Ti (and IMO, all introversion-dominants) are _*a priori *_thinkers... Introverts, to put it crudely, come with mental baggage, due to the subjective imposition upon the object. I'd argue that all introverted perspectives, whether Ni, Si, Ti, or Fi, function off of a conceptual "ideal" that is abstracted away from the object. So, rather than see the example, they see the concept or "essence" of the example, oriented to functional preference (So, Fi tends to "feel" the agreeableness... do I like this or not? Whereas Ti orients itself to if it "makes sense" that the pieces fit the way they do in terms of their nature... Ni would orient itself towards trends, I think, globally speaking whether the patterns are coalescing into a proper potential [hence why it's associated with collective unconcious, although, IMO, that is a tad narrow in its interpretation). Finally, Si-doms extract from experience the impression that's left behind; Perhaps the poorest understood of the functions, I think Si is akin to a scrapbook).

So yeah, I'd say that Si-doms are less connected with objective reality than even an Ne-dom. ( @Julia Bell your thoughts on this?)

Posting this: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/86903-its-attitude-stupid.html as a reminder that my perspective is mostly influenced by Jung's original work as well as the Beebe model (which I prefer to MBTI I & II because I prefer thinking of our relationship with a cognitive perspective (i.e., the roles of Beebe) as opposed to a "hierarchy" where are functions are like video game stats.

Aw yeah, let's put a few skill points in my Ni! Clairvoyance unlocked!


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> No, I think what you're describing may be more Ne-Te. I mean, there is a logical essence, but I would say Ti is not focused on the objects themselves so much *as the logical relationships between them*, so that essence is more removed from the attributes of individual objects. It's more about *the essence of the whole situation, of the relationship between X and Y in a particular context and the logic that underlies it*. Ji is focused on that sort of abstract, relationship between, mechanics/structure rather than the separate properties of objects themselves.
> 
> If it helps, here's how I picture it (the person/subject could be replaced with another object, especially in the case of Ti which is impersonal):
> 
> ...


Ah, I think that is actually what I was trying (and failing) to articulate. And still will. 

I mentioned the essential quality and attribute thing because the Ti-doms in my life tend to see those things (or at least, they see what I understand as being "attributes" of things - something I'm not good at recognizing truly). I think I accidentally phrased that in my earlier post as looking to the object (please excuse the Extrovert-bias x3). 

But it's as though when they're thinking, they have this unique way of categorizing not based on what something is by looking at the object or its components... but... well... I guess the only term that does make sense is "form" or "shape", then (that's what I was trying to say by "attributes")? Because from there, I notice they're relating it to other things. 

But seeing the properties of the object is actually opposite of what I was attempting to convey. Ti-doms - I _think_ - differentiate not based on properties an object has, but more like internally recognized categories (I have zero words for this - is "categories" even a good way to put it?). At least, they are attributes that if you were looking at the object, it wouldn't be part of it. The object doesn't reveal that about itself, so Te would miss it. An abstract concept or quality that exists separately, almost.

Unless that's all just Ne. Accidentally.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> I think you took my "pounding square pegs into round holes" metaphor too literally. It had nothing to do with actual force. (I also don't agree with the popular socionics notion that Se = force because that notion is illogical and unrealistic.)


Precisely. Se I see as a question of realism. XXSPs I find to be the realists, so "force" is a red herring. What if forcing my way in is a suicide mission??? I tend to get a very "hard" sensibility from Se-types in general... not pragmatic per se, but definitely a realist. There's an element of common sense to the SPs, I think.

That's another thing I dislike about socionics, is the interpretation of the functions are too narrowly defined... Feeling in particular is placed in this box of either group dynamics or interpersonal relationships, but neglects completely Feeling as a state of, quite simply, finding something agreeable. What about art? Tastes? Foods? Preferences? Feeling is more complex and can apply to a myriad of situations (as in the case of all the functional preferences) that may or may not have anything to do with other people.

