# Mathematics: Te vs. Ti



## Tellus

There are four aspects of mathematics that are processed by Te and Ti. (Ne deals with new patterns and connections) 

1) The multiplication table is like a language or facts: *Te*

2) 3x=6, and general rules for equations => Therefore x=2 (logical deduction): *Te*

3) Notice that the left side of an equation equals the right side, 2x = x + x (incl. estimations): *Ti*

4) Visualize any mathematical objects: *Ti*

Do you agree with me?


----------



## GnothiSeauton

Understanding of maths is a complex thing - it requires spatial, logical and linguistic reasoning in a fairly continuous proportion. Those you have isolated are small instances of very elementary things. I don't think they say much about IEs or even about mathematical reasoning in general. 

We are talking about large processes here, and I feel like little examples such as these are more misleading than anything else ("wow, I know multiplication tables, I must be using Te!"). I don't think that's how it works?

Although, maybe you could make the argument that multiplication tables are a Te _object_, because it is this useful mnemonic tool - in another sense, they are the product of a type of reasoning that values practicality and efficiency. However, everyone uses them and anyone could come up with them. Just like maths in general is probably a Ti _structure_, but does every little instance of learning maths have to involve Ti? Out of all the spatial, linguistic, logical processing?

Functions are archetypes, an attempt to organize information into rough categories. We often think of them as _almost_ real, mental processes, but it's not very useful to try and plug this "model" even into the smallest random thing.


----------



## Captain Mclain

I think Te do the facts, like taking in the information, try to classify it and use the correct classified equation. 
I think Ti will first internalize the problem, try to visualize it and then narrow down a equation to solve it.


----------



## UraniaIsis

I slightly disagree, but I get the point. It would seem to me that Te would take on a theorem/principle/equation as a whole as it is and just plug and play given information, but Ti would be concerned with defining the variables. Every mathematical processes use both Te and Ti. Te will acknowledge the variables, but Ti will want to solve for the variables. Once a variable has been solved, Te plugs in and plays the variable for an more complete picture.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

It's less about x=5 as much as it is about understanding that all lines have a constant rate of change.


----------



## Tellus

GnothiSeauton said:


> Understanding of maths is a complex thing - it requires spatial, logical and linguistic reasoning in a fairly continuous proportion. Those you have isolated are small instances of very elementary things. I don't think they say much about IEs or even about mathematical reasoning in general.
> 
> We are talking about large processes here, and I feel like little examples such as these are more misleading than anything else ("wow, I know multiplication tables, I must be using Te!"). I don't think that's how it works?
> 
> Although, maybe you could make the argument that multiplication tables are a Te _object_, because it is this useful mnemonic tool - in another sense, they are the product of a type of reasoning that values practicality and efficiency. However, everyone uses them and anyone could come up with them. Just like maths in general is probably a Ti _structure_, but does every little instance of learning maths have to involve Ti? Out of all the spatial, linguistic, logical processing?
> 
> Functions are archetypes, an attempt to organize information into rough categories. We often think of them as _almost_ real, mental processes, but it's not very useful to try and plug this "model" even into the smallest random thing.


First of all, Te (as an IM element/function) is not correctly defined by the information aspect Te (or P) in Socionics (see my other threads). So we are not just talking about practicality and efficiency. Nardi's/Berens' (and Jung's) descriptions are much better, but they are still lacking in some respects.

Secondly, how do you view the (non-Jungian) cognitive processes? Do you think they are subsumed by the Jungian functions or not? I am convinced they are, so every logical cognitive process that do not belong to Te, belongs to Ti. Btw, a Jungian function is a set of cognitive processes.

Thirdly, my reasoning is also based on concrete facts about brain functions. For example, we know that the frontal lobe/left brain deals with language and that the rear brain is visual. So some aspects of mathematics cannot be Ti, and others cannot be Te.


----------



## Tellus

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> It's less about x=5 as much as it is about understanding that all lines have a constant rate of change.


Yes, but how is that relevant to this thread?


----------



## Toroidal

IMO.

Ti correlates with proofs and abstract math.
Te correlates with engineering and practical solutions. 

I think Ti is ultimately "superior" for math because math is an abstract concept and a Ti user will find it easier to do Te math than vice-versa.

I think INTPs would be some of the best programmers and INTJs some of the best engineers.


----------



## Tellus

Captain Mclain said:


> I think Te do the facts, like taking in the information, try to classify it and use the correct classified equation.
> I think Ti will first internalize the problem, try to visualize it and then narrow down a equation to solve it.


'4x4=16' and '4+4=8'. If you think about these expressions as facts (or a language) then you are using Te. If you try to evaluate '1685x4983' (or 4x4 as a child... it is impossible as an adult since you already know the answer) then it is Ti. What does Te evaluate? The fastest way from A to B (etc), so trying to use the most efficient/effective equation _is_ Te.

The information aspect Te (P) is flawed, but it is not completely useless. Compare 'external dynamics of *objects*' with 'external statics of *fields*'. 

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

Ne classifies new objects/facts (Dario Nardi's F4 brain region). It is not a logical process, i.e. no evaluation based on temperature, weight, energy (i.e. efficiency) etc.


----------



## Tellus

UraniaIsis said:


> I slightly disagree, but I get the point. It would seem to me that Te would take on a theorem/principle/equation as a whole as it is and just plug and play given information, but Ti would be concerned with defining the variables. Every mathematical processes use both Te and Ti. Te will acknowledge the variables, but *Ti will want to solve for the variables.* Once a variable has been solved, Te plugs in and plays the variable for an more complete picture.


Okay, so Ti is about logical deduction according to you, right? Btw, this is SSS's and mainstream Socionics' viewpoint.

3x=6. When you solve this equation, is it all about Ti (according to you)?


----------



## UraniaIsis

Tellus said:


> Okay, so Ti is about logical deduction according to you, right? Btw, this is SSS's and mainstream Socionics' viewpoint.
> 
> 3x=6. When you solve this equation, is it all about Ti (according to you)?


Only to solve for x, then yes. Ok, I thought you were only implying the MBTI applications of the Tx functions. This is what I get for not paying attention and losing track of which forums I'm in before answering. I've only begun to dip my toes into the Socionics system. I haven't heard of SSS, what is it? Afterwards, I won't pester your thread with my nonsense any further.
:frustrating:


----------



## ninjahitsawall

I think Te and Ti can approach the same math problem in different ways, but both still arrive at the solution. Just a guess though.


----------



## salt

my brother is intj and hes very creative when solving math stop having this mindset that Te users cant do independent thinking


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

Tellus said:


> Yes, but how is that relevant to this thread?


Principle is about that larger outcome rather than the single instance. If y=mx+b we are more concerned with the outcome or general meaning of that rather than any specific instance. Leave the variables, variables and that's all that needs to be understood in a Ti sense. Transformations as well.
I think Te may be more interested in discovering a constant.


----------



## Rabid Seahorse

Ti is better for geometry and physics that require holistic thinking and visualizing. It puts everything into a framework. Te is better at algebra, chemistry, statistical math that's more analytic and procedural.


----------



## Entropic

...

Why are people treating MBTI Te and Ti in socionics? In socionics, maths is ALL Ti because it's about the logical relationships between objects, rules and axioms. Te is algorithmic; it only cares for the most efficient result as opposed to how you got there.


----------



## Ixim

Well, my view of this is:

As long as you're dealing with mundane sub A tasks in maths, it's mostly about Te and its application. Know the formula, usethe formula properly, avoid traps. It's fairly easy. But also quite boring for a lot of people due how "simple" and "drab" Te can be.

A grade tasks and Uni grade theoretical maths is however Ti. You've to understand a LOT, apply things that are NOT really visible, model the task succesfully so you transform it into something eligible, notice symmetries etc. It does use some Te, but it is mostly Ti here. This leads to a lot of mental confusion for non-Ti's(and especially for non T's), but it is apparently more interesting than "copy paste this here" from High School.


----------



## Tellus

Toroidal said:


> IMO.
> 
> Ti correlates with proofs and abstract math.
> Te correlates with engineering and practical solutions.
> 
> I think Ti is ultimately "superior" for math because math is an abstract concept and a Ti user will find it easier to do Te math than vice-versa.
> 
> I think INTPs would be some of the best programmers and INTJs some of the best engineers.


I disagree... We know that LII (INTj/INTP) is best suited for engineering, and ILI (INTp/INTJ) is best suited for programming and science. Ti is about systems and Te is about algorithms/logical deductions. In order to understand why some types are more interested in technology than others, we need accepting/producing and +/- as well. For example, LIEs and LSEs study mechanical engineering but ILIs don't.


----------



## Tellus

salt said:


> my brother is intj and hes very creative when solving math stop having this mindset that Te users cant do independent thinking


You obviously don't know anything about Model A. ILI/INTJ/INTp uses Ti A LOT. I think at least 15 percent of all mathematicians are ILIs.


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> ...
> 
> Why are people treating MBTI Te and Ti in socionics? In socionics, maths is ALL Ti because it's about the logical relationships between objects, rules and axioms. Te is algorithmic; it only cares for the most efficient result as opposed to how you got there.


...and this is one reason why Socionics is flawed. SSS's and mainstream Socionics' definitions of information aspects don't work. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C... this is not about "fields".

N.B. It is impossible to discuss Ti/Te and mathematics in the MBTI forum since we need Model A.


----------



## Tellus

Rabid Seahorse said:


> Ti is better for geometry and physics that require holistic thinking and visualizing. It puts everything into a framework. Te is better at algebra, chemistry, statistical math that's more analytic and procedural.


If we are talking about school math, then I agree with you to some extent. But in all professional mathematics Ti is always (except when reviewing proofs) more important than Te, hence 80-90% of all mathematicians are LII.


----------



## Entropic

Tellus said:


> ...and this is one reason why Socionics is flawed. SSS's and mainstream Socionics' definitions of information aspects don't work. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C... this is not about "fields".
> 
> N.B. It is impossible to discuss Ti/Te and mathematics in the MBTI forum since we need Model A.


If you don't agree with the basic definitions of socionics you aren't doing socionics anymore but your own thing that you call socionics.


----------



## Tellus

UraniaIsis said:


> Only to solve for x, then yes. Ok, I thought you were only implying the MBTI applications of the Tx functions. This is what I get for not paying attention and losing track of which forums I'm in before answering. I've only begun to dip my toes into the Socionics system. I haven't heard of SSS, what is it? Afterwards, I won't pester your thread with my nonsense any further.
> :frustrating:


lol... there's no need to apologize... SSS = School of System Socionics


----------



## Tellus

Ixim said:


> Well, my view of this is:
> 
> As long as you're dealing with mundane sub A tasks in maths, it's mostly about Te and its application. Know the formula, usethe formula properly, avoid traps. It's fairly easy. But also quite boring for a lot of people due how "simple" and "drab" Te can be.
> 
> A grade tasks and Uni grade theoretical maths is however Ti. You've to understand a LOT, apply things that are NOT really visible, model the task succesfully so you transform it into something eligible, notice symmetries etc. It does use some Te, but it is mostly Ti here. This leads to a lot of mental confusion for non-Ti's(and especially for non T's), but it is apparently more interesting than "copy paste this here" from High School.


Which part of "Uni grade theoretical maths" is about Te according to you?


----------



## Tellus

ninjahitsawall said:


> I think Te and Ti can approach the same math problem in different ways, but both still arrive at the solution. Just a guess though.


Yes, an example of this is logical deduction. Ti _can_ deduce mathematical relations via Venn diagrams.


----------



## salt

Tellus said:


> You obviously don't know anything about Model A. ILI/INTJ/INTp uses Ti A LOT. I think at least 15 percent of all mathematicians are ILIs.


shit didnt know this is socionics forum. i know nothing about this


----------



## Ixim

Tellus said:


> ...and this is one reason why Socionics is flawed. SSS's and mainstream Socionics' definitions of information aspects don't work. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C... this is not about "fields".
> 
> N.B. It is impossible to discuss Ti/Te and mathematics in the MBTI forum since we need Model A.


I've to agree with Entropic.

If not even SSS' definitions are good enough...then you are morphing this into something else, I'm afraid.


----------



## The Dude

People need to chill. The functions are about an attitude taken towards life. You can't apply the functions to solving math problems or anything else.


----------



## peter pettishrooms

I'm a pure math major and Te-user. The specific branch that I struggled with the most was statistics. I did very well in both algebra and geometry and continued to earn decent marks in college-level calculus. But for some reason, I just found statistics to be uninteresting. I also had to work twice as hard in more applied settings such as physics and chemistry. Because of my disinterest in most sciences, I find that the more abstract the discipline is, the more likely I'm going to excel in the specific field which is why I chose to dig deeper into theoretical mathematics. I'm able to see patterns and trends through a abstract, mathematical standpoint rather than in physics. Oddly enough, I fail to see the "connections" through physics so I have to resort to memorization which I am horrible at. 

I also remembered reading that Te-users are likely to enjoy math if and only if they find it applicable and useful for the real world. Although my studies aren't typically viewed as practical, I am aware that there are only a few applications to what I study, but that's what I'm aiming for since I plan to specialize in number theory, a very specific branch that has important ties to cryptography.


----------



## myst91

peter pettishrooms said:


> I'm a pure math major and Te-user. The specific branch that I struggled with the most was statistics. I did very well in both algebra and geometry and continued to earn decent marks in college-level calculus. But for some reason, I just found statistics to be uninteresting. I also had to work twice as hard in more applied settings such as physics and chemistry. Because of my disinterest in most sciences, I find that the more abstract the discipline is, the more likely I'm going to excel in the specific field which is why I chose to dig deeper into theoretical mathematics. I'm able to see patterns and trends through a abstract, mathematical standpoint rather than in physics. Oddly enough, I fail to see the "connections" through physics so I have to resort to memorization which I am horrible at.
> 
> I also remembered reading that Te-users are likely to enjoy math if and only if they find it applicable and useful for the real world. Although my studies aren't typically viewed as practical, I am aware that there are only a few applications to what I study, but that's what I'm aiming for since I plan to specialize in number theory, a very specific branch that has important ties to cryptography.


Funny how you show your individual ways of thinking/preferences here. Clearly it's not as simple as just having 16 types predicting it all. 

I like statistics as it makes sense to me "intuitively" so much (not socionics Intuition). Algebra was OK, easy, if boring a bit. Geometry not OK as much. Number theory OK, though some parts of it almost bored me. The rest of mathematics very much fine though. I see you are going to go for cryptography, that sounds like fun too =)

I don't primarily process mathematical logic via these "patterns and trends", just simply via logic, so that sounds like Ni for you.

Physics, funny you'd have that issue, ILI-Te's I know are pretty good at physics and like to mess with that stuff. For me, I have to take time with some abstract principles for how stuff works (the Ni/Te stuff or maybe Ne/Ti, I don't know but it involves Intuition) but I have a good sense for what actually works and what doesn't. The very theoretical part of physics feels a bit more natural to try and think about than the part on those NT principles for how things work. (Not that I often think about this but sometimes interesting.)


----------



## Tellus

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Principle is about that larger outcome rather than the single instance. If y=mx+b we are more concerned with the outcome or general meaning of that rather than any specific instance. Leave the variables, variables and that's all that needs to be understood in a Ti sense. Transformations as well.
> I think Te may be more interested in discovering a constant.


Are you arguing that _all _aspects of a specific expression like 4+4=8 are about Te?

...and _all _aspects of a general expression like y=x are about Ti?


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> If you don't agree with the basic definitions of socionics you aren't doing socionics anymore but your own thing that you call socionics.


Yes, you are right. Model A is based on information aspects (mainstream socionics' or SSS's method), so we cannot assume that Model A automatically applies to Jungian/MBTI functions. Nonetheless, I am convinced that Model A (including Yermakian +/- signs) with Jungian functions is our best approximation of the psyche.


----------



## Tellus

Ixim said:


> I've to agree with Entropic.
> 
> If not even SSS' definitions are good enough...then you are morphing this into something else, I'm afraid.


My point of view is that Model A combined with Jungian functions is the right way to go.


----------



## Tellus

The Dude said:


> People need to chill. The functions are about an attitude taken towards life. You can't apply the functions to solving math problems or anything else.


No, the functions *are not* about "an attitude taken towards life", since that would imply that they aren't innate. _Cognitive_ functions are indeed about brain structures.


----------



## Tellus

peter pettishrooms said:


> I'm a pure math major and Te-user. The specific branch that I struggled with the most was statistics. I did very well in both algebra and geometry and continued to earn decent marks in college-level calculus. But for some reason, I just found statistics to be uninteresting. I also had to work twice as hard in more applied settings such as physics and chemistry. Because of my disinterest in most sciences, I find that the more abstract the discipline is, the more likely I'm going to excel in the specific field which is why I chose to dig deeper into theoretical mathematics. I'm able to see patterns and trends through a abstract, mathematical standpoint rather than in physics. Oddly enough, I fail to see the "connections" through physics so I have to resort to memorization which I am horrible at.
> 
> I also remembered reading that Te-users are likely to enjoy math if and only if they find it applicable and useful for the real world. Although my studies aren't typically viewed as practical, I am aware that there are only a few applications to what I study, but that's what I'm aiming for since I plan to specialize in number theory, a very specific branch that has important ties to cryptography.


What is your type? 

There are no "Te-users" according to Model A (or any other model in Socionics).


----------



## Entropic

Tellus said:


> Yes, you are right. Model A is based on information aspects (mainstream socionics' or SSS's method), so we cannot assume that Model A automatically applies to Jungian/MBTI functions. Nonetheless, I am convinced that Model A (including Yermakian +/- signs) with Jungian functions is our best approximation of the psyche.


That's an irrelevant point to my claims which is that I think that you are describing something in socionics which isn't socionics because you don't agree with the basic definitions of socionics. 

I too merge Jung with socionics because I see them as building on the same essence, but I still adhere to basic socionics terminology.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

I really enjoyed Statistics, myself. I'm not too good at algebra once it gets to factoring and above, but I can do all maths lower than that with ease. I don't know why, but I hit a huge block with factoring, and had to work extra hard to get decent at those operations. I can work with radicals and imaginary numbers no problem though.

I wonder how the irrational functions correlate to the application of rational functions for the purposes of mathematics? For example, how do the ILI and the SLI differ in their use of Te as it is applied to each different discipline of mathematics (and science, for that matter)?


----------



## Ixim

Tellus said:


> My point of view is that Model A combined with Jungian functions is the right way to go.


Jungian functions...and the stuff as delineated within the Psychological Types etc, right?

Not the MBTI sillyness, right? edit: When I say "MBTI sillyness", what I understand by it is the stuff that's floating around the net. Trusting official cpp / opp stuff is advisable.

If so, I've to agree with you. Model A is a very nice thing when you understand it. I am not so certain whether Socion interpretations of Jungian functions is right(Se = power, fml, where have they read that? Where is the proof of it?), but the Model A is certainly valid. I never doubted that.


----------



## Captain Mclain

Ixim said:


> Jungian functions...and the stuff as delineated within the Psychological Types etc, right?
> 
> Not the MBTI sillyness, right? edit: When I say "MBTI sillyness", what I understand by it is the stuff that's floating around the net. Trusting official cpp / opp stuff is advisable.
> 
> If so, I've to agree with you. Model A is a very nice thing when you understand it. I am not so certain whether Socion interpretations of Jungian functions is right(Se = power, fml, where have they read that? Where is the proof of it?), but the Model A is certainly valid. I never doubted that.


Jung described Se as "realism".


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 the name 'experience'.


Gulenko as Force. You might look at the world and say that it is materia that is constantly moving around with force. Se is the mind process of what this force does.

edit; I think Jung model this Se description from a SLE.


----------



## peter pettishrooms

Tellus said:


> What is your type?
> 
> There are no "Te-users" according to Model A (or any other model in Socionics).


Still on a quest to figure that out.


----------



## Ixim

Captain Mclain said:


> Jung described Se as "realism".
> 
> Gulenko as Force. You might look at the world and say that it is materia that is constantly moving around with force. Se is the mind process of what this force does.
> 
> edit; I think Jung model this Se description from a SLE.


Or maybe, just maybe Gulenko is full of it? Who is he to match Jung lol?

edit: I'e to say that nothing exactly says that Jung is correct either, but he sure does have much, much more credibility.


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> That's an irrelevant point to my claims which is that I think that you are describing something in socionics which isn't socionics because you don't agree with the basic definitions of socionics.


I am _not_ describing something in Socionics, strictly speaking... However, I am using a model from Socionics which works even better (according to me) with Jungian functions.



> I too merge Jung with socionics because I see them as building on the same essence, but I still adhere to basic socionics terminology.


You cannot merge Jung with Socionics since IM elements are based on definitions of information (aspects), but Jungian functions are based on cognitive processes.


----------



## Tellus

Ixim said:


> Jungian functions...and the stuff as delineated within the Psychological Types etc, right?
> 
> Not the MBTI sillyness, right? edit: When I say "MBTI sillyness", what I understand by it is the stuff that's floating around the net. Trusting official cpp / opp stuff is advisable.
> 
> If so, I've to agree with you. Model A is a very nice thing when you understand it. I am not so certain whether Socion interpretations of Jungian functions is right(Se = power, fml, where have they read that? Where is the proof of it?), but the Model A is certainly valid. I never doubted that.


Okay, then we are on the same page, more or less... But it should be noted that the _descriptions_ of Jungian functions are very imprecise. Btw, socionists are _not _interpreting Jungian functions. They rely on Aushra's definitions of information (aspects), which in turn define the IM elements/functions.

Yes, F (Se) and S (Si) are sooo messed up in Socionics.


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I really enjoyed Statistics, myself. I'm not too good at algebra once it gets to factoring and above, but I can do all maths lower than that with ease. I don't know why, but I hit a huge block with factoring, and had to work extra hard to get decent at those operations. I can work with radicals and imaginary numbers no problem though.
> 
> I wonder how the irrational functions correlate to the application of rational functions for the purposes of mathematics? For example, how do the ILI and the SLI differ in their use of Te as it is applied to each different discipline of mathematics (and science, for that matter)?


Does a function, Te for example, engage different cognitive processes when blocked with another function (Si vs. Ni)? That's an interesting question. I think so, but I am not sure... A function is a set of many cognitive processes so it seems logical. Furthermore, we already know that ILI's Te is '-' and SLI's Te is '+', which is a big difference. SLI is more suited for specific/repeated logical deductions, like the ones in accounting.


----------



## Entropic

Tellus said:


> I am _not_ describing something in Socionics, strictly speaking... However, I am using a model from Socionics which works even better (according to me) with Jungian functions.
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot merge Jung with Socionics since IM elements are based on definitions of information (aspects), but Jungian functions are based on cognitive processes.


Of course you can. It's just a matter on how you choose to do it. Essentially, I think they just describe different facets of the same thing and the fact that I keep seeing correlations between the two (and that Augusta actually built her theory based on Jung's) would support it.


----------



## Skeletalz

Tellus said:


> I disagree... We know that LII (INTj/INTP) is best suited for engineering, and ILI (INTp/INTJ) is best suited for programming and science.


