# The difference between Ti and being "logical"?



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

I've been wondering about this for a while now. I know that any type is capable of being "logical", so what exactly makes Ti different? What I get from reading Ti descriptions is basically that it evaluates or weighs based on impersonal logic. But this is still way too vague and it seems like any type should be able to do this. Maybe I'm just so used to Ti that I don't know what it would be like to not think this way. 

Perhaps there are different kinds of logical processes for different functions, such as inductive or deductive (but maybe more specific than that). Or perhaps Ti is simply a preference for logic in general. 

If I had to describe my form of logic, I would say it allows me to see the precise relationship between ideas. Because of this, I can easily see and point out logical fallacies in statements because I know that X doesn't logically imply Y, for example. Or X is not equivalent to Y, yet they are being treated as if they were in order for this statement to be true. It seems like a perception to me because I don't consciously have to think about it or use logical steps to get to this point. I just see it. 

Is this just general logic that everyone has? Or is it somehow different from the logic of other functions?


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

It sounds like what you're describing is Ti logic. Everyone can use Ti logic but it doesn't come as easily or naturally to some. For me, it's just automatic and "on" all the time.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Ti probably highlights more of an inclination towards phrasing the logical relationships between things, yes.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Logic is the ability to express and define logical relationships impersonally. This statement is the result of logic for example, because the idea is defined impersonally, not personally. Essentially, logic expresses itself always in stating the nature of things. It differs from sensation in that sensation is the experience. We can then form experience into coherent thought. If we do this based on impersonal definitions, it is logic.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Helios said:


> Ti probably highlights more of an inclination towards phrasing the logical relationships between things, yes.


Well, I do that all the time but how does that differ let's say, form a Ti HA? I just read a post on the 16 types forum that basically stated that the difference is that true Ti types are also good at Te logic; where as Ti HA users have difficulty with that due to having Te PoLR.

I think that really clarifies things for me because when I really understand a concept; I can be just as logical as any thinker but when I don't, my logic can seem clumsy and going in different directions. I think that people who see Ne in my posts may have mistaken it for my Ti HA.

I am desperately attempting how to explain my thought processes derived from my Ni in a coherent way to hopefully acquire reinforcement from others (Fe); that even though it is crystal clear and logical in my head, exactly what I want to convey; it comes across fumbling and confused like an inconsistent mishmash of Ne and Fe, when it is really Ti HA attempting to explain my Ni understanding by Fe.

For example: I am trying to logically process some concept that I haven't fully grasped yet but because I haven't really understood it a deep experiential level (Ni); I use my Ti HA to put my intuitions into words because it helps tremendously in clarifying things when other people get what I'm trying to say (Fe). Unfortunately, it doesn't come across as Ti at all but some weak attempts; so other people view it as Ne and Fe; instead of what it really is: Ti HA.

Ti Hidden Agenda



> Basically your saying hidden agenda thinking is like essentially being a thinker poser, they express themselves as very erudite and pedantic, but really they aren't and they are insecure over this aspect.
> 
> Makes sense, however I am curious about a different aspect of Ti-HA, specifically how the systematic logic differs from Te. That in a sense Ti-HA types try to put things quickly into organized thought processes like Ti ego types do, the difference though is since they lack a strong Te foundation, the efforts of the Ti-HA types end up being built on an instable and unlogical foundation. To them its more of a feeling, they feel like this belongs with this, so boom, they put them together and make a logical connection between the two. They just sort of perceive with their feelings how things should fit together like an artist rather than actually making sure their organized thought processes hold up factually against argument.
> 
> Of course at some level this links to what your saying also, socially they would like to think of their efforts as worthy, however they realize deep down they don't really "get" what it is they are studying, however they still feel their ideas have some validity based on their feelings or perceptions about said idea.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

To add to Fractals' post, it may come naturally to some but may just be a placeholder and not the kind of information they're seeking as highest. 

Basically the answer to your question 



> But this is still way too vague and it seems like any type should be able to do this.




is any type _does_ do this --- there's a role to every IE in the socionics model. And having it base or not isn't an indicator of how skilled one is, frankly in my view at all. And if it is, then I pretty much don't see any use for that version of the theory.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

TreasureTower said:


> Well, I do that all the time but how does that differ let's say, form a Ti HA? I just read a post on the 16 types forum that basically stated that the difference is that true Ti types are also good at Te logic; where as Ti HA users have difficulty with that due to having Te PoLR.