I hate to be the Jungian purist, but I tend to prefer most his definitions:



Jung said:


> No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experience with concrete objects, and the more pronounced he is, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events of his life hardly deserve [p. 458] the name 'experience'. He knows no better use for this sensed 'experience' than to make it serve as a guide to fresh sensations; anything in the least 'new' that comes within his circle of interest is forthwith turned to a sensational account and is made to serve this end. In so far as one is disposed to regard a highly developed sense for sheer actuality as very reasonable, will such men be esteemed rational. In reality, however, this is by no means the case, since they are equally subject to the sensation of irrational, chance happenings, as they are to rational behaviour.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@hal0hal0 I actually wrote about the "ideal" part of Si just now:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/585330-what-si-united-thereotical-perspective.html

(Yeah it's long but I cba to quote the only relevant part since it's all meant to be a holistic thing.)

As for feeling and socionics, I think the problem is that it's written by an ENTP and thinkers aren't known to have a good grasp of the feeling function.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> Precisely. Se I see as a question of realism. XXSPs I find to be the realists, so "force" is a red herring. What if forcing my way in is a suicide mission??? I tend to get a very "hard" sensibility from Se-types in general... not pragmatic per se, but definitely a realist. There's an element of common sense to the SPs, I think.
> 
> That's another thing I dislike about socionics, is *the interpretation of the functions are too narrowly defined*... Feeling in particular is placed in this box of either group dynamics or interpersonal relationships, but neglects completely Feeling as a state of, quite simply, finding something agreeable. What about art? Tastes? Foods? Preferences? Feeling is more complex and can apply to a myriad of situations (as in the case of all the functional preferences) that may or may not have anything to do with other people.
> 
> I hate to be the Jungian purist, but I tend to prefer most his definitions:


Exactly. I actually wrote a post on that a while back (http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/546226-limitations-socionics-2.html#post17660242) and I completely agree. I find that the system works so much better when one simply uses Jung's definitions, because those definitions aren't just arbitrary points, they cover _all _of the space within Perception and Judgment. With Jung there's no confusion, no extra undefined space. I find it a lot less ambiguous and more logically valid and symmetrical. 



> Under sensation I include all perceptions by means of the sense organs; by thinking, I mean the function of intellectual cognition and the forming of logical conclusions; feeling is a function of subjective evaluation; intuition I take as perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious events.





> Sensation establishes what is actually present, thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value, and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I agree. This is also why it is associated with rap music. The way that some rappers speak is related to how they think. Ti has a rhythm in form. My mouth, and my brain, do not work that way. Ti sees distinct shapes. Exactly. Which is why it has more clarity and rhythm. I am trying to connect blurry images, Ti is connecting straight lines. But that is where it can run into a problem.

"There are no straight lines or sharp corners in nature. Therefore, buildings must have no straight lines or sharp corners."

-Gaudi


This is Ti. The ants...










It picks the bones clean. It is like ironing something. Every single part is went over till there is not a crease or imperfection. One of the earlier thinkers on typing referred to introverts as "the devouring". That is what Ti does. It devours. It digests. This is probably why ISTP and INTP are known as "mechanics" and "architects". 

Like Jung; starts at the top of a subject and just picks it clean. Not a grain of sand is left on those fossils. Every single part is meticulously placed. It actually kind of takes the magic/mystery out of things. lol.

I am reading some stuff on St Augustine. He takes the concept of God and his theology, and reduces it to nuts and bolts. It is like a clock, just perfectly disassembled. Here is every piece, shiny and ready to be examined. I understand, as a larger idea, what he is talking about, but it is so fleshed out, it gives a greater justice to the idea. Like Jung. 

I really liked this passage; it reminded me of Ti:

"The peace of the body… is a tempering of the component parts in duly ordered proportion; the peace of the irrational soul is a duly ordered repose of the appetites; the peace of the rational soul is the duly ordered agreement of cognition and action. The peace of the body and soul is the duly ordered life and health of a living creature; peace between mortal man and God is an ordered obedience, in faith, in subjection to an everlasting law; peace between men is an ordered agreement of mind with mind; the peace of a home is the ordered agreement among those who live together about giving and obeying orders; the peace of the Heavenly City is a perfectly ordered and perfectly harmonious fellowship in the enjoyment of God, and a mutual fellowship in God; *the peace of the whole universe is the tranquility of order and order is the arrangement of things equal and unequal in a pattern which assigns to each its proper position.*"