Why? Both can be good any of those fields depending on the person. It depends on what kind of engineering youre talking about as well, mechanics is more realistic and visual than for example electrics which is more conceptual and difficult to visualize.

Youve got it the wrong way around imo. For example in mechanics I dont think an INTP would be having the time of his life tweaking drawings and models and drawings and models for 10 hours straight. The CAD programs Ive used are all extremely algorithmic, simple and imo better suited to the Ni-Te pairing in which you dont really care about complete understanding of the whole system, you just make the thing in your head a reality. You dont care about what kind of 3D matrix is calculating this stress test or how ridiculous the equation for that spline looks like.

to quote you:


Tellus said:


> Ti is about systems and Te is about algorithms/logical deductions.


Systems = programming, science, experiments, complex math (anything you dont learn in high school or what needs to be proven)
Algorithms/logical deductions = engineering, simple math (basic actions, formulas)



Tellus said:


> In order to understand why some types are more interested in technology than others, we need accepting/producing and +/- as well. For example, LIEs and LSEs study mechanical engineering but ILIs don't.


There isnt a single ENTJ or ESTJ in my group or whats left of the all traditional mech eng (there are some other courses that have a lot more electrics and programming involved) students of last year. Sure, thats extremely anecdotal and to add to that I typed about 30% of all of those left as INTJ. There are a lot of different people studying this field but your claim is too broad imo.

Also, you should try copy pasting your replies to 10 people into the same post instead of making 10 separate posts, there is no point in doing otherwise as youre just unnecessarily inflating your own and the threads post count


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> Of course you can. It's just a matter on how you choose to do it. Essentially, I think they just describe different facets of the same thing and the fact that I keep seeing correlations between the two (and that Augusta actually built her theory based on Jung's) would support it.


I disagree with you. I used to think it was possible to merge the theories, but they are just too different. Take Socionics Si and Jungian Se as an example. Both are about sensations!? (taste of chocolate etc.) 

And we know that ISFJ and ISTJ use Nardi's O1 and O2 (=visualization) a lot, which correspond with Jungian Si.

Socionics Se is about "force"!? What the h-ll is that?

Extraverted sensing 
Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people.

No! ESTP's and ESFP's behaviors are best understood by Jungian Se. You could argue that ESTP and SLE are different types, but then I would respond that they represent the same group of people, and ESTP is a good description and SLE is a poor description of this group.


----------



## Entropic

Tellus said:


> I disagree with you. I used to think it was possible to merge the theories, but they are just too different. Take Socionics Si and Jungian Se as an example. Both are about sensations!? (taste of chocolate etc.)


Because you are more hung up on definitions and definitional qualities of what makes a thing, but I look for the essence of the idea that underlies the thing. 

And yes, both are about sensations, but Se is about seeking new experiences, to acquire something, Si rather relishes and relieves what they already know in order to deepen that experience. That's why SJs are so stereotyped around enjoying repetitive tasks. 



> And we know that ISFJ and ISTJ use Nardi's O1 and O2 (=visualization) a lot, which correspond with Jungian Si.


Nardi's research is hardly scientific enough to draw such clear correlations. I don't even agree with Nardi's own self-typing and since he used his own test to assess the types of his students, there is probably a lot of mistyping involved that may skewer the results very heavily in certain directions that we do not quite know yet. Furthermore, I am not sure I always agree with his definitions, either. Berens' definition of Ni is just outright atrocious and much too vague. It took me ages to get around fully understanding what she was grasping at. Too many big and empty words, not concise and clear enough. 

Furthermore, why are you disagreeing with the fact that Si doms use a portion of the brain that corresponds with Jungian Si? Makes no sense. 



> Socionics Se is about "force"!? What the h-ll is that?
> 
> Extraverted sensing
> Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people.


Se is easy lol, if you value the cognition, that is. I saw a video the other day about cat behavior where the guy clearly demonstrated how kinetic energy works in people and animals:






It's around 1 min into the video. He talks about "static energy" (so pretty much "kinetic") and quite visibly demonstrates how energy builds up in bodies and how it discharges or is held back internally and this energy can be seen in for example the body language of people, or in this situation, cats. Such a simple but very clear way of expressing Se.

What the guy demonstrates in that video is a textbook example of Se, pretty much, as he mentions several aspects that are included in Augusta's definition that you provided. 



> No! ESTP's and ESFP's behaviors are best understood by Jungian Se. You could argue that ESTP and SLE are different types, but then I would respond that they represent the same group of people, and ESTP is a good description and SLE is a poor description of this group.


I don't even understand this point. Of course the MBTI and Russians have different ideas of the Se dom with thinking or feeling auxiliary because different cultures and social expectations, different values and ideals of how a person should be like. Russia is a beta society for example, and values beta ST style of authority. When you add other cultural values along with the aristocratic bent, you get a very strongly organized almost military-esque style of society. Lots of clear rules and boundaries, focus on the freedom of emotional expression as a way to loosen up said rules. Russia is deemed as uptight and collectivist.

Compare to the West and most notably the USA, much more free and individualistic in its mentality. More alpha style, more about innovation of thought and seeking new boundaries and ideas. Somewhat coupled with the old British delta logic of hard work rewarding the individual. Of course the portraits are colored by these different cultural values, so in Russia a beta ST is the military leader, one who gets things done and rules with an iron fist but with a golden heart that he refuses to wear on his sleeve, but in USA, the beta ST is more of a free-wheeling and anti-authoritarian freedom fighter kind of type (which goes very nicely against the desire of the a stable society found in delta quadra, btw) and who eventually learns to settle down and really connect with the people he loves (Fe dual-seeking). This of course from the perspective of a masculine perspective. The expectations of beta ST women are somewhat different. 

I don't think any portrait is particularly good and are really just caricatures of certain people archetypes that don't necessarily describe types as much as they just describe certain set of values and ways of being and may include a wide variety of people that aren't even that particular type they set out to explain e.g. I think they are more often likely to describe enneagram types than they are actual cognitive ones.


----------



## Tellus

Skeletalz said:


> Why? Both can be good any of those fields depending on the person. It depends on what kind of engineering youre talking about as well, mechanics is more realistic and visual than for example electrics which is more conceptual and difficult to visualize.
> 
> Youve got it the wrong way around imo. For example in mechanics I dont think an INTP would be having the time of his life tweaking drawings and models and drawings and models for 10 hours straight. The CAD programs Ive used are all extremely algorithmic, simple and imo better suited to the Ni-Te pairing in which you dont really care about complete understanding of the whole system, you just make the thing in your head a reality. You dont care about what kind of 3D matrix is calculating this stress test or how ridiculous the equation for that spline looks like.
> 
> to quote you:
> 
> Systems = programming, science, experiments, complex math (anything you dont learn in high school or what needs to be proven)
> Algorithms/logical deductions = engineering, simple math (basic actions, formulas)


Programming is all about algorithms/logical deductions. ILI is an intuitive type with Te as the Creative function (i.e. a producing function, Model A), which is perfect for this profession. It is common knowledge that ILI/INTJ is most suited to work as a programmer. Consider the AlphaGo team for example; they are exclusively INTJs/ILIs. And INTP/LII is the typical electrical engineer.

In order to understand complex engineering you must certainly go beyond logical deductions. As soon as you are visualizing an object, you are using Ti. Btw, electrical circuits and machines are systems, since there are logical relationships between two or more objects. That is not necessarily the case with science etc.


----------



## Immolate

Entropic said:


> Because you are more hung up on definitions and definitional qualities of what makes a thing, but I look for the essence of the idea that underlies the thing.





> Se is easy lol, if you value the cognition, that is.


You seem to be implying that Tellus is LII rather than ILI, or..?



> I saw a video the other day about cat behavior where the guy clearly demonstrated how kinetic energy works in people and animals:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's around 1 min into the video. He talks about "static energy" (so pretty much "kinetic") and quite visibly demonstrates how energy builds up in bodies and how it discharges or is held back internally and this energy can be seen in for example the body language of people, or in this situation, cats. Such a simple but very clear way of expressing Se.
> 
> What the guy demonstrates in that video is a textbook example of Se, pretty much, as he mentions several aspects that are included in Augusta's definition that you provided.


Interesting point. I have a cat and understand what he's talking about here. (I do the same thing with my finger and/or hand and just allow my cat to initiate or direct the petting, or I give her head-scritches which she really seems to enjoy and doesn't often find overstimulating. Enough about my cat, though.) 

I understand how this relates to Se in that you are applying a specific energy which builds up and instigates a reaction, in this case a lashing out in order to reaffirm boundaries, and also the ability to recognize this energy and mediate or confront it. Likewise with dogs who are confined to small spaces and become aggressive because it's a way for them to expel the energy they've been collecting or a way to impose their will in some form, or have I misunderstood?

However, wouldn't there also be an element of Si to the exchange, as Si would want to maintain a specific sensory experience to ensure physical/emotional comfort? I'm referring to the cats specifically.


----------



## cyamitide

Captain Mclain said:


> Jung described Se as "realism".
> 
> Gulenko as Force. You might look at the world and say that it is materia that is constantly moving around with force. Se is the mind process of what this force does.
> 
> edit; I think Jung model this Se description from a SLE.





Ixim said:


> Or maybe, just maybe Gulenko is full of it? Who is he to match Jung lol?
> 
> edit: I'e to say that nothing exactly says that Jung is correct either, but he sure does have much, much more credibility.


Even though the most popular typing for Jung is LII, he also has many believers of his type being IEI and ILI.

If Jung is Se-seeking, that explains why to him Se is "realism" while to Se-"polr" Gulenko it's a type of uncomfy forcefulness.

Neither of them is completely right. Subjectively derived descriptions of Se will depend on the observer.


----------



## Ixim

cyamitide said:


> Even though the most popular typing for Jung is LII, he also has many believers of his type being IEI and ILI.
> 
> If Jung is Se-seeking, that explains why to him Se is "realism" while to Se-"polr" Gulenko it's a type of uncomfy forcefulness.
> 
> Neither of them is completely right. Subjectively derived descriptions of Se will depend on the observer.


I know what you're about and I don't like it. The more you go in the way of "...it all really depends upon the viewpoint", the farther you are from practical applicability and the less satisfied I am with it. I fully understand that it all really does come down to the specific viewpoint in case, but come on!


----------



## Entropic

lets mosey said:


> You seem to be implying that Tellus is LII rather than ILI, or..?


I'll message you about that. 



> Interesting point. I have a cat and understand what he's talking about here. (I do the same thing with my finger and/or hand and just allow my cat to initiate or direct the petting, or I give her head-scritches which she really seems to enjoy and doesn't often find overstimulating. Enough about my cat, though.)
> 
> I understand how this relates to Se in that you are applying a specific energy which builds up and instigates a reaction, in this case a lashing out in order to reaffirm boundaries, and also the ability to recognize this energy and mediate or confront it. Likewise with dogs who are confined to small spaces and become aggressive because it's a way for them to expel the energy they've been collecting or a way to impose their will in some form, or have I misunderstood?
> 
> However, wouldn't there also be an element of Si to the exchange, as Si would want to maintain a specific sensory experience to ensure physical/emotional comfort? I'm referring to the cats specifically.


Well, Se and Si are two different ways to understand the same thing, really. From an Si POV, this would be understood as the inner discomfort of not having your body aligned with its parts, that there's a build up within you which can make you feel stressed out, for example. Hence Se valuing types being decisive but Si judicious. Judicious types prefer to do things at an even pace and to constantly moderate their energy so it's even-tempered in order to not be too stressed out and thus retain their sense of inner comfort, but Se is about how to maintain mobilization. I for example notice this now that I got another kitten. He's extremely spunky and energetic since he's 12 weeks old, and funnily he helps to keep me mobilized because I have to constantly remain active and do things since his own level of mobilization is at a constant high except when he's sleeping. I have huge issues keeping my sense of mobilization on my own unless there are external activities that force me to stay mobilized but once I am mobilized it's fairly easy to maintain it. The bigger problem is to mobilize after a session of trying to unwind, because I really suck at mobilizing myself. I also really suck at moderating my sense of mobilization for the tasks required when I don't need to stay fully mobilized e.g. household chores after work or during the weekends because I unwind too much and then I can't get anything done because I don't know how to mobilize again. 

I think Jackson Galaxy is an LIE so his depiction of how cats lash out is obviously going to be through the lens of Se, not Si. Si would focus more on the inner sense of discomfort being the cause behind aggression, not the build up of energy and how that transfers across the environment.


----------



## Immolate

Entropic said:


> Well, Se and Si are two different ways to understand the same thing, really. From an Si POV, this would be understood as the inner discomfort of not having your body aligned with its parts, that there's a build up within you which can make you feel stressed out, for example. Hence Se valuing types being decisive but Si judicious. Judicious types prefer to do things at an even pace and to constantly moderate their energy so it's even-tempered in order to not be too stressed out and thus retain their sense of inner comfort, but Se is about how to maintain mobilization. I for example notice this now that I got another kitten. He's extremely spunky and energetic since he's 12 weeks old, and funnily he helps to keep me mobilized because I have to constantly remain active and do things since his own level of mobilization is at a constant high except when he's sleeping. I have huge issues keeping my sense of mobilization on my own unless there are external activities that force me to stay mobilized but once I am mobilized it's fairly easy to maintain it. The bigger problem is to mobilize after a session of trying to unwind, because I really suck at mobilizing myself. I also really suck at moderating my sense of mobilization for the tasks required when I don't need to stay fully mobilized e.g. household chores after work or during the weekends because I unwind too much and then I can't get anything done because I don't know how to mobilize again.
> 
> I think Jackson Galaxy is an LIE so his depiction of how cats lash out is obviously going to be through the lens of Se, not Si. Si would focus more on the inner sense of discomfort being the cause behind aggression, not the build up of energy and how that transfers across the environment.


Thank you for this explanation. You make a good point about it being different ways to understand the same thing. For example, I've been reading about Si and trying to understand what it means to be aware of people's discomfort or probable sensations in the environment. In the video, he makes a point about observing your cat and taking note of tell-tale signs of irritation such as the tail twitching or the arched back. I can interpret this as an Si awareness of how the body is at odds with the environment and how this awareness is used to try and address the lack of harmony. (Hopefully I've understood this.) I have to say, I love this mixing of typology and kittens.

I don't want to derail too much, though, so I'll end by saying I hope things continue to go well with the new kitten.


----------



## cyamitide

Ixim said:


> I know what you're about and I don't like it. The more you go in the way of "...it all really depends upon the viewpoint", the farther you are from practical applicability and the less satisfied I am with it. I fully understand that it all really does come down to the specific viewpoint in case, but come on!


No one in this thread said that "all reality depends upon a viewpoint" and taken a nose dive into solipsism. It's a specific and temporary condition that Socionics is not empirically verified as of present day, and treated as proto-science at best and pseudo-science at its worst. Until that time we're stuck dabbling in experiential subjective viewpoints, and if those viewpoints don't match each other it doesn't mean that the writer is "full of it--it could be a reflection of some objective truth from an entirely different angle.


----------



## Ixim

cyamitide said:


> No one in this thread said that "all reality depends upon a viewpoint" and taken a nose dive into solipsism. It's a specific and temporary condition that Socionics is not empirically verified as of present day, and treated as proto-science at best and pseudo-science at its worst. Until that time we're stuck dabbling in experiential subjective viewpoints, and if those viewpoints don't match each other it doesn't mean that the writer is "full of it--it could be a reflection of some objective truth from an entirely different angle.


Yet, there it is, again. Applied solipsism. Look, I didn't make that up, it's plenty visible. Plus some things don't need to be outright said in order for them to be there.

I don't have to experience anything(tho it's nice to...) as long as that something has a practical application. A thing I'm not sure Socion has outside of Model A. It's too solipsistic(maybe because almost all prominent socion personae were Alpha NTs...?) in the way of "well...it could be this if that is like that, otherwise it could be that if this is like this" etc etc.


----------



## Captain Mclain

cyamitide said:


> Even though the most popular typing for Jung is LII, he also has many believers of his type being IEI and ILI.
> 
> If Jung is Se-seeking, that explains why to him Se is "realism" while to Se-"polr" Gulenko it's a type of uncomfy forcefulness.
> 
> Neither of them is completely right. Subjectively derived descriptions of Se will depend on the observer.


I always thought, and I believed many people thoguth Jung of IEI. He was not really a gulenko if you know what I mean. Its not a theory more so that he is storing his experiences and revolutionary ideas with the world. Also if you read his descriptions you can find what type he was inspired of when writing it.


----------



## Entropic

Ixim said:


> Yet, there it is, again. Applied solipsism. Look, I didn't make that up, it's plenty visible. Plus some things don't need to be outright said in order for them to be there.
> 
> I don't have to experience anything(tho it's nice to...) as long as that something has a practical application. A thing I'm not sure Socion has outside of Model A. It's too solipsistic(maybe because almost all prominent socion personae were Alpha NTs...?) in the way of "well...it could be this if that is like that, otherwise it could be that if this is like this" etc etc.


Why do you still type as IEE though when it seems you are so clearly against viewing things from various perspectives? That really seems like an Ne PoLR (probably coupled with Ti dislike) thing.


----------



## owlet

Ixim said:


> Yet, there it is, again. Applied solipsism. Look, I didn't make that up, it's plenty visible. Plus some things don't need to be outright said in order for them to be there.
> 
> I don't have to experience anything(tho it's nice to...) as long as that something has a practical application. A thing I'm not sure Socion has outside of Model A. It's too solipsistic(maybe because almost all prominent socion personae were Alpha NTs...?) in the way of "well...it could be this if that is like that, otherwise it could be that if this is like this" etc etc.


I don't know if I'm right, but it seemed like @cyamitide might be getting at the fact there are so many sources with so many slight differentiations that it's not currently possible to have a fully solid system to work from. You can go by the areas that tend to stay fairly consistent between sources, but there's always a minor difference to take into account.


----------



## Ixim

Captain Mclain said:


> I always thought, and I believed many people thoguth Jung of IEI. He was not really a gulenko if you know what I mean. Its not a theory more so that he is storing his experiences and revolutionary ideas with the world. Also if you read his descriptions you can find what type he was inspired of when writing it.


ILI?

I mean...he did say for himself that he was an INT...which one...we will never know


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> @*Tellus* read the above and come again. You still misunderstand and misrepresent my opinion.
> 
> Also, you will not find any instance where I express that a function is really Y that goes very strongly against its base definition. You do this a lot, though.


I think most of us have automatically used Jungian descriptions of Se instead of 'external statics of objects'. However, that is incorrect since the IM elements are defined by the information aspects. As I have already mentioned before, my point of view has changed regarding this. 

This discussion is off topic so I will stop here.


----------



## Tellus

Night Huntress said:


> I don't see Te as surrender to laws, in Socionics. It is (casually) termed "business logic" because it seeks to effectivize, evaluate the value and purpose of a thing, and to apply things in reality. It is contextually dependent and a "dynamic" function (as opposed to static). Like Fe, it observes the inputs available in the situation and assesses the most effective method to implement that can utilize the resources available to obtain the desired outcome. Sort of like finding the perpendicular line in mathematics - "what is the shortest and most efficient distance from one line to another?"
> 
> As it is focused on effectiveness, the assumption it draws is that there are objectively better ways to approach a situation. Objectivity is achieved in logical discussions by setting forth operational definitions, sources, and evidence. A Te user will focus on facts and results and the "point", while a Ti user would consider this irrelevant and look for every interpretation that is internally consistent with itself (hence Ti is "subjective" logic).
> 
> Naturally, this distinction can become blurred in xLIs and xLEs, because their demonstrative function, which is as strong as their base, is Ti/Te respectively. Then it becomes necessary to see what the individual values and uses consciously, in support of their base function. The demonstrative is largely unconscious and undervalued by the individual, despite them often openly showing skill in it.


This is the classical viewpoint in Socionics. However, I don't fully agree with this definition/description of Te (P), since it contradicts Jungian descriptions of Te and our observations of SLI / ISTJ.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow

Honestly, I don't think certain aspects of math align with any one function. I think we can all use different functions to effectively reach the same outcome and understanding.


----------



## Tellus

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> Honestly, I don't think certain aspects of math align with any one function. I think we can all use different functions to effectively reach the same outcome and understanding.


Okay, so why don't ESE excel at math?


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow

Tellus said:


> Okay, so why don't ESE excel at math?


But I have the same functions and I excel at math?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Tellus said:


> Okay, so why don't ESE excel at math?


How do you know they do or don't? Have you tested them against other types? What do you base this statement on?


----------



## Tellus

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> But I have the same functions and I excel at math?


What are you saying? ...that you are an ESE who excel at math?


----------



## Tellus

FearAndTrembling said:


> How do you know they do or don't? Have you tested them against other types? What do you base this statement on?


I base this on my own observations, observations by various socionists and the fact that Model A is accurate. ESE's Ti and Te (which are about math in Model A) are 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional, so ESE makes oversimplified judgments in mathematics.


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow

Tellus said:


> What are you saying? ...that you are an ESE who excel at math?


No I'm an ISFJ, are my functions any different?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Tellus said:


> I base this on my own observations, observations by various socionists and the fact that Model A is accurate. ESE's Ti and Te (which are about math in Model A) are 1-dimensional and 2-dimensional, so ESE makes oversimplified judgments in mathematics.


There is no reason to believe that your observations, observations by various Socionics or Model A is accurate. Model A being accurate is nothing close to a fact. 

So this statement has no real basis. It is just something that some small subset of people say and supposedly observe. People say and observe a lot of things.


----------



## SheWolf

My sister is an SEI. Great at math. I, on the other hand, hate math.

Being good at math or not is NTR. Math is a subject that any human being has the capacity to learn. It's not esoteric.


----------



## Vermillion

Tellus said:


> This is the classical viewpoint in Socionics. However, I don't fully agree with this definition/description of Te (P), since it contradicts Jungian descriptions of Te and our observations of SLI / ISTJ.


Can you explain how?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

SheWolf said:


> My sister is an SEI. Great at math. I, on the other hand, hate math.
> 
> Being good at math or not is NTR. Math is a subject that any human being has the capacity to learn. It's not esoteric.



It probably doesn't have to do with type but I do think some people are more naturally inclined to it. 

There are different kinds of math too. Like on this forum I have seen at least two ILE talk about how they are terrible at geometry. Spatial relationships. They have something of a nonverbal learning disorder. They have trouble seeing how a literal things unfolds and fits in spatial arrangements. 

Perhaps perceiving matters too. Si seems like a soft hand to me. Patient repetition. It is slow and fluid movements. Could be a surgeon's hand. To replicate past experiences down to the letter for hours on end without making a mistake. 

And stuff like Tai Chi. The softness of it. Not forcing things. I was reading about the differences between Tai Chi and Yoga and somebody made the point that nobody will ever hurt themselves doing Tai Chi. I was fuckin sore for a few days first time I tried yoga. lol

Word Dispenser once described Si as the "zen" function. I am starting to believe that. It could be like kind of a body math. Muscle memory.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Richard Feynman is an interesting example. Some people say EIE, some say LIE, some say ILE.