Logic is merely a system of reasoning that exists outside of the realm of socionics. I don't think there is any such thing as "Ti logic" or "Te logic," since the use of the term _logic_ in socionics applies to impersonal forms of reasoning that may involve the use of the systems of reasoning commonly referred to as logic outside of this system or in philosophy. Ti HA may try to hone in on the logical relationships between things, but since Ti is not as strong an IE as the base and creative ones they have difficulty doing it effectively, and also interactions with a Ti base probably make it easier on the Ti HA type to properly navigate logical relationships.



> I think that really clarifies things for me because when I really understand a concept; I can be just as logical as any thinker but when I don't, my logic can seem clumsy and going in different directions. I think that people who see Ne in my posts may have mistaken it for my Ti HA.


The idea behind the hidden agenda is that the person wants to seem as if they can apply a particular information element effectively on their own or enough to get by, I suppose. I don't think Ti HA would be mistaken for Ne since they are both two completely different IEs for so many different reasons. What makes you think Ne is being mistaken for Ti? I'm curious.




> I am desperately attempting how to explain my thought processes derived from my Ni in a coherent way to hopefully acquire reinforcement from others (Fe); that even though it is crystal clear and logical in my head, exactly what I want to convey; it comes across fumbling and confused like an inconsistent mishmash of Ne and Fe, when it is really Ti HA attempting to explain my Ni understanding by Fe.


I still see a lot of an underlying mix of MBTI functions and socionics information elements going on here. I'd like to hear your take on Ti HA. Make it lengthy please. 



> For example: I am trying to logically process some concept that I haven't fully grasped yet but because I haven't really understood it a deep experiential level (Ni); I use my Ti HA to put my intuitions into words because it helps tremendously in clarifying things when other people get what I'm trying to say (Fe). Unfortunately, it doesn't come across as Ti at all but some weak attempts; so other people view it as Ne and Fe; instead of what it really is: Ti HA.
> 
> Ti Hidden Agenda


Ni doesn't necessarily need a judging function to convey the perceptions it has, Ni =/= depth necessarily. I also don't understand how Fe would play a role in being concerned about other people understanding what you're trying to say.


----------



## liminalthought (Feb 25, 2012)

I do recommend you do some more digging, but the easy _foolproof_ way to put it is this:

Objective Logic - Te
Subjective Logic - Ti



> If I had to describe my form of logic, I would say it allows me to see the precise relationship between ideas. Because of this, I can easily see and point out logical fallacies in statements because I know that X doesn't logically imply Y, for example. Or X is not equivalent to Y, yet they are being treated as if they were in order for this statement to be true. It seems like a perception to me because I don't consciously have to think about it or use logical steps to get to this point. I just see it.


The description you created seems to be on point.



> Subjective LogicAbility to logically think establish logical connections, relator analyze.
> Perception of the world in terms of relations of different objects with each other, their comparison, the main choice.
> Ability to classify all kinds of objects, ordering the world.
> Evaluation of any information by how it fits into various systems.
> Perception of space as a system of distance perception of their place in society.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> To add to Fractals' post, it may come naturally to some but may just be a placeholder and not the kind of information they're seeking as highest.
> 
> Basically the answer to your question
> 
> ...


I beg to differ - I do think skill if you will, is involved. How would we otherwise differentiate between ego and super-id elements if it not were for the difference in skill? Or what about superego versus ego? I also however think that the theory is somewhat flawed in the sense it that it automatically assumes that since we are good at say, logic in general preferring either Te or Ti as egoic, we must necessarily be good at the opposite. I think this works but only insofar the person is not fully differentiated in a Jungian sense. If differentiation occurs, the opposite psychological perspective of the same element would not come naturally, be very pleasant or preferred, and due to lack of use, it would be of a lesser character or if you will if utilizing Jung, it would be charged with emotional content and be forced into the unconsciousness. I have also come to think that usually, the id block is more like something which secretely informs the ego block rather than being clearly shown and expressed as we express our base and creative, to a degree super-id block. In a sense, this is kind of what many id block descriptions also hint at. Usually people find it irrelevant, unimportant or such when talking about the ignoring function, and when it comes to the demonstrative, it's almost more like a laughing stock we use to make fun of others. We use it, but when we do we use it mockingly. Yet, I have to say, when people for example express their demonstrative, it still seems as if it's processed through the creative. I have linked to the comedian Sky before, but I'll do so again because I think he's a good example to showcase what I am getting at:






One of the things that seems to permeate most of his videos is that he's expressing himself in such a sense that seems kind of SiFe in some order, but it's exaggerated and done in a mocking tone. Yet I think it's apparent that it is not Fe or Si he's really expressing. He's expressing the values of his ego block, not id, suggesting he's an SeFi type. I really wish there was an easier and dumb way to explain this as I'm quite sure not everyone is going to see what I'm trying to express. Fuck it. 

So essentially it just boils down to the idea that it is about perspective and each element informs us with its particular point of view. I think the biggest difference here is that when a particular perspective dominates a person's psyche as is the case of the base, to a degree creative, it will always be readily apparently expressed in that person's thoughts and how they orient themselves towards the world. I don't buy into the theory that we can only detect the extroverted elements/functions for example. That just means people don't know how to look for introverted cognition. 

With that said, particularly when it comes to logic as an element, the quality may be partly affected by the person's overall intelligence, similarly as with ethics, but I think a bit less so. When we thus look for poor quality of a specific element and its perspective, what we don't look for then in terms of thinking especially regarding logic though tempting, is a) the prevalence of logical thought expressed as in, the expression of logic, and b) the quality as in how great is it at actually doing its job i.e. defining logical connections of things. 

Another point I wish to raise here with regards ego and id block is that the ego block will be more flexible than the id block by default, simply because the ego block is egoic. Flexibility is another aspect of skill involved, but most of all, flexibility comes with the result of channeling psychic energy into these particular perspectives and the more energy that is being channeled, the greater the perspective also permeate our psyches. This means we are able to consider more aspects through this particular element which in turn means greater flexibility when orienting ourselves towards the world.


----------



## sinshred (Dec 1, 2013)

Ti - think logically
Te - talk logically


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> How would we otherwise differentiate between ego and super-id elements if it not were for the difference in skill? Or what about superego versus ego?




Well I confess myself slightly confused, because nearly all you wrote seems to be my perspective as well, not to mention, pretty clearly from standard description of model A with a few embellishments attempting to mix in terminology from Jung, which I am aware of and can see how you're utilizing them, and I've likely utilized similarly ...at first glance the only thing I'm unsure of how much I can say is this thing about "flexibility" of the ego block relative to the id block and the idea of the demonstrative processed through the creative, etc. I can see why you might say these things, I just have to think about it before I'd say I can coherently describe the meaning of that stuff. The demonstrative has its place, and certainly if one has say, a dynamic leaning in intuition, one will essentially get nearly "equivalent" (but not really equivalent) information as far as what one needs via that IE to what the static IE would tell you, so the static one is relegated elsewhere in the model. 
Yet, all this said I'd still not at least in my meaning find any reason to measure the "skill" associated with an IE, but let me see if I can describe further below.

Because every single IE in the model-A is positioned where it is based on the role it plays in them, and because any measure of "skill" would at best be relative to them, not relative to others (after all, the IE's positions are defined in blocks modeling the single individual's psyche, not everyone's), we'd need in order to effectively measure how "skilled" they are, define what this would mean specific to them based solely on the position in model-A of the IE of concern (for example, I certainly am not, just because someone has ego-Fe, going to call them "more skilled at Fe" -- that's a meaningless assertion to me...why not just say they have ego-Fe? what extra data is calling them "skilled at it" even telling me), and at least in my interpretation, this would certainly not wind up constituting something called skill in the way I know the term to be employed.