I said before that Ni-Ti starts with a synthesis and ends with a system, and Ti-Ni start with a system and end with a synthesis. Ni is going to start at the bolded -- Augustine's last line, its apex, and work its way back. His system carries him to his synthesis. Ti basically has great depth of structure.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

nvm (moved to better thread)


----------



## boogiestomp (Jan 7, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I agree. This is also why it is associated with rap music. The way that some rappers speak is related to how they think. Ti has a rhythm in form. My mouth, and my brain, do not work that way. Ti sees distinct shapes. Exactly. Which is why it has more clarity and rhythm. I am trying to connect blurry images, Ti is connecting straight lines. But that is where it can run into a problem.
> 
> "There are no straight lines or sharp corners in nature. Therefore, buildings must have no straight lines or sharp corners."
> 
> ...


Good post. +1


----------



## Yeezus (Feb 22, 2014)

I didn't read OP so I'm just gonna post what my Ti is and see if yours is similar.

Ti is a malleable framework or crossword puzzle that requires constant reevaluation and cross-referencing when trying to incorporate a new data point with the purpose of making everything fit. Gaps in the framework are filled with a hypothetical piece that best fits, and ostensible contradictions are wedged with a hypothetical piece that explains the contradiction and makes the parts fit again. It's basically looking at the complete picture; envisioning an incomplete jigsaw puzzle with every fact or piece of knowledge as a physical piece. Every gap is viewed as the outline of a hypothetical piece, and if you believe the framework to be correct, that piece is theorized to exist because it perfectly accounts for, consolidates and further validates the other pieces. If there's any cognitive dissonance between a new data point and the framework, it's back to the drawing board.

It's of paramount important to know the exact measurements of a piece because an incorrect measurement of a piece messes up the whole framework. This is why Ti is obsessed with knowing what the essence of something is. Everything that is superfluous needs to be stripped away, the piece needs to be abstracted to the greatest extent possible until you see what something fundamentally is, what its approximate shape is. Since I don't know enough about the Se, I will now focus on the case of an INTP, and the INTP's ancillary Ne. Together they combine to form art of divergent thinking. Once you're confident that a framework is robust and stable enough to build on, you're free to expand on it in every direction; you increase its area. This is how extrapolating becomes possible. Its purpose is to expand the framework.

Sometimes you realize that a piece is wrong, so you need to adjust everything. If the piece was particularly load-bearing or significant; a piece so big that it supports a lot of pieces above, you need to knock some of the structure down. You start from the point of the error and make everything fit again. If it can't fit, you go looking for new pieces. An empty point in the framework that requires a lot of new pieces is when INTPs are most happy, most in their element. This is a reason why INTPs requires constant novelty and why they're refreshed by it. Novelty means new pieces and doing what the INTP does best. Once everything is figured out, stripped down to its essence and the pieces are seen, your work is complete. There is nothing else to do. It's time to look for more novelty in the hopes of finding more pieces.

Once in a while, you find a piece unlike anything you've ever seen. I refer to such a piece as a "breakthrough piece". This piece necessitates further reevaluation of the framework and gives you new ideas and new permutations on how everything can better fit, or fit differently. It almost adds a new dimension to the framework and allows you to see everything with a new perspective. This is what you love. You crave these paradigm-shifting pieces to further evaluate the veracity of the framework, to let you know if you're going in the right direction. What's ahead of you is hours of thinking, theorizing and framework re-modelling. You love new ideas and the resulting theories, and if and how they can be incorporated into the framework.

That is the INTPs ultimate goal: new pieces, from which, everything else follows. The purpose is truth and clarity. The INTP understands that opinions are the antithesis to this purpose. They are blinding and bias, so he disregards them. He detaches from his framework while trying to remain as impartial and unassuming as possible; he just objectively just sees the shapes. The resulting framework is not considered to be a part of him, but separate. He doesn't see it as an opinion, but as an objective reality that he is merely observing; a jigsaw puzzle that he is putting together in the way that brings what was already there into clear view.


----------



## CupcakesRDaBestBruv (Aug 6, 2013)

This is the Introverted Thinking "Reality".... when it shuts down in the Ti dom mind and when they want to show their Fe and Si to the world.
Skip me


----------