But Feynman had such a style that nobody else could understand it. And he couldn't make them understand it. It was such a different way of thinking. Then Freeman Dyson figured it out and showed how it was equivalent to other theories. That is Dyson's hallmark. A pure mathematician who brings things together that nobody else saw how they could be connected. 

Historically they were sometimes called *Feynman–Dyson diagrams or Dyson graphs,[SUP][5][/SUP] because when they were introduced the path integral was unfamiliar, and Freeman Dyson's derivation from old-fashioned perturbation theory was easier to follow for physicists trained in earlier methods. However, in 2006 Dyson himself stated that the diagrams should be called Feynman diagrams because "he taught us how to use them".[SUP][citation needed][/SUP] This reflects historical fact: Feynman had to lobby hard for the diagrams, which confused the establishment physicists trained in equations and graphs.[SUP][6][/SUP]*


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow

FearAndTrembling said:


> It probably doesn't have to do with type but I do think some people are more naturally inclined to it.
> 
> There are different kinds of math too. Like on this forum I have seen at least two ILE talk about how they are terrible at geometry. Spatial relationships. They have something of a nonverbal learning disorder. They have trouble seeing how a literal things unfolds and fits in spatial arrangements.
> 
> Perhaps perceiving matters too. Si seems like a soft hand to me. Patient repetition. It is slow and fluid movements. Could be a surgeon's hand. To replicate past experiences down to the letter for hours on end without making a mistake.
> 
> And stuff like Tai Chi. The softness of it. Not forcing things. I was reading about the differences between Tai Chi and Yoga and somebody made the point that nobody will ever hurt themselves doing Tai Chi. I was fuckin sore for a few days first time I tried yoga. lol
> 
> Word Dispenser once described Si as the "zen" function. I am starting to believe that. It could be like kind of a body math. Muscle memory.


I can definitely see how my Si has helped me excel at math. I just need a few examples and then I'm good to go. I know what feels right based on past experience naturally... it doesn't have to be physical, it can be mental as well.


----------



## SheWolf

FearAndTrembling said:


> There are different kinds of math too. Like on this forum I have seen at least two ILE talk about how they are terrible at geometry. Spatial relationships. They have something of a nonverbal learning disorder. They have trouble seeing how a literal things unfolds and fits in spatial arrangements.


I hate geometry too.

However, I excel in English and writing. I was home-schooled, my sister was my "teacher" and she barely had to teach me how to read. My community college's placement test for writing took me maybe 10 minutes and I scored exactly where I needed to be.

Sciences have always been easy for me as well. Especially Biology. I love Biology.

Math? I suck. So bad. But it was because my sister and I clashed. I'm in lower-level mathematics in college now, but it's so easy the way these instructors explain it that I'm breezing through it. I even got to leave my last math class two weeks early and didn't have to take the final. So, perhaps, it's not that I'm bad at math, I just needed a different way of learning it. Which is I think the case for most people. We are the most intelligent species on our planet for a reason. We have the ability to learn anything. Everyone just needs a little more time or a different view for certain things to click with them. 



> And stuff like Tai Chi. The softness of it. Not forcing things. I was reading about the differences between Tai Chi and Yoga and somebody made the point that nobody will ever hurt themselves doing Tai Chi. I was fuckin sore for a few days first time I tried yoga. lol


Yoga and Tai Chi would bore the crap out of me. I dislike all that "zen" stuff. I can't even meditate. I get bored and it's like my head is always in "go mode" looking for some sort of real stimulation. I took martial arts. That was my zen. Learning to control my movements and force to just the right touch. Got my body moving, let out some steam in a productive and stimulating way for both my body and mind in terms of solid concentration.

I had an acting teacher that at the beginning of every class, she would have us do some mental visualization exercises. It was stuff like, "close your eyes. Pretend there is a string keeping you suspended to the roof and loosely hang your limbs. Now imagine a blue sky and a black bird flying within your view. Concentrate on that bird, the gentle flapping of wings, the sheen of black on its feathers."

That sort of stuff. I mostly focused on my breathing versus any of that visualization stuff. It didn't relax me. I can't think in a free-flowing motion like that. Probably lack of dynamic perception.

I type that acting teacher at SEI. She was so "zen", sweet, always had a smile on her face. Very motherly. Made the acting class feel like summer camp. Even her criticisms were sugar-laced with a smile and gentle tone.


----------



## SheWolf

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> I can definitely see how my Si has helped me excel at math. I just need a few examples and then I'm good to go. I know what feels right based on past experience naturally... it doesn't have to be physical, it can be mental as well.


My sister is like this. She can do anything in almost job she's had to do because she relies on her past experience, can apply it to something new and pick up it in no time. Every time I start something new (physically), I can pick it up quickly, but it's like I learn from scratch each time.


----------



## Figure

I never truly _excelled_ in math courses, or felt comfortable with them despite performing fine and taking on more difficult material. I really think math requires understanding, not necessarily knowledge, and that in the US, math is frequently taught in a Sensing/Thinking, and sometimes Ne/Ti-ish way. And, almost always in my experience, in a Rational type way. 

In a given class, the teacher/professor usually throws a bunch of practice problems up on a board and walks through how to do them, pointing out various methods and scenarios. You're supposed to then identify and understand the innate process and apply it in _different _scenarios to homework problems and exams. The expectation is basically that you practice problems in enough volume to get the gist of how to work them out so you feel prepared to tackle more difficult ones by the end. 

For me, this never worked out well. As Ni base my first instinct was always to look for commonality between things I've already observed before actually making an assessment, and one of the faults of this approach is putting too much stock in this assumption too early (this is a common error made by ILI's). So, I would see problems, think I knew what it was, and found out later that the scenario was different, then needing to go back and (once again) learn that situation. Ti types process this much more efficiently, and Si types have better ability to stick with established methods and better memories for actual concrete things they see (whereas Ni have better awareness of ongoing patterns). Overall, despite Te being immediately concerned with efficiency, having Te as Creative (situational) made it difficult to actually be efficient by treating every practice problem as situational knowledge to be recalled. I always felt like no matter how well I "understood" a practice problem, it wouldn't matter on the exam because the tricks and quirks would be different and my ability to apply knowledge of the material would be situational to practice problems. 

What I did really well with was when the material on exams exactly met the expectation of what the class expected us to know, even with difficult and complex material.


----------



## SheWolf

Figure said:


> I always felt like no matter how well I "understood" a practice problem, it wouldn't matter on the exam because the tricks and quirks would be different and my ability to apply knowledge of the material would be situational to practice problems.
> 
> What I did really well with was when the material on exams exactly met the expectation of what the class expected us to know, even with difficult and complex material.


Bingo. I'm the same. 

Math has a bunch of "rules" that have to be applied that I can't remember. It's terrible that I usually only remember them long enough to do what I'm supposed to for that section of time and then when we move on to something else, I forget and I'm screwed.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

SheWolf said:


> Bingo. I'm the same.
> 
> Math has a bunch of "rules" that have to be applied that I can't remember. It's terrible that I usually only remember them long enough to do what I'm supposed to for that section of time and then when we move on to something else, I forget and I'm screwed.


I have issues recalling formulas, and that trolled me during tests as I got the main idea of the question but I usually forgot part of the formula and fucked up my answer. I also don't like math as it's usually taught without mentioning how you can apply those rules to real problems, so I think that's a bunch of stuff that's not properly linked to reality.


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> When you typed it and clicked on the "post" button, you sure were using an extroverted judging function.


Yes, I agree with you. That is about Te.



> Now you need to know the difference between Te and Fe. Te is a function to construct the world based on any standard you already have, while Fe is not to construct the world, Fe is just a visible reaction to something happening, no matter if it is outside or inside your mind. Surely Fe function changes the world as Te does, but it doesn't construct the world. A construction needs to have some foundations. The fact that you posted that expression is not necessarily Te, it was rather Fe because you posted it merely because you did as a reaction to my post, not because you have any objective to fulfill. Te function doesn't work like that. Te function works only when an act is needed to fulfill any objective (i prefer to call it a standard) you already have, no matter if it is matematically correct or not.


Te makes decisions about objects, and Fe makes decisions about subjects (i.e. considers emotions). That's the difference between Te and Fe. 

Again, can you provide an example? "construct the world"? It would make it so much easier to understand what you mean.

No, Fe is not just a reaction to something happening. It has its own objectives; "constructing" social harmony etc.

What do you mean buy "fulfill any objective"?

"Te function works only when an act is needed to fulfill any objective" Do you claim that Ti also works only when an act is needed to fulfill any objective?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> I'll address the original post as I'm not sure what you intended the topic to be.Mathematical thought is much more than equations, tables, and visualizing geometrical objects. It is about patterns, ordering, correspondences, the nature of change, accuracy, numbering, and a lot more.
> 
> If one is going to address what Te and Ti is being used, one might ask what kind of thought is used to address problems like:
> 
> 1. Prove every closed curve has an inside and an outside.
> 2. What is the nature of the distribution of prime numbers?
> 3. What are all the possible solid regular polygons?
> 4. How is mathematics used in probability and statistics?
> 5. How do you know there is only one solution in whole positive numbers to X squared + 2 = Y cubed?
> 6. Is the Riemann Hypothesis true or false?
> 7. Why is Godel's Theorem important?
> 8. Create mathematical systems with well defined postulates to be consistent with observations with predictive value in all levels of physics.
> 9. How does one construct a regular seventeen sided figure on a flat surface using only straight edge and compass?
> 10. Is the decimal expansion of Pi in what sense random or not?
> 
> Mathematics addressed by humans is going to be filled with Te and Ti ... and all the other cognitive functions. You will have to separate out Te and Ti to stay on topic.* I suggest you forget about 1 through 10 above and pick something simple you are familiar with.*


Yes, I know that mathematics is about more than equations etc. Those are just examples... however, 1-10 are just variations of the same thing. These are all aspects of Ti processes (and to some extent, Te processes). 

F is about subjects -> irrelevant. S is about concrete objects and subjects -> irrelevant. N is used all the time in mathematics, but this thread is about Te and Ti. (see comment on Ne in OP)


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> I don't think the psyche is static, and I don't think the psyche is ordered in accordance to the model A. That's where I disagree with you in the first place since you seem to have complete inability to comprehend the psyche and people without understanding them through a system of thought that can catalogue their experiences. Because of that, the pattern can be recognized regardless of age or development or we can't meaningfully apply it because there are too many unverifiable variables to consider that make it subjective. If we assume the pattern exists, it should apply regardless of context or we can reasonably say the pattern is just as much make-belief and doesn't actually exist because it's too contextual.
> 
> I actually don't care about anything "ordered" in the first place, as much as I think that model A is about recognizing some general patterns that can be applied to people. They are unrelated phenomena as model A is descriptive, not prescriptive. You seem to think it's prescriptive and I disagree with you on that.


Do you think all human cognitions (which are relevant to personality) are subsumed by the cognitive functions? If no, can you provide an example? If yes, then you must realize that all aspects of personality are linked to Model A and the development of the functions.


----------



## Tellus

drmiller100 said:


> read the thread title. Don't know much about socionics. My basis is MBTI, so when I say "intj" I mean someone who is Ni/Te.
> 
> Calculus is a hard stop for Te and Ni. a TRULY brilliant INTJ will have access to Ti, and can sort of eventually get through calc1.
> 
> Stats is a hard stop for Ti and Ne. Yes, they can do it, but a truly bright TI/Ne person will DERIVE the formulas, not memorize them.
> 
> INTP/ENTP as the theoretical mathematicians. Einstein and his thought experiments is a brilliant Ti/Ne user.
> 
> INTJ/ISTJ are more interested in stats, and accounting, and structural engineering, and APPLIED math.
> 
> Mechanical engineers are the engineers who tend towards Ti/Ne - thermodynamics and the math behind it is tough for an INTJ. Sure, some do it, but not their favorite thing.
> 
> Trig, euclidean geometry, mode/mean/median anyone can do.
> 
> non-euclidean geometry, integrals, multi var calc, tensors are the Ti/Ne folks........


I agree with most of this, but thought experiments (i.e. scenario thinking) is about Ni. This is one reason why Einstein wasn't ENTP, who has Ni as Ignoring function in Model A.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> What is that? One can lay out a 4 x 4 matrix and count. That is Te. The idea to lay out a 4 x 4 in the first place is Ti because there are other ways.


This corresponds with my thoughts in OP.



> My conscience that I should do that in the first place could be my superego. The effort or resistance to doing that in the second place could relate to my "id". That I want to do this as a practical thing could be my ego.


 These are aspects of Fi/Fe, motivation etc. I am only interested in Te and Ti aspects in this thread.



> If the above has some merit, how would we deal with the Pythagorean Theorem?


What do you mean?


----------



## Entropic

Tellus said:


> Do you think all human cognitions (which are relevant to personality) are subsumed by the cognitive functions? If no, can you provide an example? If yes, then you must realize that all aspects of personality are linked to Model A and the development of the functions.


No, I don't, nor does model A claim to be, either. You have zero evidence to support that this is the case, nor does it make any real logical sense to suppose so.


----------



## reybridge

Tellus said:


> Yes, I agree with you. That is about Te.
> 
> 
> 
> Te makes decisions about objects, and Fe makes decisions about subjects (i.e. considers emotions). That's the difference between Te and Fe.
> 
> Again, can you provide an example? "construct the world"? It would make it so much easier to understand what you mean.
> 
> No, Fe is not just a reaction to something happening. It has its own objectives; "constructing" social harmony etc.
> 
> What do you mean buy "fulfill any objective"?
> 
> "Te function works only when an act is needed to fulfill any objective" Do you claim that Ti also works only when an act is needed to fulfill any objective?


Extroverted judging function doesn't mean Te, it could be Fe as well.

Here is one example of Te usage:
You were offered a business to sell a house by your friend. He wanted to sell it for $300.000. You then sold it to someone for $350.000. You told the house owner that you had sold the house for $300.000. The house owner then wanted to contact the buyer about the negotiation, but you said you lost his contact right after the house was sold. Yes, by the time you sold it for $350k and when you deleted the buyer contact, that was Te. You constructed the world based on your goal to achieve the difference in the price. The premise you started with was that you want $50k. And of course, the seller shouldn't make contact with the buyer.

While here is an example of Fe usage:
You reunited with your old friends. You talked much about your life although no one asked you to. When you were asked why you told them about your life, you couldn't answer, because you did that just because you wanted to, and then you got angry over it. You always do that whenever you meet your friends. But you don't actually make any meaningful effort to initialize a meeting with your friends so often. Then that is Fe. Your acts depend on some events. When there is no event triggers your mind system, you wouldn't do anything. And yes, actually people with Fe function probably would not invite you to a meeting in the first place, they just wait until someone with Te function invites them and then they reacts to each other like a storm and keep the discussion flows. Fe function doesn't construct the world, Fe is a visible impulsive reaction you make that changes the world unintentionally. Constructing the world needs logic to work on the premises, but a reaction doesn't need it. Whenever an event occurs and fulfills your trigger, then you act with Fe.

Actually i wrote a thread about how all functions work in a detailed way here.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Entropic said:


> No, I don't, nor does model A claim to be, either. You have zero evidence to support that this is the case, nor does it make any real logical sense to suppose so.


Why? It seems to me that the conception that Model A applies from the moment of first cognition to be about as unfounded as the conception that the Model A develops later in life in response to stimuli. Neither one has solid evidence. What evidence we do have points to the existence and rough divides of its apparent operational abilities and purpose, but its formation is indeed a murky matter. I see no logic supporting either supposition. Rather, it is the tack "Given that we assume that this applies from this moment forward in our development, then we can conclude these things about these aspects of the system. Hence, these specific parts of the system do these specific things." You are right that the argument falls apart without that assumption, but where is the opposing supposition and why is it more true?


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus. Yours is an interesting thread and you've raised many questions. I've a few of my own since I'm puzzled.

1. Your original post is about Te and Ti yet the thread is categorized under Socionics. Is there a reason for that? I thought Te and Ti don't play a role in Socionics.

2.


Tellus said:


> Visualize any mathematical objects: *Ti. *Do you agree with me?


You said, "visualize." Not Ti. That sounds a lot like perception. Thought comes later. 




Tellus said:


> I agree with most of this, but thought experiments (i.e. scenario thinking) is about Ni. This is one reason why Einstein wasn't ENTP, who has Ni as Ignoring function in Model A.


Sorry about not knowing Socionics. Do you want to say anything about my misconceptions if you are using Socionic language? Thought experiments are just that: *thinking* about possibilities. Intuition is involved, but there is primarily thought. Ni is patterns/ perception. The thought is about those perceptions. 

The common conclusion of others about Einstein was he was INTP.


3.


Tellus said:


> F is about subjects -> irrelevant. S is about concrete objects and subjects -> irrelevant. N is used all the time in mathematics, but this thread is about Te and Ti. (see comment on Ne in OP)





Tellus said:


> These are aspects of Fi/Fe, motivation etc. I am only interested in Te and Ti aspects in this thread.


It's perfectly alright to abstract T and concentrate on it. F and S will always accompany though in the background. I would like to point out that "id" functions go more to Si/Se than Fi/Fe, if you agree.

4.


BigApplePi said:


> how would we deal with the Pythagorean Theorem?





Tellus said:


> What do you mean?


If we stick to Te and Ti only, the Pythagorean Theorem* has plenty of external logic about it. There are rules to follow in its proof. That is the practical aspect, Te. I want to point out I've seen a list of over twenty such proofs. That math people would come up with more than one proof is rife with Ne and Ti. 

Does all this address what you are after with Ti and Te in math? What is left that you are after?

*On a flat surface, for a right (whatever that means) triangle, the square of the side opposite the right angle equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides.


----------



## drmiller100

Tellus said:


> I agree with most of this, but thought experiments (i.e. scenario thinking) is about Ni. This is one reason why Einstein wasn't ENTP, who has Ni as Ignoring function in Model A.


CREATING thought experiments are Ne. Ni follows them. 

It takes discipline for the Ne person to create the thought experiment, and to make it lead somewhere. 

FWIW, Einstein was a fucking weird dude. I think his patterns were something like Ne/Ti/Ni/Fe. He was so brilliant, and it is clear he had incredible Ti. Nothing he did was found in a book, and he did NOT use much Te or Si.


----------



## drmiller100

BigApplePi said:


> T
> *On a flat surface, for a right (whatever that means) triangle, the square of the side opposite the right angle equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides.



for purposes of thinking, what if in a triangle, the angles add up to MORE than 180 degrees? What then?


----------



## BigApplePi

drmiller100 said:


> for purposes of thinking, what if in a triangle, the angles add up to MORE than 180 degrees? What then?


I defined the Pythagorean Theorem, correct? Another theorem says in a plane, the angles add to 180. If they don't one has to question what initial conditions failed. Maybe it wasn't a plane. Maybe it was added wrongly: 29 + 62 + 89 = 181. Wrong. If 30 + 62 + 89, maybe an angle was measured incorrectly. Who knows? 

Doing it correctly (logic) is Te and Se. Thinking about possible errors is Ti and Ne. Do you agree on that separation of Te and Ti?


----------



## drmiller100

BigApplePi said:


> I defined the Pythagorean Theorem, correct? Another theorem says in a plane, the angles add to 180. If they don't one has to question what initial conditions failed. Maybe it wasn't a plane. Maybe it was added wrongly: 29 + 62 + 89 = 181. Wrong. If 30 + 62 + 89, maybe an angle was measured incorrectly. Who knows?
> 
> Doing it correctly (logic) is Te and Se. Thinking about possible errors is Ti and Ne. Do you agree on that separation of Te and Ti?


"logic" to me is Ti, and to me, you don't have it. Logic is the internal frame work of decision making similar to Spock in the original Star Trek. Te and Se have NOTHING to do with logic, just like Fi and Fe have NOTHING to do with Logic. 

Te is very important. Te makes logic practical. 

FWIW. Geometry is based on a series of postulates, or necessary facts to create a structure in which to create a system to predict things. 
THere are MANY ways to state the Pythagorean theorem, and if you accept any of the examples, you can prove the rest. But, you need one of them.
Imagine a line, and a point not on that line, all in a plane. How many lines can you draw through that point parallel to the line?
Pythagoras said exactly one. No more, no less.

If we assume none, we end up with a geometry like a sphere, or a globe. Take the earth, and define your plane to be the surface of the earth. Now take the equator as a line circumventing the globe. Now take a point not on the equator. 

How many "lines" can you draw through that point which do not cross the equator? The answer is none, and it leads to a WHOLE new study of geometry which is useful. 

"non euclidean geometry." 


You questioned the addition of the numbers. I question the SYSTEM. Not only do I think outside the box, I fold the box up and draw lines on it, and burn it, and poop on it. 

I think differently than you do. Not better, not worse, Not right, not wrong. 

differently.


----------



## BigApplePi

drmiller100 said:


> "logic" to me is Ti, and to me, you don't have it. Logic is the internal frame work of decision making similar to Spock in the original Star Trek. Te and Se have NOTHING to do with logic, just like Fi and Fe have NOTHING to do with Logic.


 Leonard Nimoy is dead. Long live Spock. Se is straight on perception of data. But Te? 




> Te is very important. Te makes logic practical.


So you agree logic helps Te?




> FWIW. Geometry is based on a series of postulates, or necessary facts to create a structure in which to create a system to predict things.
> THere are MANY ways to state the Pythagorean theorem, and if you accept any of the examples, you can prove the rest. But, you need one of them.
> Imagine a line, and a point not on that line, all in a plane. How many lines can you draw through that point parallel to the line?
> Pythagoras said exactly one. No more, no less.
> 
> If we assume none, we end up with a geometry like a sphere, or a globe. Take the earth, and define your plane to be the surface of the earth. Now take the equator as a line circumventing the globe. Now take a point not on the equator.


 Are you rejecting the principles of the Flat Earth Society? If you didn't, you could believe in yourself.




> How many "lines" can you draw through that point which do not cross the equator? The answer is none, and it leads to a WHOLE new study of geometry which is useful.
> 
> "non euclidean geometry."


Have you ever ridden a horse? If you did you probably sat on something called a saddle. There you can draw as many lines as you want at a point off a line and never hit the original line.




> You questioned the addition of the numbers. I question the SYSTEM. Not only do I think outside the box, I fold the box up and draw lines on it, and burn it, and poop on it.
> 
> I think differently than you do. Not better, not worse, Not right, not wrong.
> 
> differently.


Please stick with only one box at one time. You sound like one of those ENTPs. (Perish the thought). Then you will be disinclined to poop all over it.


----------



## drmiller100

BigApplePi said:


> Leonard Nimoy is dead. Long live Spock. Se is straight on perception of data. But Te?
> 
> 
> So you agree logic helps Te?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you rejecting the principles of the Flat Earth Society? If you didn't, you could believe in yourself.
> 
> 
> Have you ever ridden a horse? If you did you probably sat on something called a saddle. There you can draw as many lines as you want at a point off a line and never hit the original line.
> 
> 
> Please stick with only one box at one time. You sound like one of those ENTPs. (Perish the thought). Then you will be disinclined to poop all over it.


 you don't understand the functions. 

keep yelling. 