Now looking strictly in terms of the position (as far as theoretical function) an IE has in model-A tells us the role of the IE in information-processing, and this I think is the way I'd figure out what block some IE falls under.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

To add further, what is the difference between the ego and super-ego and ego and id blocks? In the latter, we just switch dynamic and static -- one who clearly prefers one isn't going to value the other in the same rough realm of information, which is basically obvious. In the former we switch from, say, NT to SF but keep the same static/dynamic orientation, and what's the theory -- it's that again, not only is this not the same kind of info the person prefers to work with, it's not even of a different orientation from the ego-block in terms of static/dynamic, so this isn't the info they seek out. I believe some socionics sources would say the issue here is the super-ego and ego can't really be turned on at once or some such thing. 

These are the simplest ways to distinguish those blocks, but I'd say it's even more informative if one looks at the position of each IE individually (like I wrote above) in the model of information processing.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Well I confess myself slightly confused, because nearly all you wrote seems to be my perspective as well, not to mention, pretty clearly from standard description of model A with a few embellishments attempting to mix in terminology from Jung, which I am aware of and can see how you're utilizing them, and I've likely utilized similarly ...at first glance the only thing I'm unsure of how much I can say is this thing about "flexibility" of the ego block relative to the id block and the idea of the demonstrative processed through the creative, etc. I can see why you might say these things, I just have to think about it before I'd say I can coherently describe the meaning of that stuff. The demonstrative has its place, and certainly if one has say, a dynamic leaning in intuition, one will essentially get nearly "equivalent" (but not really equivalent) information as far as what one needs via that IE to what the static IE would tell you, so the static one is relegated elsewhere in the model.
> Yet, all this said I'd still not at least in my meaning find any reason to measure the "skill" associated with an IE, but let me see if I can describe further below.
> 
> Because every single IE in the model-A is positioned where it is based on the role it plays in them, and because any measure of "skill" would at best be relative to them, not relative to others (after all, the IE's positions are defined in blocks modeling the single individual's psyche, not everyone's), we'd need in order to effectively measure how "skilled" they are, define what this would mean specific to them based solely on the position in model-A of the IE of concern (for example, I certainly am not, just because someone has ego-Fe, going to call them "more skilled at Fe" -- that's a meaningless assertion to me...why not just say they have ego-Fe? what extra data is calling them "skilled at it" even telling me), and at least in my interpretation, this would certainly not wind up constituting something called skill in the way I know the term to be employed.
> ...


The tl;dr version of this honestly seems to be that you don't like how I arrive at an ultimatley Te-esque conclusion. The idea of skill is something Te would consider important because it is the logical outcome of an action performed. As such it is something we can also measure and quantify in different ways. My question is essentially of the nature of how we can differentiate between ego Fe and super-id Fe were it not for the skill the person in question is able to express and utilize its perspective meaningfully. Otherwise there would be no sense of inadequacy in these areas in my opinion.

An ego Fe type if you will, will be very adept at utilizing Fe in order to say, manipulate and control the emotional environment, read the emotions others express and organize people, groups and structures according to their Fe-based values, derive values of importance based on Fe etc in a way that seems, in lack for better words, natural to them. If this is not an expression of skill compared to the Fe super-id type who will find themselves having difficulties in this area I am not sure what skill is then.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_ephemereality_ - don't get me wrong, I believe such a thing as skill exists in the world at the very least when we forget about the typology community, and can be defined appropriate to the situation. So if you measure skill in a Te-esque way in individuals, that's fine, assuming you do it with appropriate nuance and subtlety. That's a whole separate story for me.
Skill could be at anything -- dribbling a basketball, etc. You and I might not really measure it the same way even outside type, but still, I'd probably see merits to how you're measuring it in most situations.

As to doing it in typology,I was mainly getting at the subtleties in transferring this commonly applied term called "skill" into a typological setting in particular. 

The answer to how we distinguish ego-Fe and super-id Fe would be easiest to explain I think if we went even one step further and said -- what position does Fe occupy in said individual -- what role does it have in the processing of information. I think that's the most interesting part of model-A to me at least.