Soon people will quit disagreeing with you, and you'll be right again.


----------



## BigApplePi

drmiller100 said:


> you don't understand the functions.
> 
> keep yelling.
> 
> Soon people will quit disagreeing with you, and you'll be right again.


Well at least one of us understands the functions.

I have to yell as I can't tell if you hear.

I don't want to be right. I want to agree with you. Then we will be comrades.


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> No, I don't, nor does model A claim to be, either. You have zero evidence to support that this is the case, nor does it make any real logical sense to suppose so.


This is why I claim that Model A, including development of the functions, always is relevant, and you don't. Your viewpoint doesn't make any sense. Did Jung and Aushra miss some important aspects of personality? No, they didn't. We would have noticed some kind of inconsistency in the theory, but we don't. Btw, you obviously cannot mention one single cognition that is excluded from the theories.

*Socionics is based on information aspects, which cover all kinds of information. And Jung's cognitive processes are matched perfectly (according to socionists) with these information aspects. There is nothing left to consider! *


----------



## Tellus

reybridge said:


> Extroverted judging function doesn't mean Te, it could be Fe as well.


Yes, it could theoretically have been Fe as well. But I still think it was Te in this case.



> Here is one example of Te usage:
> You were offered a business to sell a house by your friend. He wanted to sell it for $300.000. You then sold it to someone for $350.000. You told the house owner that you had sold the house for $300.000. The house owner then wanted to contact the buyer about the negotiation, but you said you lost his contact right after the house was sold. Yes, by the time you sold it for $350k and when you deleted the buyer contact, that was Te. You constructed the world based on your goal to achieve the difference in the price. The premise you started with was that you want $50k. And of course, the seller shouldn't make contact with the buyer.
> While here is an example of Fe usage:
> You reunited with your old friends. You talked much about your life although no one asked you to. When you were asked why you told them about your life, you couldn't answer, because you did that just because you wanted to, and then you got angry over it. You always do that whenever you meet your friends. But you don't actually make any meaningful effort to initialize a meeting with your friends so often. Then that is Fe. Your acts depend on some events. When there is no event triggers your mind system, you wouldn't do anything. And yes, actually people with Fe function probably would not invite you to a meeting in the first place, they just wait until someone with Te function invites them and then they reacts to each other like a storm and keep the discussion flows. Fe function doesn't construct the world, Fe is a visible impulsive reaction you make that changes the world unintentionally. Constructing the world needs logic to work on the premises, but a reaction doesn't need it. Whenever an event occurs and fulfills your trigger, then you act with Fe.
> Actually i wrote a thread about how all functions work in a detailed way here.


This is about your attempt to define the functions. It is a bit off topic, so I will respond in your thread instead.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Tellus. Yours is an interesting thread and you've raised many questions. I've a few of my own since I'm puzzled.
> 1. Your original post is about Te and Ti yet the thread is categorized under Socionics. Is there a reason for that? I thought Te and Ti don't play a role in Socionics.


It is categorized under Socionics because we need a (fairly) accurate model. There are no "Te users" etc. Yes, Te and Ti do play a role in Socionics, but they are defined indirectly by information (aspects).



> 2. You said, "visualize." Not Ti. That sounds a lot like perception. Thought comes later.


Good point... so Si would visualize the objects and Ti then make the judgments. However, my view is that both functions are visual. There is a difference between an exact visualization of objects/subjects (Si), and a general visualization of objects (Ti).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_gyrus

The angular gyrus is a region of the brain in the parietal lobe, that lies near the superior edge of the temporal lobe, and immediately posterior to the supramarginal gyrus; it is involved in a number of processes related to language, number processing and spatial cognition, memory retrieval, attention, and theory of mind. It is Brodmann area 39 of the human brain.

Since 1919, brain injuries to the angular gyrus have been known to often cause arithmetic deficits. Functional imaging has shown that while other parts of the parietal lobe bilaterally are involved in approximate calculations due to its link with spatiovisual abilities, the left angular gyrus together with left Inferior frontal gyrus are involved in exact calculation due to verbal arithmetic fact retrieval. When activation in the left angular gyrus is greater, a person's arithmetic skills are also more competent.

My point is that Si is not related the parietal lobe, but the occipital lobe. 



> Sorry about not knowing Socionics. Do you want to say anything about my misconceptions if you are using Socionic language? Thought experiments are just that: thinking about possibilities. Intuition is involved, but there is primarily thought. Ni is patterns/ perception. The thought is about those perceptions.


All cognitive functions are about thinking. Thinking with a capital T is just one form of thinking. This is true in Socionics as well as MBTI. Scenario thinking is definitely about Ni, which corresponds to the psychological term 'episodic future thinking'.

If we are talking about cognitive functions then there is (almost) no difference between Socionics and MBTI. Socionics is about information aspects.



> The common conclusion of others about Einstein was he was INTP.


That is my view as well.



> 3. It's perfectly alright to abstract T and concentrate on it. F and S will always accompany though in the background. I would like to point out that "id" functions go more to Si/Se than Fi/Fe, if you agree.


What do you mean? Read about Socionics and Id on the Sociotype and Wikisocion websites.



> 4. If we stick to Te and Ti only, the Pythagorean Theorem* has plenty of external logic about it. There are rules to follow in its proof. That is the practical aspect, Te. I want to point out I've seen a list of over twenty such proofs. That math people would come up with more than one proof is rife with Ne and Ti.


What do you mean by "external logic"?


----------



## Tellus

drmiller100 said:


> CREATING thought experiments are Ne. Ni follows them.


Yes, but sometimes you don't have to "create" a thought experiment. You imagine yourself in an elevator and the wires are cut off. What will happen? Ni -> Ne or more Ni.



> It takes discipline for the Ne person to create the thought experiment, and to make it lead somewhere.


 This is because Ni is the Ignoring function.


----------



## Entropic

Tellus said:


> This is why I claim that Model A, including development of the functions, always is relevant, and you don't. Your viewpoint doesn't make any sense. Did Jung and Aushra miss some important aspects of personality? No, they didn't. We would have noticed some kind of inconsistency in the theory, but we don't. Btw, you obviously cannot mention one single cognition that is excluded from the theories.
> 
> *Socionics is based on information aspects, which cover all kinds of information. And Jung's cognitive processes are matched perfectly (according to socionists) with these information aspects. There is nothing left to consider! *


That is simply your assumption but I simply don't agree. Jung actually states several times in his works that there are aspects not covered by the functions eg daydreaming. So if you claim daydreaming is a part of Jungian cognition/socionics you are simply making shit up because it suits your interests.


----------



## BigApplePi

I have many reactions to what you've brought up. I'd like to make some reflections. First of all my interests. I have a modest acquaintance with the MBTI. None with Socionics, but I welcome it as a perspective on the MBTI. Meanwhile I like to do my own thinking, so if I can propose a better integration of the cognitive functions we've been speaking of, so much the better. What I pick up from your initial post about Ti and Te is to get a handle on those two. I don't like to see Ti or Te left in the lurch without something to tie them together. I'm primarily (INTP) a Ti person.

First let me address Si and Se because it seems to me immediate perception comes first ... at least in personal history. Se is direct sensory experience, here and now. As soon as it is experienced, it has the potential to be retained in memory. It is retained unconsciously. If memory is accessed, it becomes Si. Se --> Si. Now we have a handle on both. Thoughts and feelings come later if the senses are experienced first. 

While we are at it, I'll try for a statement about intuition. Intuition is also perception, but much more diffuse than sensing. It's also harder to describe. Intuition is about patterns and large impressions. If these impressions are about the outside world, as is, Se, that is Ne. If these impressions are about a person's internal world, as is Si, that is Ni. This may not be a satisfactory approach for you, but is the best I can do at the moment.

Now to Te and Ti. Quoting myself:


BigApplePi said:


> 4. If we stick to Te and Ti only, the Pythagorean Theorem has plenty of external logic about it. There are rules to follow in its proof. That is the practical aspect, Te. I want to point out I've seen a list of over twenty such proofs. That math people would come up with more than one proof is rife with Ne and Ti.





Tellus said:


> What do you mean by "external logic"?


It is going to be harder to distinguish Ti from Te, but then that is what this thread is about. Thinking is about making orderly statements about perceptions. I present the Pythagorean Theorem as a perception so we are not talking too abstractly. There is vagueness in such abstractions so getting the idea across is harder. Here is a link about the Pythagorean Theorem. 

Pythagorean Theorem and its many proofs

When I googled for proofs, I got a lot more than twenty proofs. It's not necessary to read all that. I just want to make a Te point. I looked at proof #4 for example. I don't have to do any creative thinking. It's all there ... logic on the page. There is the perceived diagram (Se) and with some Si memory and rules of logic. The logic is all out there on the page and I have to follow the order with my brain to grasp the proof. That is Te. Would you agree?

Now to Ti. This is a different kind of thinking. Notice the link has actually #118 proofs and there are likely more. Somebody wasn't satisfied with a half dozen proofs. Somebody tried to come up with new ways to prove the theorem. How did they do it? They scanned their experience of impressions and patterns from who-knows-what origins in the outside world (Ne). They thought about how to come up with another proof. I admit Ni must have been involved also. (Ni* precedes good Ti.) That doesn't matter. The point is, it is a different kind of thought. 

*Technically Ni is supposed to be conscious as it is a cognitive function. Was Ni or Ti being used? I'm not sure. My guess is Ne and Ni for perception and Ti for logical order. Ultimately if the Ti is good, it has to be published. Then a review makes it Te. So Ti --> Te.




Tellus said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_gyrus
> 
> The angular gyrus is a region of the brain in the parietal lobe, that lies near the superior edge of the temporal lobe, and immediately posterior to the supramarginal gyrus; it is involved in a number of processes related to language, number processing and spatial cognition, memory retrieval, attention, and theory of mind. It is Brodmann area 39 of the human brain.
> 
> Since 1919, brain injuries to the angular gyrus have been known to often cause arithmetic deficits. Functional imaging has shown that while other parts of the parietal lobe bilaterally are involved in approximate calculations due to its link with spatiovisual abilities, the left angular gyrus together with left Inferior frontal gyrus are involved in exact calculation due to verbal arithmetic fact retrieval. When activation in the left angular gyrus is greater, a person's arithmetic skills are also more competent.
> 
> My point is that Si is not related the parietal lobe, but the occipital lobe.


This sounds like neuroscience. My view of this is it is mostly Se. Thinking went into it, but the what you've written above is observation. I don't know what to say. I compare these observations to a muscle. When we exercise a muscle, the result can be seen, but only in the area of the exercise. If the muscle is torn or missing, it can't be developed. If the muscle has a genetic aspect enabling great development, well good luck to that person. Let them discover that capacity.



> All cognitive functions are about thinking. Thinking with a capital T is just one form of thinking. This is true in Socionics as well as MBTI. Scenario thinking is definitely about Ni, which corresponds to the psychological term 'episodic future thinking'.


Not sure what you mean. Can't we observe something without thinking? Or are you saying that an adult always does pass judgment on what he consciously perceives? If I perceive a fish and dismiss it, do you want to call that thinking? I wouldn't.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Tellus said:


> This is why I claim that Model A, including development of the functions, always is relevant, and you don't. Your viewpoint doesn't make any sense. Did Jung and Aushra miss some important aspects of personality? No, they didn't. We would have noticed some kind of inconsistency in the theory, but we don't. Btw, you obviously cannot mention one single cognition that is excluded from the theories.
> 
> *Socionics is based on information aspects, which cover all kinds of information. And Jung's cognitive processes are matched perfectly (according to socionists) with these information aspects. There is nothing left to consider! *


Who is we? How is that 'we' have nothing left to consider? Why are you so certain that the Model A is always relevant? Why are you certain that it even applies at all? You appear to have great certainty, but the basis for it is not here. Your logic makes perfect sense, given the assumptions underlined here...but how do we know these assumptions are actually applicable? Why do you say that it is? Give me a reason for your beliefs here.


----------



## drmiller100

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Who is we? How is that 'we' have nothing left to consider? Why are you so certain that the Model A is always relevant? Why are you certain that it even applies at all? You appear to have great certainty, but the basis for it is not here. Your logic makes perfect sense, given the assumptions underlined here...but how do we know these assumptions are actually applicable? Why do you say that it is? Give me a reason for your beliefs here.



spoken like a Ti user.


----------



## Endologic

Entropic said:


> That is simply your assumption but I simply don't agree. Jung actually states several times in his works that there are aspects not covered by the functions eg daydreaming. So if you claim daydreaming is a part of Jungian cognition/socionics you are simply making shit up because it suits your interests.


I don't think it's a good idea to instantly reject the idea of it being possible that daydreaming and functions may have a connection.
You see, daydreaming is a form of internal perception. Not sure about you but I'd say it has a direct link to Si and Ni.

When I daydream, I mostly imagine people I know from real life, and I can physically interact with them, as if they were real. I can imagine myself as a God, flying around and using the force and shit, and actually feel the sensation of it, as if it were real. I often even get an adrenaline kick out of my daydreaming sometimes because of that, despite that I know it's not real. I can sometimes even write things or draw pictures onto things in my mind, though this part is weak.

What do you think?


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya

Transcendental knowledge is faster and infinitely larger than the human capacity for logic, anyone with the gift for accessing the domain is going to tear shit up. Like Srinivasa Ramanujan, who literally dreamed his way to making all sorts of incredible discoveries. So Ni - Te is not at all disadvantaged to Ti, even though you could accurately say that Te is about applying what is already known and Ti is about discovering new axioms.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

drmiller100 said:


> spoken like a Ti user.


Umm...thank you? I'm not sure if that is intended as a compliment or an insult, but as I am supposed to be Ti HA I will take it either way! ^^


----------



## drmiller100

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Umm...thank you? I'm not sure if that is intended as a compliment or an insult, but as I am supposed to be Ti HA I will take it either way! ^^


it was meant as an observation. to me, the post was telling. it points out how a Ti user thinks. 

Smiles.....


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

drmiller100 said:


> it was meant as an observation. to me, the post was telling. it points out how a Ti user thinks.
> 
> Smiles.....


Ah, I see. Very well then


----------



## BigApplePi

R.E. Amemiya said:


> Transcendental knowledge is faster and infinitely larger than the human capacity for logic, anyone with the gift for accessing the domain is going to tear shit up. Like Srinivasa Ramanujan, who literally dreamed his way to making all sorts of incredible discoveries. So Ni - Te is not at all disadvantaged to Ti, even though you could accurately say that Te is about applying what is already known and Ti is about discovering new axioms.


That is roughly what I was thinking last night. *Te is about proving theorems; Ti is about discovering them.

*Edit: But what if that is wrong? Don't we have to take into account, Ni and Ne? Are not these indistinguishable in the mind of a mathematician?


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya

drmiller100 said:


> spoken like a Ti user.


Would you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason


----------



## drmiller100

R.E. Amemiya said:


> Would you accept the Principle of Sufficient Reason


I did. 

which is a short answer to a very long issue. as an ENTP i try to figure out how shit works. logic is certainly valid for many things.

as i get older, things logic solves in general no longer interest me. I'm GOOD at logic. I'm GOOD at proofs. I'm GOOD at figuring out how THINGS work.

People fascinate me. no logic. No reason. Just craziness, but oh so fascinating. 

Love fascinates me. no reason behind it. unlimited. only restricted by my consciousness and shortcomings.


----------



## Vahyavishdapaya

BigApplePi said:


> That is roughly what I was thinking last night. *Te is about proving theorems; Ti is about discovering them.
> 
> *Edit: But what if that is wrong? Don't we have to take into account, Ni and Ne? Are not these indistinguishable in the mind of a mathematician?


All people have access to transcendentals, only intuitive types are better at it. So maybe an ISTP would be better at performing abstract mathematics than an ESTJ, but an INTJ is not disadvantaged compared with an INTP. Also sensing types tend to be better at non abstract maths (by which I mean maths that is not performed using abstract reason on pen and paper, but using the senses and the innate mathematical coding within us all). So you'll see sensing types kick ass at subconscious non abstract maths activities like driving a race car or shooting pool.


----------



## drmiller100

R.E. Amemiya said:


> an INTJ is not disadvantaged compared with an INTP. A.


yes they are. 

the INTJ is going to want to know real world applications in order to build their tree of understanding of an issue. 

The intp is more able to jump in and think to think, and be happy when nothing comes out of it.


----------



## Dragheart Luard

drmiller100 said:


> yes they are.
> 
> the INTJ is going to want to know real world applications in order to build their tree of understanding of an issue.
> 
> The intp is more able to jump in and think to think, and be happy when nothing comes out of it.


I get bored when I have to learn maths and I don't know what to actually do with those equations in reality. No wonder that I never bothered with the more abstract stuff from quantum mechanics. So I agree that NeTi types have an easier time getting interested in maths for the sake of it.


----------



## Endologic

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Umm...thank you? I'm not sure if that is intended as a compliment or an insult, but as I am supposed to be Ti HA I will take it either way! ^^


If someone says you have Ti, it is always a compliment.


----------



## BigApplePi

Mordred Phantom said:


> I get bored when I have to learn maths and I don't know what to actually do with those equations in reality. No wonder that I never bothered with the more abstract stuff from quantum mechanics. So I agree that NeTi types have an easier time getting interested in maths for the sake of it.


When I was taking math in school, there were two kinds ... at least. One kind created a system which had a beauty in and of itself. (The opposite of boring.) The other was seemingly unnatural or seemingly artificial math systems. I wasn't told what they were for. Turns out they should have told us what they were for. They were for various applications in physics ... and still things I don't know what for.

Your point is well taken.




drmiller100 said:


> the INTJ is going to want to know real world applications in order to build their tree of understanding of an issue.
> 
> The intp is more able to jump in and think to think, and be happy when nothing comes out of it.


Agreed.


----------



## BigApplePi

Emologic said:


> If someone says you have Ti, it is always a compliment.


In INFJs it is tertiary. If they use their Ti for to support higher functions, I've seen it used for questionable reasons when the Ni is off base.


----------



## drmiller100

Emologic said:


> If someone says you have Ti, it is always a compliment.



the cool thing about Ne is I can see a million sides of an argument, and ALWAYS come up with an exception.

If you have ti, you probably suck at Te, and you can easily spend all your day dreaming and not getting anything DONE.

Te is the kind of getting shit done.


----------



## Tellus

Entropic said:


> That is simply your assumption but I simply don't agree. Jung actually states several times in his works that there are aspects not covered by the functions eg daydreaming. So if you claim daydreaming is a part of Jungian cognition/socionics you are simply making shit up because it suits your interests.


Can you provide a quote that supports your claim?

Daydreaming (Ni-) is a huge part of the IEI personality. You are most likely mistaken.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Tellus said:


> Can you provide a quote that supports your claim?
> 
> Daydreaming (Ni-) is a huge part of the IEI personality. You are most likely mistaken.


I daydream soooooo muuuuuch. Where is it said that daydreaming is IEI, though? Do you have information on these +/- functions you talk about that is very in-depth?


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Who is we? How is that 'we' have nothing left to consider? Why are you so certain that the Model A is always relevant? Why are you certain that it even applies at all? You appear to have great certainty, but the basis for it is not here. Your logic makes perfect sense, given the assumptions underlined here...but how do we know these assumptions are actually applicable? Why do you say that it is? Give me a reason for your beliefs here.


'We' refers to all of us who are interested in Socionics/MBTI/typology.

Model A (or Model D) is always relevant in personality psychology because it covers all kinds of cognitions (which are relevant in this context). You could argue that neuroticism is excluded, but that is about emotions instead of cognitions.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Tellus said:


> 'We' refers to all of us who are interested in Socionics/MBTI/typology.
> 
> Model A (or Model D) is always relevant in personality psychology because it covers all kinds of cognitions (which are relevant in this context). You could argue that neuroticism is excluded, but that is about emotions instead of cognitions.


But if it is always relevant, how relevant is it? To what extent can it be applied, and how do you know? How is it that you can show Model A is insufficient, and show that Model D is both necessary and applicable?

I'd be interested to hear about your thoughts on the interactions of Neuroticism with the Model A/MBTI/Typology in general.

So if I am part of the we, then I must say that some of 'we' still have much to consider.


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I daydream soooooo muuuuuch. Where is it said that daydreaming is IEI, though? Do you have information on these +/- functions you talk about that is very in-depth?


You either think the cognitive functions cover all kinds of information processing (which is relevant to personality theory), or you don't. I think they do, so there are 8 (or 16) alternatives: Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, Ne, Ni, Se and Si. Daydreaming is a kind of episodic thinking, so only Ni and Si could be relevant. Also, daydreaming usually refers to something beyond what actually happened: Ni! 

Why Ni- instead of Ni+? Because daydreaming involves subjects more than objects.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> I have many reactions to what you've brought up. I'd like to make some reflections. First of all my interests. I have a modest acquaintance with the MBTI. None with Socionics, but I welcome it as a perspective on the MBTI. Meanwhile I like to do my own thinking, so if I can propose a better integration of the cognitive functions we've been speaking of, so much the better. What I pick up from your initial post about Ti and Te is to get a handle on those two. I don't like to see Ti or Te left in the lurch without something to tie them together. I'm primarily (INTP) a Ti person.


ok



> First let me address Si and Se because it seems to me immediate perception comes first ... at least in personal history. Se is direct sensory experience, here and now.


This is my view as well. But it is defined differently in Socionics.



> As soon as it is experienced, it has the potential to be retained in memory. It is retained unconsciously.


Not necessarily... it is retained consciously as well.



> If memory is accessed, it becomes Si. Se --> Si. Now we have a handle on both.


No! This is a common view in MBTI. But memory is accessed by all functions. For example, you can remember a scent (Se) without any episodic thinking (Si).



> Thoughts and feelings come later if the senses are experienced first.


What do you mean?



> While we are at it, I'll try for a statement about intuition. Intuition is also perception, but much more diffuse than sensing. It's also harder to describe. Intuition is about patterns and large impressions. If these impressions are about the outside world, as is, Se, that is Ne. If these impressions are about a person's internal world, as is Si, that is Ni. This may not be a satisfactory approach for you, but is the best I can do at the moment.


You are right. It is not satisfactory... you need to explain what you mean by "ouside world" and "internal world". For example, Ni could be you scenario thinking about your next meeting at work/in school, which is clearly about the "outside world". 



> Now to Te and Ti. Quoting myself:
> It is going to be harder to distinguish Ti from Te, but then that is what this thread is about. Thinking is about making orderly statements about perceptions.


Yes.



> I present the Pythagorean Theorem as a perception so we are not talking too abstractly. There is vagueness in such abstractions so getting the idea across is harder. Here is a link about the Pythagorean Theorem.
> Pythagorean Theorem and its many proofs
> When I googled for proofs, I got a lot more than twenty proofs. It's not necessary to read all that. I just want to make a Te point. I looked at proof #4 for example. I don't have to do any creative thinking. It's all there ... logic on the page. There is the perceived diagram (Se) and with some Si memory and rules of logic. The logic is all out there on the page and I have to follow the order with my brain to grasp the proof. That is Te. Would you agree?


Proof 4 is about both Te and Ti. You are also thinking about the relationships between a, b, c, the numbers, the triangles and the squares in order to understand the proof. That is Ti.



> Now to Ti. This is a different kind of thinking. Notice the link has actually #118 proofs and there are likely more. Somebody wasn't satisfied with a half dozen proofs. Somebody tried to come up with new ways to prove the theorem. How did they do it? They scanned their experience of impressions and patterns from who-knows-what origins in the outside world (Ne). They thought about how to come up with another proof. I admit Ni must have been involved also. (Ni* precedes good Ti.) That doesn't matter. The point is, it is a different kind of thought.
> *Technically Ni is supposed to be conscious as it is a cognitive function. Was Ni or Ti being used? I'm not sure. My guess is Ne and Ni for perception and Ti for logical order. Ultimately if the Ti is good, it has to be published. Then a review makes it Te. So Ti --> Te.


I am not sure what you trying to say here.



> This sounds like neuroscience. My view of this is it is mostly Se. Thinking went into it, but the what you've written above is observation. I don't know what to say. I compare these observations to a muscle. When we exercise a muscle, the result can be seen, but only in the area of the exercise. If the muscle is torn or missing, it can't be developed. If the muscle has a genetic aspect enabling great development, well good luck to that person. Let them discover that capacity.


What is Se according to you?



> Not sure what you mean. Can't we observe something without thinking? Or are you saying that an adult always does pass judgment on what he consciously perceives? If I perceive a fish and dismiss it, do you want to call that thinking? I wouldn't.


We can observe things consciously and unconsciously. Both are about thinking.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Tellus said:


> You either think the cognitive functions cover all kinds of information processing (which is relevant to personality theory), or you don't. I think they do, so there are 8 (or 16) alternatives: Fe, Fi, Te, Ti, Ne, Ni, Se and Si. Daydreaming is a kind of episodic thinking, so only Ni and Si could be relevant. Also, daydreaming usually refers to something beyond what actually happened: Ni!
> 
> Why Ni- instead of Ni+? Because daydreaming involves subjects more than objects.


Hm. I don't think either of those things are true - I view typology from each of those perspectives alternately. That is an interesting observation, though; I hadn't realized that I am doing that before. Sometimes I am skeptical and sometimes I accept to further an argument along one line of thought. It all depends on what I think stands to be gained, what knowledge can be gleaned.

Hm. If daydreaming is episodic thinking, then couldn't T functions apply as well? Like, let's say I am daydreaming about a plan I have for later. In that daydream, I imagine what the most likely outcome of an event is, assume that to be true, and then ascertain the logical consequences of that, enabling further extrapolation along this storyline. Wouldn't that sort of thinking be more than just perceptual? If so, how does one break this down? I'd imagine that is Ni-Ti+Te-; Te- because it is removing unlikely scenarios in order to efficiently organize the logical construct and consequences and so on, Ti+ to add in outcomes that make sense, Ni- to form the vision and account for the scenario itself (good and bad). I hope that is clear.

Anyway, given that assumption that it is those functions, it follows that since anyone CAN daydream, a type with lower Ni- and higher Te- would tend towards more realistic daydreams, whereas IEI with low Te would struggle with actually making solid extrapolations about the real world due to a more fantastical thought process; with Ni's help - and experience with the dreams not going the way it was imagined as life experience is gained - the dreams would "tune in" on reality more, and the "ability to foresee long term outcomes" so many descriptions talk about would mature. Since IEI has this daydreaming from a younger age IMO, that would mean this ability probably matures sometime during late teens or during adulthood.

I wasn't clear, I think. I was trying to ask if you can provide me a link or an explanation to explain how these +/- functions work. Could you do that, please? It would help me in our discussions both here and in your Model D thread, I believe; the only source I have on it is rather sparse with specific information, and difficult to parse as well.

BTW, when he said "So Ti --> Te." I believe he means that Logical Personal Construction Of A Thought will become Agreed Upon Objective Logical Model Ready For Use. MBTI Ti to Te stuff.


----------



## drmiller100

Tellus said:


> Can you provide a quote that supports your claim?
> 
> Daydreaming (Ni-) is a huge part of the IEI personality. You are most likely mistaken.


this whole "causal" vs "relational" thing is clearly beyond you.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

drmiller100 said:


> this whole "causal" vs "relational" thing is clearly beyond you.


Mmmm, no, not quite. He has directly stated he believes that all cognitions arise from the IEs. Therefore, from his point of view everything we cover is causal. So he recognizes the difference, and chooses to stand on the causal side of the issue.


----------



## BigApplePi

drmiller100 said:


> the cool thing about Ne is I can see a million sides of an argument, and ALWAYS come up with an exception.
> 
> If you have ti, you probably suck at Te, and you can easily spend all your day dreaming and not getting anything DONE.
> 
> Te is the kind of getting shit done.


I can't say how much I sympathize with this sentiment. How often does seeing those exceptions get you into trouble? They do me.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> This is my view as well. But it is defined differently in Socionics.
> 
> Not necessarily... it is retained consciously as well.
> 
> No! This is a common view in MBTI. But memory is accessed by all functions. For example, you can remember a scent (Se) without any episodic thinking (Si).
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> You are right. It is not satisfactory... you need to explain what you mean by "outside world" and "internal world". For example, Ni could be you[r] scenario thinking about your next meeting at work/in school, which is clearly about the "outside world".
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Proof 4 is about both Te and Ti. You are also thinking about the relationships between a, b, c, the numbers, the triangles and the squares in order to understand the proof. That is Ti.
> 
> I am not sure what you trying to say here.
> 
> What is Se according to you?
> 
> We can observe things consciously and unconsciously. Both are about thinking.


Perhaps it would be better if I tell you where I am at and so some of these discrepancies will come out in the wash.

What I would like to see is a clarification of any of these theories, be they Jung or MBTI or Socionics. They represent the starting points or birth of "cognitive functions." I would like to see a clarification in my own mind and yours if there are discrepancies when we try to look at them directly.

The ultimate goal is to get at the theme of this thread: Ti versus Te. Success is uncertain.

We can divide the human psyche into eight functions. Functions can be cognitive, meaning conscious and focused. Functions can be unconscious meaning background and diffuse. This division itself will be "fuzzy" and has to be defined by scientific observation as to clarity.

We can start with perceptive versus judgmental functions. Perception is observation. Perception can be divided into specific versus general (S vs N). This roughly translates to sense apprehension versus patterns/ impressions-in-the-large apprehension. Perception is immediate and precedes judgment as judgement must have content to judge. 

Judgment gives direction to the perceived. Judgment can be divided into order versus value (T vs F). Order means spacial direction; value means intensity of application. (It is interesting this can be roughly translated into velocity in physics where velocity is direction and speed combined.)

Perception and judgment can further be divided into internal mind versus external world. This roughly translates to introversion vs extroversion but I won't use those words. The external world is the world observable not just to the self but to others, sometimes called the "objectively" viewed world. The internal world is a mapping of the external world observable only within the mind or brain of an individual.

Let's see if the above is clear enough to apply to your post and your comments.
________________________________________________________


Now to Se and Si. We need to agree on these to progress further. Se is immediate apprehension with our senses. True enough, it (and all the other functions) is retained in memory. But once it gets there, withdrawing from memory is going to be imperfect. We can experience a scent, but memory of that scent can be distorted even if very close. The scent sense is usually very close, but much less so senses like sound and sight. The way I would describe it, is our immediate external experience of the outside world gets mapped into memory locations in the brain. It's a map and that map is not only subject to imperfect representation, but to distortions by the influence of "adjacent" related memories. Our brain is complex and hard to control. The greater the experience, the more we can hone our memories to match the outside world. This is not a given to be taken for granted. Like all maps, there is a one-to-one correspondence between points in the map and areas in the external world.

Now to language. How are we going to use these words Si and Se? If we sense right now the outside world, that is Se. If we refer to it five minutes from now, our memory is still pretty good. No time for distortion. We can still call it Se. If we recall a sense and it has gotten involved with other functions (as well as similar senses) so it is pulled out of memory dragging other functions into it, that is Si. The sense recalled has now been imbedded in the internal memory map.

I will stop here to see if you agree with the above before responding to the rest of your post.


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Mmmm, no, not quite. He has directly stated he believes that all cognitions arise from the IEs.


Yes. The cognitive functions are eight sets of cognitions. Are there any aspects of our personality that Aushra and Jung missed? NJET!



> Therefore, from his point of view everything we cover is causal. So he recognizes the difference, and chooses to stand on the causal side of the issue.


This is accurate, but I do not claim that Model A/Model D explains everything in personality psychology. Big Five is more precise in some situations.


----------



## Tellus

drmiller100 said:


> this whole "causal" vs "relational" thing is clearly beyond you.


Is Fenix explanation good enough? Do you understand my point of view? Do you still disagree with me?


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> But if it is always relevant, how relevant is it? To what extent can it be applied, and how do you know?


It is alway relevant when we are discussing peronality types/theory. It is not relevant for a surgeon in his profession.



> How is it that you can show Model A is insufficient, and show that Model D is both necessary and applicable?


Both are always relevant in personality type/theory, but Model D is more precise. It is simply not true that ILI deals with plus aspects of Ti in a sophisticated manner. It is simply not true that IEI acts confidently at a busy party (SeFi).



> I'd be interested to hear about your thoughts on the interactions of Neuroticism with the Model A/MBTI/Typology in general.


There could be a relationship between neuroticism and N and H subtypes in DCNH, or XXX-8/9/10, x in my subtype system. But I am not sure.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Tellus said:


> It is alway relevant when we are discussing peronality types/theory. It is not relevant for a surgeon in his profession.
> 
> 
> 
> Both are always relevant in personality type/theory, but Model D is more precise. It is simply not true that ILI deals with plus aspects of Ti in a sophisticated manner. It is simply not true that IEI acts confidently at a busy party (SeFi).
> 
> 
> 
> There could be a relationship between neuroticism and N and H subtypes in DCNH, or XXX-8/9/10, x in my subtype system. But I am not sure.


OK. I see where you are coming from, here. But now I must repeat a question, and clarify it. It seems to me that you have a very specific and strong belief that the typology system is correct, and that it is correct in a _certain way_ (Hence your Model D). My question is how do you know that these functions that we are discussing both: Exist in the first place, and exist in the limited and specified form that we are discussing?

For example, what if there is a third category halfway between Static and Dynamic that merges the meanings of the two, thus creating a third Thinking, Feeling, Intuitive, Sensing function set that we would probably have to label (potentially inaccurately) ambiverted? Since Ti is characterized as Static and Te Dynamic, this third function would represent a function that is midway between this polarization. Because of this nature, it would most likely lack conviction or certainty in its output - it is not Subjective or Objective, but somewhere between. Now say further that this function is used only by those who have low thinking overall, precisely because it is less certain. Now a feeling type may have this kind of logic instead of the other two, and thus explain why the logic is less effective.

The essential idea here is that it is certainly possible to spitball a hundred and one new systems that may explain human functioning. I'm not going to, this should be sufficient. So what is your platform, specifically, for your understanding of Te vs. Ti and the use of Model A/Model D in actual day to day life? Is it that you can observe functioning that the model explains? That you have somehow observed the functions themselves? I need to get at your essential assumptions here to better gauge where we stand in this conversation. 


Ah, and neuroticism. I do think you have a point there. I'm mildly neurotic myself (I think it was 21% above the midline), and I do identify more with the N/H subtypes. Hmmm. I'll think about that.


----------



## BigApplePi

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> For example, what if there is a third category halfway between Static and Dynamic that merges the meanings of the two, thus creating a third Thinking, Feeling, Intuitive, Sensing function set that we would probably have to label (potentially inaccurately) ambiverted?


Are you talking some strange language here? Static means not moving; dynamic means moving/ changing. If something is moving at rate X, half-way between zero and X would be X/2. X/2 is still moving but more slowly.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

BigApplePi said:


> Are you talking some strange language here? Static means not moving; dynamic means moving/ changing. If something is moving at rate X, half-way between zero and X would be X/2. X/2 is still moving but more slowly.


static and dynamic in socionics is traits; halfway between the traits.


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> OK. I see where you are coming from, here. But now I must repeat a question, and clarify it. It seems to me that you have a very specific and strong belief that the typology system is correct, and that it is correct in a certain way (Hence your Model D). My question is how do you know that these functions that we are discussing both: Exist in the first place, and exist in the limited and specified form that we are discussing?


Because the descriptions of the Jungian functions are general and/or vague enough. If you are not making decisions about people (Fe, Fi) or tasks/objects (Te, Ti), then what are you making decisions about? And the functions are directly linked to the dichotomies, which we know describe 16 distinctly different personalities.



> For example, what if there is a third category halfway between Static and Dynamic that merges the meanings of the two, thus creating a third Thinking, Feeling, Intuitive, Sensing function set that we would probably have to label (potentially inaccurately) ambiverted? Since Ti is characterized as Static and Te Dynamic, this third function would represent a function that is midway between this polarization. Because of this nature, it would most likely lack conviction or certainty in its output - it is not Subjective or Objective, but somewhere between. Now say further that this function is used only by those who have low thinking overall, precisely because it is less certain. Now a feeling type may have this kind of logic instead of the other two, and thus explain why the logic is less effective.


Those are definitions! You can come up with a third category, sure, but you will get more than 8 information aspects.

I don't use information aspects in Model D. 

You cannot choose any descriptions of the Jungian functions, like something in between Ti and Te, because the 'i' and 'e' mean specific things.



> The essential idea here is that it is certainly possible to spitball a hundred and one new systems that may explain human functioning.


It is not that easy... the functions must correpond with our observations.



> I'm not going to, this should be sufficient. So what is your platform, specifically, for your understanding of Te vs. Ti and the use of Model A/Model D in actual day to day life? Is it that you can observe functioning that the model explains?


Yes, of course. It is about both theory and observations. 

Here's an example: you are going to solve some mathematical equations. Which functions do you use? Can you explain this with Model A? It has to be logic combined with intuition, right? Will the information always pass through Fe and Fi according to you?



> That you have somehow observed the functions themselves? I need to get at your essential assumptions here to better gauge where we stand in this conversation.



Yes, I have observed the cogitive processes which are described by Jung and Berens (and Aushra, and other socionists).


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> static and dynamic in socionics is traits; halfway between the traits.


Static/dynamic is a fundamental dichotomy in Socionics, which is used to define information aspects. For example, information aspect L (Ti) corresponds to 'external statics of fields'.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Tellus said:


> It is not that easy... the functions must correpond with our observations.


That's rather what I am trying to get at here - I have observed people behaving in ways the IEs can explain, but I have not seen the IEs. How do we know that cognition actually corresponds to, say, external statics of fields? What if any one of these components that we believe correspond to this function actually don't? I can easily work within the system if I assume the system is correct, and it does match my observations of people, but it does not explain how people are actually functioning on the inside - it explains possible reasons for observed behaviors. I can similarly come up with other frameworks that explain the observations, but none of these show that the observation and the cognition fully coincide that I have seen. Correlation only at this level. 

So, you have stated that IEI clearly does not show comfort at a large party, and this correlates to SeFi in a specific way. This observed behavior is easily spotted in a lot of those that people would type as IEI. But is this observed behavior actually linked to SeFi? From what I can tell, you are saying that the observed thing itself corresponds to an understanding you hold of what SeFi are and what they do. So what if cognition doesn't work that way, and there is actually instead GeXiDi that explains this phenemon, and these three things are comprised of combinations of other observable things - but no one has defined these things? 

So, the question is. Why - why do you use the JCFs for this? What in particular do you see in JCF that makes them more accurate/reliable/usable compared to IEs, Enneagram types, Big Five, etc. What is at the root of your understanding that leads to the conclusions that you draw?



Tellus said:


> Here's an example: you are going to solve some mathematical equations. Which functions do you use? Can you explain this with Model A? It has to be logic combined with intuition, right? Will the information always pass through Fe and Fi according to you?


If I am going to solve some mathematical equations, then the functions used depend on the method that I take for the solving, and the specific kind of mathematical equation. I'd hazard that geometry or engineering type equations are best solved by a Pe function with Ti, especially Ne with on paper or Se with an actual object to be manipulated. Te would work better with an end goal to be accomplished, using experience and know how to achieve and solve any problems on the way. Fi/Fe for a word problem involving people, and it may go outside the problem - like baking an apple pie instead of dividing 5 apples between 4 people. Then everyone gets two pieces and they get to help out and work together on the pie. Each function approaches a given problem differently, if I assume that I am to use this set of functions. I could pour out some stereotypes, but honestly I think I don't need to at this point. I think I'm being clear enough.

In other words, I would say that the end result achieved depends on the functions engaged, and the information passes through whatever information processing matrix the person employs. If a person knows how to employ a different paradiigm - such as having learned how to deal with a specific kind of math problem - then that paradigm is available for use. Even a nonlogical type can pass school and go on to work in a logical field. We are playing with likelihoods and big pictures here, so we need to talk about whether we think that a *type* lacks the capability, or whether the type *usually does not attain it*. Either way we must question why. Do we assume that a person doesn't do things because their cognition does not allow for it - that some types of cognition are alien to them and too difficult to engage long term? Or do we assume that cognitions strengthen with use, and thus a type can go outside the 'norm' of their type with sufficient willpower and determination? Is type predictive? Adaptive? Restrictive? Descriptive? Are we enabled to deal with the world with innate strengths and weaknesses that life experience and hard knocks develop? Or are we born with deficiencies, and avoid our own weaknesses, forever indulging our strengths?

With Model A, I don't believe that is possible. The functions cannot be so restrictive. There is something more to it.

With Model D, it does seem to me that you are attempting to show *why* types go outside the Model A framework. So is that you are trying to totally define the type with total accuracy? Or is that you are exploring the framework and stepping outside it by expanding into a new one? Is it that you think the +- associations of it are actually separate functions entirely (that there are essentially 16 types of cognition)? If that last is the case, is the Ti+ of one type identical to the Ti+ of another in every way if it is also at the same dimensionality? What exactly is it that you are saying is true about types, functions, interactions, and the overall destiny of a human and their potential?




Tellus said:


> Yes, I have observed the cogitive processes which are described by Jung and Berens (and Aushra, and other socionists).


Aaaaah, I see. That addresses some of what I wrote above, but I'll leave it anyway to better illustrate my thought processes.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Perhaps it would be better if I tell you where I am at and so some of these discrepancies will come out in the wash.
> What I would like to see is a clarification of any of these theories, be they Jung or MBTI or Socionics. They represent the starting points or birth of "cognitive functions." I would like to see a clarification in my own mind and yours if there are discrepancies when we try to look at them directly.
> The ultimate goal is to get at the theme of this thread: Ti versus Te. Success is uncertain.


This thread is about different aspects of mathematics. We are trying to figure out what belongs to Ti and Te.



> We can divide the human psyche into eight functions. Functions can be cognitive, meaning conscious and focused. Functions can be unconscious meaning background and diffuse. This division itself will be "fuzzy" and has to be defined by scientific observation as to clarity.


Read more about mental and vital functions on the School of System Socionics website. That is my view as well.



> We can start with perceptive versus judgmental functions. Perception is observation. Perception can be divided into specific versus general (S vs N). This roughly translates to sense apprehension versus patterns/ impressions-in-the-large apprehension. Perception is immediate and precedes judgment as judgement must have content to judge.
> 
> Judgment gives direction to the perceived. Judgment can be divided into order versus value (T vs F). Order means spacial direction; value means intensity of application. (It is interesting this can be roughly translated into velocity in physics where velocity is direction and speed combined.)


Okay, so what exactly do you mean by "spacial direction" and "intesity of application"?




> Perception and judgment can further be divided into internal mind versus external world. This roughly translates to introversion vs extroversion but I won't use those words. The external world is the world observable not just to the self but to others, sometimes called the "objectively" viewed world. The internal world is a mapping of the external world observable only within the mind or brain of an individual.


Do you mean that Ne only deals with the external world? So that you cannot connect one fantasy with another fanstasy?



> Now to Se and Si. We need to agree on these to progress further. Se is immediate apprehension with our senses. True enough, it (and all the other functions) is retained in memory. But once it gets there, withdrawing from memory is going to be imperfect. We can experience a scent, but memory of that scent can be distorted even if very close. The scent sense is usually very close, but much less so senses like sound and sight. The way I would describe it, is our immediate external experience of the outside world gets mapped into memory locations in the brain. It's a map and that map is not only subject to imperfect representation, but to distortions by the influence of "adjacent" related memories. Our brain is complex and hard to control. The greater the experience, the more we can hone our memories to match the outside world. This is not a given to be taken for granted. Like all maps, there is a one-to-one correspondence between points in the map and areas in the external world.
> Now to language. How are we going to use these words Si and Se? If we sense right now the outside world, that is Se. If we refer to it five minutes from now, our memory is still pretty good. No time for distortion. We can still call it Se. If we recall a sense and it has gotten involved with other functions (as well as similar senses) so it is pulled out of memory dragging other functions into it, that is Si. The sense recalled has now been imbedded in the internal memory map.


I disagree with this (and MBTI) ... Si is not a special memory function. There is no "dragging other function into it". My view is that Si is about episodic thinking. Se is not.


----------



## Tellus

myst91 said:


> I corrected that part because you equated MBTI and Socionics type incorrectly. It's not against you personally, if anyone does it and I see it, I will point it out.
> J. = Jung? Seriously though, who were you referring to?
> He believes in the j/p switch method to translate between the two systems just because he read about it somewhere. I disagree that this method would be correct. In many cases it is not. You can check out Lytov's article too, as linked for Tellus a few lines above.


I certain J. on this forum was obsessed with the j/p switch.

It depends on what we are referring to. If we are referring to 'best fit type' for a person, then yes, the j/p switch is the best method. A logical person, let's say someone who tested INTP in MBTI, is also a logical person in the Socionics system. But if we are referring to an identical conversion between the systems, then the j/p switch (or any other method) is pointless. Why? 1) The function order is different 2) The descriptions of the IM elements / functions are different.



> Socionists also do not, check out Lytov: Introduction into Socionics


Provide a quote! I will not/cannot guess what you are referring to.



> OK well in this case here's my comment, 1st one (multiplication table) can be Ti as well. Augusta: "We call 'logical' those feelings that arise from the process of comparing one object to another on the basis of some objective criteria — for example, a sense of distance, weight, volume, worth, strength, quality, etc. (...) All these feelings we shall call logical." I most certainly have such logical "feelings" for multiplications too.


Yes, as a child, when you are learning/guessing that 4x4 is 16, then it is about Ti. But once it is a fact, then you are not using Ti. It is either Te or Si. My current view is that facts are about Si. Berens' descriptions of the functions correspond well with mine.



> 2nd one: if the rules are treated with reasons for them then can be Ti again.


What do you mean?



> 3rd one: I don't know how Te can view this one but it should be able to, say, by using those rules for equations?