For instance, by this logic, even YOU'D have a role for Fe, as Fe-polr. While polr is characteristically not a point of comfort, that's not the ultimate end-all of how I would characterize it. IE 4 has its place just like any IE.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @<span class="highlight"><i><a href="http://personalitycafe.com/member.php?u=39512" target="_blank">ephemereality</a></i></span> - don't get me wrong, I believe such a thing as skill exists in the world at the very least when we forget about the typology community, and can be defined appropriate to the situation. So if you measure skill in a Te-esque way in individuals, that's fine, assuming you do it with appropriate nuance and subtlety. That's a whole separate story for me.
> Skill could be at anything -- dribbling a basketball, etc. You and I might not really measure it the same way even outside type, but still, I'd probably see merits to how you're measuring it in most situations.
> 
> The answer to how we distinguish ego-Fe and super-id Fe would be easiest to explain I think if we went even one step further and said -- what position does Fe occupy in said individual -- what role does it have in the processing of information. I think that's the most interesting part of model-A to me at least.


Yes, but I think that is pretty much the question I am answering with the idea of "skill". When we take notice of how skilled people are at something, we can also quantify that within the system because we know that each function in model A has a different output or result and each a separate nature when it comes to its overall quality. 



> For instance, by this logic, even YOU'D have a role for Fe, as Fe-polr. While polr is characteristically not a point of comfort, that's not the ultimate end-all of how I would characterize it. IE 4 has its place just like any IE.


Why so? The quality and skill of use is different which is extremely noticeable in any Te vs Ti valuing individual. It is very easy to spot Fe in suggestive Fe types for example, simply because it has a very specific quality to it, something like this:

LSI









LII





An individual who values Fe will express Fe involuntarily in many situations, or fall back on Fe in this very unconscious way simply because Fe is what ultimately informs Ti conclusions.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Why so?




Well simply by virtue of how by the model, each of the 8 IE has its particular position/role, to be honest. 

For what it's worth -- if this is what you mean by skill --




> It is very easy to spot Fe in suggestive Fe types for example, simply because it has a very specific quality to it, something like this:




then sure, why not? 

I was pointing more to the "you suck at shooting basketballs/you suck at Te because you failed to perform this task this way" that type of thing. That wouldn't much align with how I see typology. I think it's a lot more informative if we go "Te is informing you X and Y way, based on its position, thus it'll tell you these kinds of things but for this other role in processing, you'll appeal instead to this perspective" to give a simple example...and I think this whole "it'll tell you these kinds of things" might actually be what you're getting at when you're analyzing the specific quality Fe has to it in a certain individual.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I'll try to watch the videos lol. I'm very bad with watching videos.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Well, here I found a video for contrast:

Fe PoLR - Se DS


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bearotter said:


> Well simply by virtue of how by the model, each of the 8 IE has its particular position/role, to be honest.
> 
> For what it's worth -- if this is what you mean by skill --
> 
> ...




You _can_ measure the IEs like that, but then you better be sure what you should look for but on the question whether I would advise for it, no, I wouldn't. An Se suggestive type will for example be terribad at baseball but only if you know how they are terribad at it. Stupidly exaggerated for the sake of fiction but it kind of gets the point across:






There is usually an awkwardness associated with the Se suggestive type even when they are taking action in the present moment, kind of like they don't quite know what to do or where to go or how to do it even if they do show skill in terms of being physically adept in that their action has the desired result.

So it's less about the result of action and more the quality of it. For example, compare an EIE and an SLE when being a door-to-door seller and there will be a certain awkwardness surrounding the SLE that might even pretty much end up in them doing something akin to the Fry meme in Futurama but reverse i.e. please just say yes and buy this product NOW if they are particularly unsucessful at their endeavor. Here we see how it is easier for the SLE to fall back on their base function when the HA isn't capable of doing what they want to achieve.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@ephemereality

I think we're at an understanding now yes; in light of this thread's title especially I think this topic is really relevant.
If we're saying certain IE in certain types have a certain quality (a property, if you will), this is very true. 

But like you said, with specific skill-measurement conflated with measuring the position of an IE in the psyche, no way I'd advise this. Skills are often not just the result of processing information through one, but rather several IE, and that too in a coherent way particular to said skill. To link a lack of a skill in a task employing logic directly to Ti/Te for instance is too simplistic to me mainly because I see too many real examples to contradict such conclusions.

Do I think typology can help analyze someone's skills? Decidedly, yes, sure. Do I think there's such a thing at sucking at tasks involving logic? Yes.


----------