??? Some examples



> 4th one: What do we mean by mathematical object? I don't think visualizing itself is IE related. The information held in the visualization is what would be IE related.
> I do "visualize" (in a sense) logical maps of situations and relations in them. It's not a visualization of separate objects, which is what your wording sounded like.


Visualizing (and auditory...) is the same as perceiving. You are recalling a concrete or an abstract object. It is either Si or Ni. I was wrong about this one. My current view is that the visualization of a recalled object is "held" in the working memory, and then it is evaluated by Ti.


----------



## Tellus

Peter said:


> Thanks for that.
> That helps understand the difference between MBTI / JUNG and socionics a bit better. I guess I'm not looking at the functions as something that describes everything that happens in the brain. I don't see how motor control for example is one of the 8 cognitive functions we're talking about or a combination of those 8. The same goes for talking which is motor controll too I guess. Hearing is the same, it's just a process in the brain.


But motor control is not directly related to personality traits. I do not claim that the Jungian functions cover all possible cognitions. For example, muscle memory is not directly related to Se (piano players rely a lot on muscle memory).



> The 8 cognitive functions only come into play when it gets to the level of interpreting and judging the information that is coming in. Not the process of receiving the information. The interface is irrelevant so to say.


What do you mean? 

Your ears and eyes receive information which is then processed by the Jungian cognitive functions.



> Obviously there are no clear cut bounderies between the 8 functions and other processes in the brain. But in my opinion, math is not one of the 8th functions, nor a combination of them. It just doesn't make sense.


But then you must explain why these descriptions of Ti are not related to those processes in the brain that deal with mathematics.

Introverted Thinking - (Ti)

_"Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what's observed."_


----------



## Peter

Tellus said:


> But motor control is not directly related to personality traits. I do not claim that the Jungian functions cover all possible cognitions. For example, muscle memory is not directly related to Se (piano players rely a lot on muscle memory).


Muscle Memory happens in the cerebellum. The cerebellum is hardly involved in any jungian cognitive functions.




Tellus said:


> What do you mean?
> 
> Your ears and eyes receive information which is then processed by the Jungian cognitive functions.


There still is a processing of the information that comes from eyes and ears before the data has been processed to the point where it starts to have meaning. From the ears for example, the data is just a frequency spectrum when it enters the brain. From that frequency spectrum the brain detects (previously learned) patterns. Once the patterns are identified, the cognitive functions really start to process the incomming data.




Tellus said:


> But then you must explain why these descriptions of Ti are not related to those processes in the brain that deal with mathematics.
> 
> Introverted Thinking - (Ti)
> 
> _"Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what's observed."_


There's a difference between doing math and learning math. Learning a new skill does involve cognitive functions. Learning how to walk for example will be done differently depending on type. But once you know how to walk and your brain is just applying the learned skill, it becomes a basic process.

I think for math it's pretty much the same thing. We don't use cognitive functions when we do a bit of math. When we´re learning math our preferences do have an influence. I know people who treat numbers as pictures and their brains do math differently from my brain, but a simple thing like 8 times 5 comes straight from memory. Muscle memory isn't memory in the muscles, it's memory in the brain. It's similar. Though musclememory comes more from the cerebellum and mathematical memory resides in the neocortext.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

@Peter

While I am not taking sides here, I do feel that I should point this out, as it is relevant to the debate going on here.

The cerebellum houses at least part of the human intuition. There have been some recent scholarly articles on this, to the point that simply googling intuition and cerebellum will turn some up.

This is an example: The Cerebellum: Quality Control, Creativity, Intuition, and Unconscious Working Memory - Springer

Heh, the only reason I know this is because I play a tabletop RPG called Shadowrun, which has implants and augments for improving the human body. One of them is the Cerebellum Booster, which augments Intuition. So I looked it up and found that there is some link, though by no means definitive like the game presents it.


----------



## Peter

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> @*Peter*
> 
> While I am not taking sides here, I do feel that I should point this out, as it is relevant to the debate going on here.
> 
> The cerebellum houses at least part of the human intuition. There have been some recent scholarly articles on this, to the point that simply googling intuition and cerebellum will turn some up.
> 
> This is an example: The Cerebellum: Quality Control, Creativity, Intuition, and Unconscious Working Memory - Springer
> 
> Heh, the only reason I know this is because I play a tabletop RPG called Shadowrun, which has implants and augments for improving the human body. One of them is the Cerebellum Booster, which augments Intuition. So I looked it up and found that there is some link, though by no means definitive like the game presents it.


Oh yes, the cerebellum does a lot more than just automated motor control. But think of the fact that an alligator for example, only has a cerebellum. They don't have the aditional cortexes that mamals and humans have. Does an alligator have cognitive functions like Thinking and Feeling, or iNtuition and Sensing? I'm sure in some primitive way they do, but we wouldn't an alligator's cognitive functions at the level of human cognitive functions.

The cerebellum still has an important task. You wouldn't be able for example to make smooth fast movements with your hands without the cerebellum.

But I just used the cerebellum as an example to show that the brain does more than just cognitive functions. And that is my point in this thread. Not all functions of the brain can be described by the Jungian cognitive functions. There is a lot more going on.


----------



## myst91

Peter said:


> The MBTI being a simple model is what I like about it. I realize that that means it doesn't go as detailed or specific, but that's fine, prefered even. Someone's complete personality is partially hidden anyway, even to him/her self. The main thing I got from the MBTI is an explanation for why other people are so different in their reasoning and behaviour. Actually that came from understanding the functions. The MBTI is just a framework, a way to organize the functions. I'm guessing that socionics also is a framework.
> 
> From what I read, the MBTI is presented in a more technical way than socionics which explains why some people prefer one over the other. (because after all, people are people, not machines. :smile
> 
> But it's clear now that, even though socionics and the mbti have some differences beween how they interprete the functions,... there's nothing in either framework that says the functions can be used to explain all processes in the brain. There is more going on in the brain than just the functions.


What do you mean by MBTI being the more technical one ???

Yeah, its simplicity is cool as long as you keep to the dichotomies level without bothering with the 4-function model too much. It kinda falls apart at that point if you care about it being logical  But it's fine for the four "letters" (dichotomies). 

Or if you don't mind it introducing logical inconsistencies and the terribly rudimentary ideas on function positions then this MBTI 4-function model is also okayish. I do mind and originally I actually never managed to make sense out of that crappy model, I just couldn't make myself try. I was only able to get into Socionics to make sense of it... then when I returned to MBTI I could see where it was going wrong. So I made sense of it only by seeing the logical errors.




Tellus said:


> I certain J. on this forum was obsessed with the j/p switch.


I don't know who you are referring to. Anyway, not just a minority. You'd maybe like to believe that for some reason but nah. Even on this forum quite a few people looked past the j/p switch idea floating around.




> It depends on what we are referring to. If we are referring to 'best fit type' for a person, then yes, the j/p switch is the best method. A logical person, let's say someone who tested INTP in MBTI, is also a logical person in the Socionics system. But if we are referring to an identical conversion between the systems, then the j/p switch (or any other method) is pointless. Why? 1) The function order is different 2) The descriptions of the IM elements / functions are different.


No, j/p switch isn't all that good even for just best fit type.

That person who tested INTP by a MBTI _dichotomy _test might actually be an INTp in Socionics. Etc.




> Provide a quote! I will not/cannot guess what you are referring to.


Don't be so lazy to read, it doesn't require guessing. 

But ok here you go:

_"Method 2.

Let us accept the viewpoint of Isabel Myers that the judgment/perception criterion is not the same as rationality/irrationality but something different: the judging types are rational extraverts + irrational introverts, and the perceiving – vice versa.

What can we say? Such an approach leads to much greater misunderstanding. It does not only contradict to Jung – after all, Jung lived long ago, and there were many uncertainties in his typology and in his ides in general. But when we start comparing descriptions of the socionic types with the corresponding American descriptions, then we will find that ISFP (socionic) = ISFP (MBTT) and not ISFJ (MBTT), and the same rule is valid for the rest of sensory introverted types. The situation is more complicated with introverted intuitive types, but well, this rule is also invalid."_

This rejects the j/p switch idea. Also points out how MBTI fundamentally departs from Jung, but even if we disregard the incompatibility with Jung, the j/p switch has other problems too.

The fun thing is, I, and several other people got to this same conclusion independently without reading Lytov. Including how the case for ISxx somewhat differs from the case for INxx. That has its reasons of course.




> Yes, as a child, when you are learning/guessing that 4x4 is 16, then it is about Ti. But once it is a fact, then you are not using Ti. It is either Te or Si. My current view is that facts are about Si. Berens' descriptions of the functions correspond well with mine.


I definitely still use the logical "feelings" when I multiply 4 with 4. It's not just a plain recall of a rote-memorized fact.

"Fact" is a pretty general word here really. I would link it with external IEs, any of the Sensing or Logic IEs.




> What do you mean?


Ti creates rules too with its own reasoning for them. Internally analyzing out the logical reasons for them, or even "feeling" them out so to speak, and then creating the rules based on these reasons. That gives it its subjectivity but at the same time it's still a Rational function.

Now again, if you just memorize the rule of how to break down an equation... that'll be Te, yes.




> ??? Some examples


A Te rule here could be "add all instances of x together on each side of the equation".

(Again, this can be Ti, if it comes from internal reasoning.)




> Visualizing (and auditory...) is the same as perceiving. You are recalling a concrete or an abstract object. It is either Si or Ni. I was wrong about this one. My current view is that the visualization of a recalled object is "held" in the working memory, and then it is evaluated by Ti.


No, visualizing does not have to be Perceiving. I can visualize logical maps and it's still logical reasoning and not actually containing any element of sensing or intuiting. 




> Introverted Thinking - (Ti)
> 
> "Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a "leverage point" that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what's observed."


Lol the part on taking things apart to figure out how they work... sounds so similar to the Te in the Te suggestive quote earlier. "Especially gets influenced by the facts that he sees with his own eyes or can touch with own hands." Direct logic of an object, essentially. 

And, evaluate the likely accuracy? Again, that doesn't really jive with how I think. I'm a bit more of a nazi about my logical maps.  Precision over accuracy in this sense. Though sure if I have to, I'll just go for "likely accuracy". So this depends on the situation obviously.


----------



## Jamaia

Tellus said:


> Yes, as a child, when you are learning/guessing that 4x4 is 16, then it is about Ti. But once it is a fact, then you are not using Ti. It is either Te or Si. My current view is that facts are about Si. Berens' descriptions of the functions correspond well with mine.





myst91 said:


> I definitely still use the logical "feelings" when I multiply 4 with 4. It's not just a plain recall of a rote-memorized fact.


I always count, even 2-1. I see two blocks/cubes that cover the first 2/10 of a number line (from 0 to 10), moving the latter cube away I have 1/10 left. I'm slightly faster to do it than when I was just learning maths as a child, but I still do it like that. Same with multiplication, I see blocks that I can divide up and move around in many ways and how far they reach when stacked with out "air" in between them is the correct number. Not unlike Tetris, really. Haven't ever bothered much with memorizing the tables. Actually, if I'm honest my memory says "4x4 is probably more than 12, unless it is 9". I don't trust my memory to know any maths.


----------



## myst91

Jamaia said:


> I always count, even 2-1. I see two blocks/cubes that cover the first 2/10 of a number line (from 0 to 10), moving the latter cube away I have 1/10 left. I'm slightly faster to do it than when I was just learning maths as a child, but I still do it like that. Same with multiplication, I see blocks that I can divide up and move around in many ways and how far they reach when stacked with out "air" in between them is the correct number. Not unlike Tetris, really. Haven't ever bothered much with memorizing the tables. Actually, if I'm honest my memory says "4x4 is probably more than 12, unless it is 9". I don't trust my memory to know any maths.


Are you Te PoLR in Socionics by any chance? I know a few IEIs who typed ENTP originally in MBTI. 

Anyway, that's interesting though it's not how I feel out the result. 4x4 gives me the feeling of the approximate quantity for 4x4 and it strongly facilitates recall of the answer (16) while I also have some spatial sense of the numbers related to the question. 

Doing 2 - 1, I would "see"/"feel" the quantities and that spatial quality along with them moves me to the right answer. The spatial quality also includes some abstraction of/from the number line. I don't see explicit blocks or cubes on a number line.


----------



## Jamaia

myst91 said:


> Are you Te PoLR in Socionics by any chance? I know a few IEIs who typed ENTP originally in MBTI.
> 
> Anyway, that's interesting though it's not how I feel out the result. 4x4 gives me the feeling of the approximate quantity for 4x4 and it strongly facilitates recall of the answer (16) while I also have some spatial sense of the numbers related to the question.
> 
> Doing 2 - 1, I would "see"/"feel" the quantities and that spatial quality along with them moves me to the right answer. The spatial quality also includes some abstraction of/from the number line. I don't see explicit blocks or cubes on a number line.


I don't know about PoLR (I'm going to go read the topic Te PoLR now), I've just found Ne-ILE description to fit me very well, but honestly I haven't looked much beyond that.


----------



## BigApplePi

I'm a little rusty having returned from vacation. Continuing ...


Tellus said:


> Thinking is essentially about ordering. I don't disagree with you on that.
> 
> But is every judgement that does not use "force" an "ordering"? For example, you decide to eat an apple (which is about desires), is that F or T according to your definitions?


It depends on what is going on. If I'm given a table of fruits and asked bluntly to choose not being hungry, I might be thinking. If I have apples on my mind and dying to eat one, that might be feeling. I could be using either judgments. Aside from those extremes, if I pick up an apple I may not be using conscious ordering or desire at all. It might be just the sensation of appetite without conscious judgment. 





Tellus said:


> Fe (and Fi) does not only verbally express something. It also reads tone of voice, body language and facial expressions. And Feeling (with a captial F) does not equate to feelings (or emotions). It is a cognitive process.





BigApplePi said:


> That is fine. I agree.





> Okay, but that forces you to go back to the drawing board, doesn't it?


No. Tone of voice, etc are sensation cognitive functions. Weren't we talking about thinking and feeling?




> Feeling/emotions are not the same thing as the Jungian cognitive function Feeling. If you already knew that, then forget about my comment.


 I don't remember the specifics of our conversation. I don't regard Jung as a God. If I can define feelings (as opposed to thinking) as a force, then that's my language. If "force" is better, I will use it. One may think of feelings as emotion or desire or hormonal chemistry but I see "force" as more clear. Force = valuation judgment.





> I agree with this, but I think we also have to include desires and the need for self-actualization / knowledge when we are defining Fe/Fi.


I'm looking at that sentence only. I see self-actualization as an ideal. People in general can use Fe/Fi without that ideal. I want to leave out self-actualization.


----------



## Tellus

Peter said:


> Muscle Memory happens in the cerebellum. The cerebellum is hardly involved in any jungian cognitive functions.


I: "muscle memory is _not directly_"

But the more someone uses Se, i.e. is physically active, the more he/she is dependent on muscle memory.



> There still is a processing of the information that comes from eyes and ears before the data has been processed to the point where it starts to have meaning. From the ears for example, the data is just a frequency spectrum when it enters the brain. From that frequency spectrum the brain detects (previously learned) patterns. Once the patterns are identified, the cognitive functions really start to process the incomming data.


Let's assume that you are right about this. Are the cognitions/processes before the identification related to personality traits? If no, what is your point?



> There's a difference between doing math and learning math. Learning a new skill does involve cognitive functions.


What do you mean by "doing math"? 

Okay, so you agree that math is about cognitive functions (Ti in particular) after all.



> Learning how to walk for example will be done differently depending on type. But once you know how to walk and your brain is just applying the learned skill, it becomes a basic process.


Learning to walk (and other voluntary motions) is related to Se, yes. But it is not as if Se suddenly disappears. The process becomes unconscious. Furthermore, I big part of walking is about motor control (cerebellum) which is not directly related to Se.



> I think for math it's pretty much the same thing. We don't use cognitive functions when we do a bit of math. When we´re learning math our preferences do have an influence.


Again, what do you mean by "doing math"?



> I know people who treat numbers as pictures and their brains do math differently from my brain, but a simple thing like 8 times 5 comes straight from memory.
> Muscle memory isn't memory in the muscles, it's memory in the brain. It's similar. Though musclememory comes more from the cerebellum and mathematical memory resides in the neocortext.


This corresponds with OP. But my current view is that Si is directly related to memory, not Te.

The multiplication table is all about memory.


----------



## Tellus

Jamaia said:


> I always count, even 2-1. I see two blocks/cubes that cover the first 2/10 of a number line (from 0 to 10), moving the latter cube away I have 1/10 left. I'm slightly faster to do it than when I was just learning maths as a child, but I still do it like that. Same with multiplication, I see blocks that I can divide up and move around in many ways and how far they reach when stacked with out "air" in between them is the correct number. Not unlike Tetris, really. Haven't ever bothered much with memorizing the tables. Actually, if I'm honest my memory says "4x4 is probably more than 12, unless it is 9". I don't trust my memory to know any maths.


Interesting... so you didn't learn the multiplication table in school?

People use different methods to do math, there is no doubt about that. However, the logical processes are always related to either Te or Ti. You are describing the Ti process/es.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> I'm a little rusty having returned from vacation. Continuing ...It depends on what is going on. If I'm given a table of fruits and asked bluntly to choose not being hungry, I might be thinking. If I have apples on my mind and dying to eat one, that might be feeling. I could be using either judgments.


But you don't include desires in your definition of Feeling. It is about emotional "force", right?

How can you "choose not being hungry"?



> Aside from those extremes, if I pick up an apple I may not be using conscious ordering or desire at all. It might be just the sensation of appetite without conscious judgment.


Okay, but we use the cognitive functions unconsciously as well. You must make a decision in order to change your behavior.



> No. Tone of voice, etc are sensation cognitive functions. Weren't we talking about thinking and feeling?


Perceiving tone of voice is Sensing, but evaluating (the meaning of) tone of voice is Feeling.



> I don't remember the specifics of our conversation. I don't regard Jung as a God. If I can define feelings (as opposed to thinking) as a force, then that's my language. If "force" is better, I will use it. One may think of feelings as emotion or desire or hormonal chemistry but I see "force" as more clear. Force = valuation judgment.


You using "force" for your personal understanding is one thing. But we are discussing a general definition which we all can agree upon.



> I'm looking at that sentence only. I see self-actualization as an ideal. People in general can use Fe/Fi without that ideal. I want to leave out self-actualization.


My point is that Fe/Fi reads (the meaning of) body language, tone of voice and facial expressions. But those facial expressions etc. are not just rooted in emotional needs, but also desires and a need for self-actualization, a need for knowledge and esteem needs.


----------



## Jamaia

Tellus said:


> Interesting... so you didn't learn the multiplication table in school?
> 
> People use different methods to do math, there is no doubt about that. However, the logical processes are always related to either Te or Ti. You are describing the Ti process/es.


I did pass the tests, but I didn't really memorize them as thoroughly as we were supposed to. I think I mostly practiced the Ti process to make it faster. Like what steps to use to quickly arrive at an answer. You know like 7x9 is 7x10-7x1, rather than going through steps 7x5+7x4 or 9x10-9x3.


----------



## Tellus

myst91 said:


> I don't know who you are referring to. Anyway, not just a minority. You'd maybe like to believe that for some reason but nah. Even on this forum quite a few people looked past the j/p switch idea floating around.


They have looked past and missed the obvious/logical conclusion that a very logical person in the U.S. is also a very logical person in Russia. 



> No, j/p switch isn't all that good even for just best fit type.
> That person who tested INTP by a MBTI dichotomy test might actually be an INTp in Socionics. Etc.


You really don't seem to understand _how dominant_ the Leading function is. If you did then you would agree with me. 

You claim this about your type: Official MBTI, ISTJ. Socionics, LSI-Se This means that you actually don't know your type.



> Don't be so lazy to read, it doesn't require guessing.


Do you want me to read some meaningless and pointless links that you have found? lol



> "Method 2.
> Let us accept the viewpoint of Isabel Myers that the judgment/perception criterion is not the same as rationality/irrationality but something different: the judging types are rational extraverts + irrational introverts, and the perceiving – vice versa.


OMG! If judgement is not the same as rationality, then judging types are NOT "rational extroverts" etc!!! 



> What can we say? Such an approach leads to much greater misunderstanding. It does not only contradict to Jung – after all, Jung lived long ago, and there were many uncertainties in his typology and in his ides in general. But when we start comparing descriptions of the socionic types with the corresponding American descriptions, then we will find that ISFP (socionic) = ISFP (MBTT) and not ISFJ (MBTT), and the same rule is valid for the rest of sensory introverted types. The situation is more complicated with introverted intuitive types, but well, this rule is also invalid."
> This rejects the j/p switch idea. Also points out how MBTI fundamentally departs from Jung, but even if we disregard the incompatibility with Jung, the j/p switch has other problems too.
> The fun thing is, I, and several other people got to this same conclusion independently without reading Lytov. Including how the case for ISxx somewhat differs from the case for INxx. That has its reasons of course.


There are two main organizations that represent mainstream Socionics. I have posted the accurate Socionics descriptions by SRSI which correspond with MBTI descriptions. If you don't agree with those, then what can I do...? Now you are referring other descriptions (16types, SSS etc.). But those are LESS accurate, and LESS valid.



> I definitely still use the logical "feelings" when I multiply 4 with 4. It's not just a plain recall of a rote-memorized fact.


We all do math differently. If you actually multiply 4 with 4 then you are using Ti. Rote-memorize facts are directly related to Si.



> "Fact" is a pretty general word here really. I would link it with external IEs, any of the Sensing or Logic IEs.


I disagree .... see my thread about definitions of the functions (2nd attempt...)



> Ti creates rules too with its own reasoning for them. Internally analyzing out the logical reasons for them, or even "feeling" them out so to speak, and then creating the rules based on these reasons. That gives it its subjectivity but at the same time it's still a Rational function.


I agree with this.



> Now again, if you just memorize the rule of how to break down an equation... that'll be Te, yes.
> A Te rule here could be "add all instances of x together on each side of the equation".


Te is about logical deduction, abstract and concrete. The "Te rule" is a part of the deduction. You don't just have "external rules" but you also make decisions.

1) rule
2) example
3) deduction



> No, visualizing does not have to be Perceiving. I can visualize logical maps and it's still logical reasoning and not actually containing any element of sensing or intuiting.


What kind of logical maps are you referring to? Can you provide an example?



> Lol the part on taking things apart to figure out how they work... sounds so similar to the Te in the Te suggestive quote earlier. "Especially gets influenced by the facts that he sees with his own eyes or can touch with own hands." Direct logic of an object, essentially.


Those are MBTI/Berens' descriptions. You are referring to Socionics descriptions... but you are still wrong... lol.. Te in Socionics is not about taking things apart and figuring out how they work. Whether you touch the objects or not is completely irrelevant.


----------



## myst91

Tellus said:


> They have looked past and missed the obvious/logical conclusion that a very logical person in the U.S. is also a very logical person in Russia.


Rejecting the j/p switch as a universally applicable method does not mean rejecting the basic function dichotomy of Logic...




> You really don't seem to understand _how dominant_ the Leading function is. If you did then you would agree with me.


No, it's simply that you are still not getting my point.




> You claim this about your type: Official MBTI, ISTJ. Socionics, LSI-Se This means that you actually don't know your type.


No, this means you don't know what these types are about.




> Do you want me to read some meaningless and pointless links that you have found? lol


Meaningless/pointless only in your weird twisted imagination...




> OMG! If judgement is not the same as rationality, then judging types are NOT "rational extroverts" etc!!!


Lol wait. Why do you subscribe to the j/p switch method if you think Judgment is the same as Rationality.




> There are two main organizations that represent mainstream Socionics. I have posted the accurate Socionics descriptions by SRSI which correspond with MBTI descriptions. If you don't agree with those, then what can I do...? Now you are referring other descriptions (16types, SSS etc.). But those are LESS accurate, and LESS valid.


It's your interpretation of the SRSI descriptions that I don't agree with.




> I disagree .... see my thread about definitions of the functions (2nd attempt...)


Well we'll keep disagreeing on this one. You got a pretty idiosyncratic idea on what IEs facts can be processed with.



> I agree with this.


For real :laughing:




> Te is about logical deduction, abstract and concrete. The "Te rule" is a part of the deduction. You don't just have "external rules" but you also make decisions.
> 
> 1) rule
> 2) example
> 3) deduction


These all can be static Logic too. I explained how rules can be Ti (that you agreed with =P), same for the rest.




> What kind of logical maps are you referring to? Can you provide an example?


Hmm it's hard to describe. Here is an example though, two trains are coming at each other from opposite directions at twenty miles/hour speed and they will meet in 2 hours while a bird is flying between them too at seventy-five miles/hour speed. If it reaches one train it turns and goes to the other train and so on. How many miles will the bird take by the time the trains meet? You could write out equations as taught to you to solve this, calculate everything or you could just see the main logical points and "draw out" the map of these points that shows you the solution in a concise way. 





> Those are MBTI/Berens' descriptions. You are referring to Socionics descriptions... but you are still wrong... lol.. Te in Socionics is not about taking things apart and figuring out how they work. Whether you touch the objects or not is completely irrelevant.


I know that one was MBTI Ti. I did compare it with a Socionics description yes. Te is more about taking things apart in Socionics if compared with Ti.

Don't get stuck on the word "touch", the idea is Te is extraverted hence more directly linked to the object compared to Ti, not through a more indirect interface so to speak. Again this isn't the MBTI version.


----------



## Peter

Tellus said:


> I: "muscle memory is _not directly_"
> 
> But the more someone uses Se, i.e. is physically active, the more he/she is dependent on muscle memory.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume that you are right about this. Are the cognitions/processes before the identification related to personality traits? If no, what is your point?
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "doing math"?
> 
> Okay, so you agree that math is about cognitive functions (Ti in particular) after all.
> 
> 
> 
> Learning to walk (and other voluntary motions) is related to Se, yes. But it is not as if Se suddenly disappears. The process becomes unconscious. Furthermore, I big part of walking is about motor control (cerebellum) which is not directly related to Se.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what do you mean by "doing math"?
> 
> 
> 
> This corresponds with OP. But my current view is that Si is directly related to memory, not Te.
> 
> The multiplication table is all about memory.


Without getting side tracked into details,....

Se is a perception. Not motor control

I showed that the brain does more than just jungian cognitive functions

Not a single cognitive funcion is directly related to memory. The brain and especially the neocortex is a memory system. There is no seperation between processing and storage (memory) like in a computer. Memory and processing is done by the same neurons.

When you don't agree with something, going into details to find faults in logic is a strategy that I I dislike. You will find me trying to avoid that. So please reply from now on without replying to individual paragraphs.


----------



## BigApplePi

Hi. I went back to this thread and happened to notice this math problem you presented.


myst91 said:


> Hmm it's hard to describe. Here is an example though, two trains are coming at each other from opposite directions at twenty miles/hour speed and they will meet in 2 hours while a bird is flying between them too at seventy-five miles/hour speed. If it reaches one train it turns and goes to the other train and so on. How many miles will the bird take by the time the trains meet? You could write out equations as taught to you to solve this, calculate everything or you could just see the main logical points and "draw out" the map of these points that shows you the solution in a concise way.


I wonder if what I say below provides a good distinction between Ti and Te ... in math thinking.

Ti. Suppose I try to solve this problem all by myself. I consult all my past logic memories. I try various approaches turning them over in my mind. I use intuition to come up with an overall strategy which may or may not work. I see what works and what doesn't. I aim toward a solution. Whether I actually get to the solution or not, is this not a good example of Ti thinking?

Te. Instead of trying to solve the problem myself, I ask you for the solution. You give me a solution. I have to check out the logic, no matter how many steps. I review all the steps and see how they fit or don't fit known logic. I verify your solution step-by-step without thinking about any overall strategy. Is this not a good example of Te thinking?


----------



## myst91

BigApplePi said:


> Hi. I went back to this thread and happened to notice this math problem you presented.I wonder if what I say below provides a good distinction between Ti and Te ... in math thinking.
> 
> Ti. Suppose I try to solve this problem all by myself. I consult all my past logic memories. I try various approaches turning them over in my mind. I use intuition to come up with an overall strategy which may or may not work. I see what works and what doesn't. I aim toward a solution. Whether I actually get to the solution or not, is this not a good example of Ti thinking?
> 
> Te. Instead of trying to solve the problem myself, I ask you for the solution. You give me a solution. I have to check out the logic, no matter how many steps. I review all the steps and see how they fit or don't fit known logic. I verify your solution step-by-step without thinking about any overall strategy. Is this not a good example of Te thinking?


The former uses N too. The latter sounds like weak T and/or weak N.


----------



## megmento

I have a weak Te. 

But can you consider it Te, when you find it difficult to solve a specific problem that you have not encountered before? Say I mostly rely on memory and previous examples given during lectures, and if I take an exam and there's an item I am unfamiliar with, the most possible way for me is to backtrack those examples that were given and find a similarity in the equation/pattern.


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> It is Se that processes the motion and T that processes in what ways balls can move IMO


Okay, so you don't agree with mainstream Socionics, right? Se is not a static information aspect according to you, right?

I agree with you that determining the behavior (or "in what ways") the balls can move is Te. "Extroverted" functions are about behavior according to me, and Thinking/Logic is about speed, direction etc.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

No, Se is Static. Just because something processes motion doesn't mean it isn't Static - a thousand images of something that occurs in a second looks an awful lot like Dynamic. I think people underestimate the abilities of Static functions, and overestimate the limitations of a Static mindset.

There are a few things in Socionics I disagree with, yes. Or perhaps it is better to say I disagree with certain interpretations of what Socionics is saying about people.


----------



## Peter

Tellus said:


> You are not able to explain your argument, and then you think a discussion with me is a waste of time. LOL Pathetic!


I did explain. But you reply in weird ways as if you don't understand or don't want to understand what is said. I can't have a conversation with someone like that.


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> No, Se is Static. Just because something processes motion doesn't mean it isn't Static - a thousand images of something that occurs in a second looks an awful lot like Dynamic. I think people underestimate the abilities of Static functions, and overestimate the limitations of a Static mindset.
> 
> There are a few things in Socionics I disagree with, yes. Or perhaps it is better to say I disagree with certain interpretations of what Socionics is saying about people.


Okay, if motion is a static process/es, then what is a dynamic process according to you? 'Dynamic' means that something is changing (or active, or in motion).

This is the viewpoint of mainstream Socionics: 

Socionics :: Information Elements

Socionics founder Augusta and her associates viewed reality as consisting of both _objects_ and _fields_ (interrelationships between objects), _statics_ and _dynamics_ (rest and motion), and _internal_ and _external_ qualities. The most abstract possible simplification of the 8 information elements is given here (with the symbols that were given to them)

Se = *outward traits of objects*: form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space

Te = *external activity of objects*: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms


----------



## Tellus

Peter said:


> I did explain. But you reply in weird ways as if you don't understand or don't want to understand what is said. I can't have a conversation with someone like that.


Okay, so you can't have a conversation with someone who is asking you to explain an argument of yours. Weird.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Do you mean centers for respective Jungian cognitive functions?


No. Definitely not. I would not expect these 14 brain modules to have any full identity with the functions. They could be related though but that would require examination.

As an example, Area #1 = Visual area, sight: image recognition & perception.  That would overlap with Se and maybe Si, but would not be identical as Se/Si can involve other senses.




> They are NOT well defined. And nothing indicates that those areas do not interact with each other. We don't have 14 different consciousness. They are of course interconnected.


You say we don't have that many different consciousnesses. Would you agree we do have the ability to do multi-tasking? I would want to say we can juggle difference consciousnesses. For example when driving a car, we are aware of various things at almost the same time.
================================

Allow me another reply and reconsideration to this:


Tellus said:


> I claim that Te (as well as Fe, and perhaps Fi) corresponds to area 13 (left), and Ti corresponds to area 10:
> 
> View attachment 583042


It would be an interesting test to do brain scans on established Ti people, Te people, Fe people and Fi people when they are practicing their prime functions to see what areas are used. I assume that could be done and may already have been. My guess though is, since I'm a Ti person (presumably), I would rely heavily on Ne, so much so that Ti and Ne would be integrated. For that matter, Si would be in there also.

What about a Te person? A Te person must use supporting perception also. I would want to see the brain scans. This would require some thought on how to define the tests. I'll bet there would be plenty of surprises.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Tellus said:


> Okay, if motion is a static process/es, then what is a dynamic process according to you? 'Dynamic' means that something is changing (or active, or in motion).
> 
> This is the viewpoint of mainstream Socionics:
> 
> Socionics :: Information Elements
> 
> Socionics founder Augusta and her associates viewed reality as consisting of both _objects_ and _fields_ (interrelationships between objects), _statics_ and _dynamics_ (rest and motion), and _internal_ and _external_ qualities. The most abstract possible simplification of the 8 information elements is given here (with the symbols that were given to them)
> 
> Se = *outward traits of objects*: form, shape, strength, power, readiness, willpower, mobilization, the location of objects in space
> 
> Te = *external activity of objects*: events (what, how, where), activity, behavior, algorithms


No, perception of motion is a process which can be either static or dynamic depending on internal cognitions. It'd be weird if a static could not see dynamic information and then interpret it through their static worldview - they'd be blind.

No, perception of an object as it flies through the air, gathering such sensory details *without* reference to how it relates to the internal dynamics - that's one aspect of Se.

Or, put another way: "the location of objects in space". You said it yourself. Its here. Now its there. Now its there. You watch its motion by watching its lack of staying in the same place. That's Se. probably -Se, but still. Its also overly simplified, but what can you do.


----------



## Peter

Tellus said:


> Okay, so you can't have a conversation with someone who is asking you to explain an argument of yours. Weird.


Bye now.


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> No, perception of motion is a process which can be either static or dynamic depending on internal cognitions. It'd be weird if a static could not see dynamic information and then interpret it through their static worldview - they'd be blind.
> 
> No, perception of an object as it flies through the air, gathering such sensory details *without* reference to how it relates to the internal dynamics - that's one aspect of Se.
> 
> Or, put another way: "the location of objects in space". You said it yourself. Its here. Now its there. Now its there. You watch its motion by watching its lack of staying in the same place. That's Se. probably -Se, but still. Its also overly simplified, but what can you do.


I will respond to this later, but I need to know if you still think your view on Se corresponds with mainstream Socionics' view on Se.

I: Okay, so you don't agree with mainstream Socionics, right? Se is not a static information aspect according to you, right?

You: No, Se is Static. Just because something processes motion doesn't mean it isn't Static - a thousand images of something that occurs in a second looks an awful lot like Dynamic. I think people underestimate the abilities of Static functions, and overestimate the limitations of a Static mindset.

"Socionics founder Augusta and her associates viewed reality as consisting of both _objects_ and _fields_ (interrelationships between objects), *statics and dynamics** (rest and motion)*, and _internal_ and _external_ qualities. The most abstract possible simplification of the 8 information elements is given here (with the symbols that were given to them):"


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Not particularly - I don't look at it in terms of mainstream/not mainstream to begin with. Not even sure what aspects would constitute that.


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Not particularly - I don't look at it in terms of mainstream/not mainstream to begin with. Not even sure what aspects would constitute that.


There are two ways (so far by socionists) to define information aspects:

1) SSS's approach.

2) external dynamics of objects etc.

Okay, so you don't agree with 2), right?


----------



## Tellus

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> No, perception of motion is a process which can be either static or dynamic depending on internal cognitions. It'd be weird if a static could not see dynamic information and then interpret it through their static worldview - they'd be blind.
> No, perception of an object as it flies through the air, gathering such sensory details without reference to how it relates to the internal dynamics - that's one aspect of Se.
> Or, put another way: "the location of objects in space". You said it yourself. Its here. Now its there. Now its there. You watch its motion by watching its lack of staying in the same place. That's Se. probably -Se, but still. Its also overly simplified, but what can you do.


What do you mean by "internal cognitions" and "internal dynamics"? 

As I said, motion refers to a change of some sort. For example, a football flies through the air. Socionists would say that Se processes several snapshots, then Te processes and defines the changes between position 1, position 2, position 3 etc. "The football was moving in a parabola".

I agree with socionists' view that we actually only see snapshots. We do not see a continuous movement (of the ball). But my view is that Se processes the changes as well. However, definitions of the movement (parabola etc.) are processed by Te.


----------



## DoIHavetohaveaUserName

Yes . Ti mathematicians are more structured than Te mathematicians . They flash out the subjective goal before reaching out to the objective one . Newton and leibniz are good examples .


----------



## Entropic

When will people learn to just let some threads die?


----------



## BigApplePi

Entropic said:


> When will people learn to just let some threads die?


I find that an interesting statement, one to which I object. One thing is to observe circular activity, but another is to try to squeeze blood from that stone. Sometimes, if more time is given, or at a later time, someone or some who will come along with a new perspective who can pull things together and tie things up neatly in a bow. After all are we not searching for how and what to communicate? Do you not get what I mean?


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> What do you mean by "internal cognitions" and "internal dynamics"?


 I am not sure this is the right question. 




> As I said, motion refers to a change of some sort. For example, a football flies through the air. Socionists would say that Se processes several snapshots, then Te processes and defines the changes between position 1, position 2, position 3 etc. "The football was moving in a parabola".


Suppose I said that is possible. That is, several snapshots could be processed. On the other hand what if the parabola was the snapshot itself ... performed by a gestalt mind?



> I agree with Socionists' view that we actually only see snapshots. We do not see a continuous movement (of the ball). But my view is that Se processes the changes as well. However, definitions of the movement (parabola etc.) are processed by Te.


What do Socionists know about continuous movement? What if those "series of snaphsots" are never seen by the conscious mind* and instead seen only consciously as a whole? Te is completely left out of the picture! How do Socionists define thinking anyway? After all when that parabola is quickly viewed, there is no time to think. The parabola is the perception.

*When one views a film or movie, if slowed down, it is a series of frames or snapshots. Yet the conscious mind sees only a movie! Makes one wonder why they called a movie (a M O V E - I E !).


----------



## Entropic

BigApplePi said:


> I find that an interesting statement, one to which I object. One thing is to observe circular activity, but another is to try to squeeze blood from that stone. Sometimes, if more time is given, or at a later time, someone or some who will come along with a new perspective who can pull things together and tie things up neatly in a bow. After all are we not searching for how and what to communicate? Do you not get what I mean?


Nope, because I think the content of this thread has nothing to do with socionics and that Tellus isn't really doing socionics. In general, I just find his way of conceptualizing things and how he attributes things very, very factually wrong on all levels. Read his exchange with Peter for example, where he attributes physical movement in itself with Se. That's simply not right and shows that he doesn't get what the IEs really are.

Personally, I don't care for supposed new perspectives if said perspectives don't even get the basics right in the first place.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

Entropic said:


> Nope, because I think the content of this thread has nothing to do with socionics and that Tellus isn't really doing socionics. In general, I just find his way of conceptualizing things and how he attributes things very, very factually wrong on all levels. Read his exchange with Peter for example, where he attributes physical movement in itself with Se. That's simply not right and shows that he doesn't get what the IEs really are.
> 
> Personally, I don't care for supposed new perspectives if said perspectives don't even get the basics right in the first place.


Well that is just your interpretation. Many don't care for your perspective. Your argument is "he's wrong, I'm right." Many people particularly do not agree with your view of Ti. Like, actual Ti users.

Basics like not knowing the difference between cognitions and behaviors? Make your argument about how Te doesn't follow rules and Socionics isn't rules.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

Tellus said:


> What do you mean by "internal cognitions" and "internal dynamics"?
> 
> As I said, motion refers to a change of some sort. For example, a football flies through the air. Socionists would say that Se processes several snapshots, then Te processes and defines the changes between position 1, position 2, position 3 etc. "The football was moving in a parabola".
> 
> I agree with socionists' view that we actually only see snapshots. We do not see a continuous movement (of the ball). But my view is that Se processes the changes as well. However, definitions of the movement (parabola etc.) are processed by Te.


I agree with the statement on Se you make here, and do not understand your distinction. How is processing several changes not processing the changes? That's what I am trying to get at - it is Static, but it still processes change, because it is perception.

I disagree that all definitions are Te. The difference between Te and Ti is more complex than that IMO.


----------



## BigApplePi

Entropic said:


> Nope, because I think the content of this thread has nothing to do with socionics and that Tellus isn't really doing socionics. In general, I just find his way of conceptualizing things and how he attributes things very, very factually wrong on all levels. Read his exchange with Peter for example, where he attributes physical movement in itself with Se. That's simply not right and shows that he doesn't get what the IEs really are.


I appreciate what you are saying. I interpret this thread as being about @Tellus and his interests. What I want to do is pick up on what he is saying, say something myself and see if we can make contact. I can't speak for Socionics as I don't know it. I make it a point to try to pick up some learning about that if I can. Tellus is not easy to communicate with for me, yet I have made contact with him from time-to-time. I only hope either of us doesn't give up. That's why I reject giving up.

Do you have a post # for that exchange with Peter in case there is more than one? I made my own statement to Tellus about Se. I'll wait to see if he replies. You mentioned "IEs." What is IE?



> Personally, I don't care for supposed new perspectives if said perspectives don't even get the basics right in the first place.


I would agree with that if each perspective were clearly defined. That is not the case in this thread. I attribute my own lack of clarity as to Tellus to my own ignorance of Socionics and those who are fond of it. I may later find out you are closer to the truth than I am ... but I'm far from being there yet.


----------



## BigApplePi

First of all I would like to see if we can agree on some terminology. I realize some of these links seem to be more occupied with terminology itself, but we have to start somewhere.

Do we agree on this?
Information elements refer to the eight black & white symbols. For example:

solid black square = external dynamics of objects
open black square = external statics of relationships (fields)

Information elements = information type = information aspects. Are all three of these the same?

Objects vs relationships = extraverted vs introverted
Static vs dynamic = still vs moving
Explicit vs implicit = sensory vs intuitive = local vs global (BigApplePi bifurcation language, no agreement necessary) 

I suppose any number of new bifucations can be used to identify phenomena. I note these:
Conscious vs unconscious
Observed by others vs self-observed

Question: If information elements determine eight categories, what does Socionics do to arrive at 16 personality types? It needs another bifurcation. Is the answer that it chooses another information element? I would think so.



Tellus said:


> I agree with you, but the actual reason for bifurcation is that we have eight distinctly different cognitive processes, and we are trying to figure out which process is active in a certain situation/activity (SSS analyzes sentences and words!) Saying that mathematics is only about Ti is just as silly as saying that medicine is only about Si.


What is "SSS"? You have not used that term with me before. Can we leave it out as distracting?





> Yes, and this is important. Te is definitely dynamic. Ti is not like that.


We agree here.





> Is Te really extroverted? Is Ti really introverted?


According to the eight information elements the solid square is extraverted logic and the open square is introverted logic. Are those the definitions of Te and Ti? Are there other definitions we want to use?





> Let's say you have an instruction manual with a picture of a special screwdriver, and you also have an actual screwdriver. Now you want to know if your screwdriver matches the one in the picture, so you start comparing them. Are you using Te or Ti?


This is a very clear question and deserves to be addressed. I suppose we are open to approach with any of the eight information elements, but I'll pick one. I'll assume both are static objects, sensually beheld. The foremost information element is the solid circle. That is Se, isn't it? We can compare these two visuals and come up with matches and ignore mismatches. Matching is relational logic and certainly looks like Ti. Agreed so far? Comparison is not an object. It is a relationship. This comparison in a field and likely is a global intuitive of the screwdriver picture vs the actual screwdriver. This is the open triangle = introverted sensing. This looks like Ni, if I'm correct. There could be introverted sensing as well = open circle.

Notice I said, "ignore mismatches" because the picture and actual are not the same and have plenty of mismatches. So what do we do with the mismatches? There is a choice. We can look at the mismatches as objects as well as relationships. We have to make a judgment and this could involve "ethics." Complicated isn't it?





> Yes, the idea itself (A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) is static. But what does your thinking process look like? We are trying to match (defined) information with a certain type of cognitive process. You are matching one type of information with another type of information.
> 
> 'Applying' is dynamic, yes. But 'application' is static.
> 
> Are you saying that all cognitive processing is dynamic?


What I'm trying to say is all cognitive thinking deals with BOTH objects and relationships between objects. For all we know we are examining both the object for its identity and characteristics and the relationship and its identity and characteristics. 





> Can you explain this part a bit further?


Cognitive thinking may very well, on analysis, be using up to six of the cognitive functions and if we add fixed and dynamic ethical judgment to the mix, all eight. Do we really want to pigeon hole our cognition into just one of those eight? If we do we are using Ni dynamic introverted intuition which is notoriously unreliable.





> The question still remains. We are trying to model different personality types, and we are saying that Te is different from Ti and conscious functions are different from unconscious functions etc. (see attached image). So mathematicians are usually LII due to a dominant Ti (structural logic, definitions etc.). This is the only explanation that makes sense.


That is all true, but what are we really doing? Could it be we are trying to model what either can't be modeled at all or would at best be sloppy modeling? If mathematicians can be said to use mostly Ti, do we really want to tear the baby in half? This is Ti; that is Te; that is Ti; this is Te. Do we want to do that?

Allow me to return to your example of the picture and actual screwdriver where we are asking for a match. At first this seems to be clear. But is it? There is object and field. There is intuition and sensing. There is static and dynamic. There is motivation (ethics) and lack of motivation. Who is to say which gets priority in every case? We are not only asking does the picture and actual match, but we are dealing with a stated problem (static) and a dynamic (problem solver). The problem solver could be any of 16 personalities addressing the stated static situation. There is no one answer for the static situation ... only the statistically most likely and even that is a judgment. 

To go even further with this, suppose we have an EIE = ESFP. The problem is to match the picture with the actual screwdriver. The ESI takes one look at this serious situation and says, "Get me out of here. I don't do this. I have my own thing." They throw the instruction manual across the room. Now we ask, is this Ti or Te? Are we going to have a useful answer to that?




> View attachment 612690


What is this for? What does this have to do with Te and Ti?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


Our goal is to define eight different kinds of information (aspects) which match eight cognitive processes. There are three methods:

1) Jungian typologists started with Jung's observations and descriptions of behavior, and then they tried to define/describe functions based on his words, phrases and sentences.

2) Aushra and other socionists started with our physical world; objects, space, time and energy, and then they defined information based on those. 

3) I suggest a phenomenological approach. Let's define information based on our experiences of the cognitive processes. 

This is my view:

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/963002-alternative-view-information-aspects.html



> First of all I would like to see if we can agree on some terminology. I realize some of these links seem to be more occupied with terminology itself, but we have to start somewhere.
> Do we agree on this?
> Information elements refer to the eight black & white symbols. For example:
> solid black square = external dynamics of objects
> 
> open black square = external statics of relationships (fields)


Yes



> Information elements = information type = information aspects. Are all three of these the same?


Information type? What do you mean? Do you have a quote?

element = information in your mind

aspect = information in the external/outside world

But let's say they are the same. It is not important to distinguish between them in this discussion.



> Objects vs relationships = extraverted vs introverted
> Static vs dynamic = still vs moving


What exactly do you mean by extroverted and introverted?

Yes... but dynamic is not just moving... it is about changing (and processes) as well. 



> Explicit vs implicit = sensory vs intuitive = local vs global (BigApplePi bifurcation language, no agreement necessary)


Yes.. but ethics/Feeling is also implicit information and logic/Thinking is explicit.



> I suppose any number of new bifucations can be used to identify phenomena. I note these:
> Conscious vs unconscious
> Observed by others vs self-observed


Let's focus on conscious and self-observed information.



> Question: If information elements determine eight categories, what does Socionics do to arrive at 16 personality types? It needs another bifurcation. Is the answer that it chooses another information element? I would think so.


No, they use the Jungian dichotomies as well. 



> What is "SSS"? You have not used that term with me before. Can we leave it out as distracting?


School of System Socionics. Yes, we leave it out.



> According to the eight information elements the solid square is extraverted logic and the open square is introverted logic. Are those the definitions of Te and Ti? Are there other definitions we want to use?


I am not asking you what socionists think Te and Ti are. I am asking you if Te, ENTJ's and ESTJ's dominant process, always is about the outside world.



> This is a very clear question and deserves to be addressed. I suppose we are open to approach with any of the eight information elements, but I'll pick one. I'll assume both are static objects, sensually beheld. The foremost information element is the solid circle. That is Se, isn't it?


Yes, according to socionists.



> We can compare these two visuals and come up with matches and ignore mismatches. Matching is relational logic and certainly looks like Ti. Agreed so far?


Yes



> Comparison is not an object. It is a relationship. This comparison in a field and likely is a global intuitive of the screwdriver picture vs the actual screwdriver.


Both the picture and the actual screwdriver are concrete objects in the outside world. Why do you think it is about internal information?



> This is the open triangle = introverted sensing. This looks like Ni, if I'm correct. There could be introverted sensing as well = open circle.


No, sensing is circle. Intuition is triangle.



> Notice I said, "ignore mismatches" because the picture and actual are not the same and have plenty of mismatches. So what do we do with the mismatches? There is a choice. We can look at the mismatches as objects as well as relationships. We have to make a judgment and this could involve "ethics." Complicated isn't it?


Yes, it is complicated and there are mismatches, but I don't see how that is relevant. The problem look like this: We have two outside/extroverted objects, the instruction manual (i.e. the picture of a special screwdriver) and the actual screwdriver. Okay, so we need an extroverted function. But we also need a function that deals with relationships. Which one?



> What I'm trying to say is all cognitive thinking deals with BOTH objects and relationships between objects. For all we know we are examining both the object for its identity and characteristics and the relationship and its identity and characteristics.


Yes, of course, but that doesn't mean we can't distinguish between different kinds of thinking and information.



> Cognitive thinking may very well, on analysis, be using up to six of the cognitive functions and if we add fixed and dynamic ethical judgment to the mix, all eight. Do we really want to pigeon hole our cognition into just one of those eight? If we do we are using Ni dynamic introverted intuition which is notoriously unreliable.


Yes, we are using several different processes all the time... in each sentence etc. 

There is a reason for these eight cognitive processes. Sensing is obvious, plus something else, let's call it intuition (Jung). Logic/ordering, i.e. non-emotional evaluations, plus emotional evaluations. Combine these four processes with either extraversion/introversion or dynamic/static (my view).

We need eight cognitive processes and eight kinds of information otherwise we cannot describe type and intertype relations etc. accurately.



> That is all true, but what are we really doing? Could it be we are trying to model what either can't be modeled at all or would at best be sloppy modeling? If mathematicians can be said to use mostly Ti, do we really want to tear the baby in half? This is Ti; that is Te; that is Ti; this is Te. Do we want to do that?


Well, it is actually not true that mathematicians use mostly Ti. You use Te every time you calculate. Consider Model D (see previous thread). INTP has two egos: TiNe and TeSi (in my view).



> Allow me to return to your example of the picture and actual screwdriver where we are asking for a match. At first this seems to be clear. But is it? There is object and field. There is intuition and sensing. There is static and dynamic. There is motivation (ethics) and lack of motivation. Who is to say which gets priority in every case? We are not only asking does the picture and actual match, but we are dealing with a stated problem (static) and a dynamic (problem solver). The problem solver could be any of 16 personalities addressing the stated static situation. There is no one answer for the static situation ... only the statistically most likely and even that is a judgment.
> The problem is to match the picture with the actual screwdriver. The ESI takes one look at this serious situation and says, "Get me out of here. I don't do this. I have my own thing." They throw the instruction manual across the room. Now we ask, is this Ti or Te? Are we going to have a useful answer to that?


Yes, I agree with you, but we must focus on a specific activity/situation. Screwdriver and a picture of a screwdriver, that is external/explicit information. 'Comparing' is about relationships. And it seems to be "extroverted" information... but what do we actually mean by extroverted. Is it about objects or fields? Again, which aspect applies to this situation?



> To go even further with this, suppose we have an EIE = ESFP.


EIE corresponds to ENFJ.



> What is this for? What does this have to do with Te and Ti?


We are trying to define/describe these cognitive processes and information aspects, so I think it is helpful if you know the basic structure of Model A, i.e. mental/vital, accepting/producing, strong/weak...


----------



## Tellus

Socionics - the16types.info - Dual Nature of Man by Ausra Augustinaviciute


----------



## BigApplePi

@*Tellus.* I find two reasons for my not proceeding. One is too many terms, links and systems. They all can't be addressed at once and we have not settled on a starting point. Too many ideas has resulted in chaos. We need order. This caused me to overlook what is below:

The other is this contradiction. Until it is straightened out we cannot proceed. I am addressing the black square = Te. In #1 you say,


Tellus said:


> Te = external dynamics of relationships


In this link Socionics :: Information Elements which I wanted to start with, it says,







= external dynamics of objects. Note that in this link referenced, fields = relationships.

Since Te =







, we have a serious contradiction. Te =







can't both refer to *objects* as well as *relationships*. Which is it? I say it is objects.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> @Tellus. I find two reasons for my not proceeding. One is too many terms, links and systems. They all can't be addressed at once and we have not settled on a starting point. Too many ideas has resulted in chaos. We need order. This caused me to overlook what is below:
> The other is this contradiction. Until it is straightened out we cannot proceed. I am addressing the black square = Te. In #1 you say,


That thread is called "An alternative view on information aspects". That is my view (which I have already mentioned), so I am challenging Aushra's definitions. We can discuss Aushra's definitions without considering my view, but I think it is useful to have other definitions if we want question/analyze her definitions.



> In this link Socionics :: Information Elements which I wanted to start with, it says, = external dynamics of objects. Note that in this link referenced, fields = relationships.
> Since Te = , we have a serious contradiction. Te = can't both refer to objects as well as relationships. Which is it? I say it is objects.


Well, that's the point, _which is it?_ Our problem is still e vs. i... which definition is most accurate? Is it objects vs. relationships, reality vs. reflection of reality (Shulman) or dynamics vs. statics (my view)? Or Jung/MBTI: Thinking+Extraversion?

Why do you think objects vs. relationships is most accurate?


----------



## Tellus

Here's a clarification:

IM elements (and functions) in Socionics _process_ information. These correspond to functions (including vague descriptions of information) in Jungian typology and MBTT. An aspect _is_ (defined) information.

Socionics - the16types.info - Dual Nature of Man by Ausra Augustinaviciute

"All eight elements of IM are located in the psyche of each individual. That is, Each of us has the same forms of perception and information processing. But in complex situations that require intellectual effort, people tend to trust only one pair of elements: one extroverted and introverted one."


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Here's a clarification:
> 
> IM elements (and functions) in Socionics _process_ information. These correspond to functions (including vague descriptions of information) in Jungian typology and MBTT. An aspect _is_ (defined) information.
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Dual Nature of Man by Ausra Augustinaviciute
> 
> "All eight elements of IM are located in the psyche of each individual. That is, Each of us has the same forms of perception and information processing. But in complex situations that require intellectual effort, ... "


Allow me to give my own attempt at clarification and see what you think. Complexity & simplicity are ignored.

These eight functions (which ever names you choose to give them) are natural developments in the human psyche. There are three different and independent dimensions that are necessary for development. Each of these three contains extremes. They are extremes which are polarized and appear to contradict each other, but they do not. They are polarized because development requires one spend time with a specialty to do this development. If one finds an extreme choice rewarding one tends to remain there (hence polarization) neglecting the other extreme. Over time one may learn dissatisfaction caused by the neglected other end and seek to explore and develop it. This need not always happen.

What are these three dimensions and what are the extremes of each dimension? They have been named in various ways by psychologists but they seem to agree roughly, though not precisely on what the are. I will give names that I am familiar with, keeping in mind these are not meant to be precise.

1. Introversion vs extroversion. We look at the world outside us which is different from the world inside us. We can't look at both at the same time, but we can alternate.

2. Detail vs Gestalt. We can look at immediate refined observations as with sensing or we can look at the big picture without analysis as with intuition. We can't look at both at the same time, but we can alternate.

3. Existence vs Evaluation. We can look at the nature of reality as to its order (logic via thinking) or we can take a measure of its importance (value with feeling). We can't do at both at the same time, but we can alternate.

Here are the three dimensions again: inside the person, details, and valuation. These are distinct. These themselves are distinct because any function operates on a location, with examination, and with acceptance or rejection.
============================



Later:


Tellus said:


> "people tend to trust only one pair of elements: one extroverted and introverted one."



I will speculate on this statement. When people are free to express their desires, not imposed upon by the outside world, they tend to specialize. There tends to be a preference between goings on inside oneself versus interests in the outside world. That I/E choice is made. There also is a preference between whether these interests are observations or judgments. That is, whether we are interested in looking at something as it is or in giving direction to that something. These pairs can be in either order as to priority. The choices cover all eight functions. 

If the internal/ external function comes first we are said to be introverted/ extroverted respectively. If the observation/ judgment takes priority, we are said to be perceptive/ judgmental respectively. These are the pair we trust. This leaves out six functions which are only supporting or passive functions. They are polarized because we specialize. The six are supporting, passive or inhibiting only. They are not trusted to lead. That is why only the top two are prioritized. 

Under stress or when confronted with outside pressures or needs, any of those six subordinates may come to the surface to lead. One lead and one supporting function are not enough in those divergent circumstances, but they will suffice when a person is in control.

I have not checked this out for consistency with all sixteen personalities. It does not answer the question proposed by this thread.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


I apologize for a delayed reply.



> Allow me to give my own attempt at clarification and see what you think. Complexity & simplicity are ignored.
> These eight functions (which ever names you choose to give them) are natural developments in the human psyche. There are three different and independent dimensions that are necessary for development. Each of these three contains extremes. They are extremes which are polarized and appear to contradict each other, but they do not. They are polarized because development requires one spend time with a specialty to do this development. If one finds an extreme choice rewarding one tends to remain there (hence polarization) neglecting the other extreme. Over time one may learn dissatisfaction caused by the neglected other end and seek to explore and develop it. This need not always happen.
> 
> What are these three dimensions and what are the extremes of each dimension? They have been named in various ways by psychologists but they seem to agree roughly, though not precisely on what the are. I will give names that I am familiar with, keeping in mind these are not meant to be precise.
> 2. Detail vs Gestalt. We can look at immediate refined observations as with sensing or we can look at the big picture without analysis as with intuition. We can't look at both at the same time, but we can alternate.
> 3. Existence vs Evaluation. We can look at the nature of reality as to its order (logic via thinking) or we can take a measure of its importance (value with feeling). We can't do at both at the same time, but we can alternate.
> 
> Here are the three dimensions again: inside the person, details, and valuation. These are distinct. These themselves are distinct because any function operates on a location, with examination, and with acceptance or rejection.


This seems to be (more or less) identical to Jung's theory, and I agree with most of it.



> 1. Introversion vs extroversion. We look at the world outside us which is different from the world inside us. We can't look at both at the same time, but we can alternate.


*This is much more problematic. Are you suggesting that we should use Jung's Thinking + Extraversion in order to define Te? So INTP's Thinking is identical to ENTJ's Thinking, except that INTP focuses on the logic of the inside world and ENTJ focuses on the logic of the outside world. For example, if you are looking at two chairs and you are trying to figure out which one is bigger, then you are using Te (according to this argument and Jung).
*


> I will speculate on this statement. When people are free to express their desires, not imposed upon by the outside world, they tend to specialize. There tends to be a preference between goings on inside oneself versus interests in the outside world. That I/E choice is made. There also is a preference between whether these interests are observations or judgments. That is, whether we are interested in looking at something as it is or in giving direction to that something. These pairs can be in either order as to priority. The choices cover all eight functions.


Yes... but you are not contradicting Jung or Socionics, right?



> If the internal/ external function comes first we are said to be introverted/ extroverted respectively.


Internal / external means something different in Socionics. Let's use 'extroverted' function and 'intoverted' function instead.



> If the observation/ judgment takes priority, we are said to be perceptive/ judgmental respectively. These are the pair we trust.


Yes



> This leaves out six functions which are only supporting or passive functions.


Supporting ... NOT passive.



> They are polarized because we specialize. The six are supporting, passive or inhibiting only. They are not trusted to lead. That is why only the top two are prioritized.


Yes, Ego functions are most interesting to us. That is why we specialize.



> Under stress or when confronted with outside pressures or needs, any of those six subordinates may come to the surface to lead.
> One lead and one supporting function are not enough in those divergent circumstances, but they will suffice when a person is in control.


They don't turn into leading functions, but you might think that your Ego/leading functions don't work (i.e. don't help you) under extreme stress, so you start relying on other functions.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> I apologize for a delayed reply.


Not a problem.





> This seems to be (more or less) identical to Jung's theory, and I agree with most of it.


What I expressed is my view. 


BigApplePi: "1. Introversion vs extroversion. We look at the world outside us which is different from the world inside us. We can't look at both at the same time, but we can alternate."


> *This is much more problematic. Are you suggesting that we should use Jung's Thinking + Extraversion in order to define Te? So INTP's Thinking is identical to ENTJ's Thinking, except that INTP focuses on the logic of the inside world and ENTJ focuses on the logic of the outside world. For example, if you are looking at two chairs and you are trying to figure out which one is bigger, then you are using Te (according to this argument and Jung).*


 What you have just said is important to be addressed. We are not on the same page though. I want to know these answers:
*1. Which INTP are you talking about, MBTI or Socionics? INTp in Socionics = INTJ in the MBTI. We MUST speak the same language and about the same thing.
2. If you are talking INTP and ENTJ, to help make this clear, what two leading functions are you referring to for each? Answering with two of the eight Socionics symbols is okay.*

When I see the answer to these two questions, I will respond with my view of Ti and Te differences.





> Yes... but you are not contradicting Jung or Socionics, right?


I don't like contradictions but if you are saying I'm contradicting something, we can't proceed until that is fixed.





> Internal / external means something different in Socionics. Let's use 'extroverted' function and 'intoverted' function instead.


We need to agree on what we are going to use here. If you wish to use the latter, *I want to know YOUR definitions and I will comment on whether I like them or not. 

As a clue, I quote this: "In socionics, Jung's cognitive functions are always introverted (focused on refining quality) or extroverted (focused on increasing quantity)." Do you like that because I'm not too happy with it. My motive in using "internal/ external" is my hope those terms are more CLEAR than extroverted/ introverted. A drawback is they may not be practical. I'd like to hear what you favor as to definitions, preferably in your own words and not the words of an outsider reference ... unless you have to.*





> Yes


 Okay. We agree on the observation/ judgment dichotomy. 





> Supporting ... NOT passive.


Good enough. I will forget passive.





> Yes, Ego functions are most interesting to us. That is why we specialize.


We specialize in the top two. Fine. Question: If we understand the top two functions are primary, I understand the bottom six are ordered differently with the MBTI versus Socionics. For purposes of this discussion can we ignore the bottom six as to order?


Re: Stress.


> They don't turn into leading functions, but you might think that your Ego/leading functions don't work (i.e. don't help you) under extreme stress, so you start relying on other functions.


 I meant they lead just for the duration of the stress, but I won't push this point.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> What I expressed is my view.


OK



> BigApplePi: "1. Introversion vs extroversion. We look at the world outside us which is different from the world inside us. We can't look at both at the same time, but we can alternate."
> What you have just said is important to be addressed. We are not on the same page though. I want to know these answers:
> 1. Which INTP are you talking about, MBTI or Socionics? INTp in Socionics = INTJ in the MBTI. We MUST speak the same language and about the same thing.


INTP is MBTI, which I was referring to... and INTp is Socionics.



> 2. If you are talking INTP and ENTJ, to help make this clear, what two leading functions are you referring to for each? Answering with two of the eight Socionics symbols is okay.
> When I see the answer to these two questions, I will respond with my view of Ti and Te differences.


Both INTP and ENTJ have Thinking as the dominant function in MBTT. They claim it is the same function in both types. This is incorrect in my view.

Socionics uses eight IM elements/functions (and eight aspects), so INTP and ENTJ don't have the same dominant/leading IM element. This is correct.



> I don't like contradictions but if you are saying I'm contradicting something, we can't proceed until that is fixed.


I am saying that you are not contradicting Jung.



> We need to agree on what we are going to use here. If you wish to use the latter, I want to know YOUR definitions and I will comment on whether I like them or not.


A) Extraversion/introversion in the psychological sense. Some people call this "social extraversion/introversion". NEO PI-R: "Extraversion: quantity and intensity of energy directed outwards into the social world."

B) Extraversion/introversion in the Jungian sense.

The Jung Lexicon by Jungian analyst, Daryl Sharp, Toronto

"Introversion. A mode of psychological orientation where the movement of energy is toward the inner world."

Jung: "Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of secondary importance." "Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion."

This implies that ENTJ's Thinking is (mainly) objective and INTP's Thinking is (mainly) subjective according to Jung, which also corresponds to socionist Grigory Reinin's point of view. 

Reinin:

- Subjective logic. It is my own logic, my understanding, explanation, description, concept, and theory of things. It is my hierarchy of notions of the things that are closer or farther, higher or lower. It is what I was taught, my view of this world, my world outlook. It includes my education, i.e. the system of my ideas and my schooling.

- Objective logic. Logic of the objective world - objective circumstances, facts. Example: the day began and it started raining. Systems, statistics. Event queue. Example: “I am late for work because the bridge collapsed". Laws, political policies of the government, stamps in the passport, traffic laws, prices, private summerhouse property, my territory, and design drawing of a unit. Thinking objectively people usually ask: “I want to know the reality of the matter.” 

Is this accurate, though? Is this the best distinction between ENTJ's dominant function and INTP's dominant function? It means that BOTH Te and Ti are related to Dario Nardi's F3 AND P3 posterior brain regions. So ENTJ and ESTJ are equally focused on definitions (as they are on drawing conclusions), and INTP and ISTP are equally focused on drawing conclusions. Is that actually true?

All of mathematics in textbooks would be objective logic. Why aren't ENTJ and/or ESTJ interested in mathematics? In what sense are ESTJs focused on systems? In what sense are an ESTJ manager's decisions and conclusions objective?

My view is still that Ti is about statics and Te is about dynamics. And both functions are subjective AND objective. 



> As a clue, I quote this: "In socionics, Jung's cognitive functions are always introverted (focused on refining quality) or extroverted (focused on increasing quantity)." Do you like that because I'm not too happy with it. My motive in using "internal/ external" is my hope those terms are more CLEAR than extroverted/ introverted. A drawback is they may not be practical. I'd like to hear what you favor as to definitions, preferably in your own words and not the words of an outsider reference ... unless you have to.


This is yet another definition of 'e' and 'i'. Can you provide a link? 

We can use outside (or outer) world and inside (or inner) world. Internal means implicit and external means explicit in Socionics. Thinking and Sensing are explicit, and Feeling and Intuition are implicit.



> We specialize in the top two. Fine. Question: If we understand the top two functions are primary, I understand the bottom six are ordered differently with the MBTI versus Socionics. For purposes of this discussion can we ignore the bottom six as to order?


Yes, let's ignore the order of the functions in this thread.



> Re: Stress.
> I meant they lead just for the duration of the stress, but I won't push this point.


Yes, they can "lead" for the duration of the stress, but they won't suddenly become strong/leading functions.


----------



## Ptaah

Te: reaching the goal in the most effective and rapid way. Gathers empirical informations and understands how the brain works, but it is mainly concerned about the first thing.

Ti: Doing logical reasonings. Gathers empirical informations and understands how the brain works, but it is mainly concerned about the second thing.

Ti is the real function of logic. Te gathers empirical informations, but only to solve the problem.

Math is logic and therefore is about Ti,Ni and Ne. Te of course can help.

The best way of understanding Ti is studying Kant's philosophy. He was really a great INTP.


----------



## Tellus

Here are Jung's descriptions of the extroverted Thinking type etc.

http://www.cyjack.com/cognition/(ebook pdf) jung, carl - the psychological types.pdf


----------



## Tellus

*This is the difference between objective and subjective according to Jung:

*Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective
stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a
subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes his
subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely
based upon the subjective portion of perception. What is meant by this finds its best illustration
in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one
and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none
the less differ from the rest, not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly
because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic
variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form. Such qualities betray a more
or less influential co-operation of the subjective factor. The subjective factor of sensation is
essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition,
which alters [p. 499] the sense-perception at its very source, thus depriving it of the character of
a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject, and only
secondarily to the object. How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most
clearly in art. The ascendancy of the subjective factor occasionally achieves a complete
suppression of the mere influence of the object; but none the less sensation remains sensation,
although it has come to be a perception of the subjective factor, and the effect of the object has
sunk to the level of a mere stimulant. Introverted sensation develops in accordance with this
subjective direction. A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though
objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject
were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a
matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the
objective stimulus. Subjective perception differs remarkably from the objective. It is either not found at all in the object, or, at most, merely suggested by it; it can, however, be similar to the
sensation of other men, although not immediately derived from the objective behaviour of things.
It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness -- it is too genuine for that. But it
makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to
it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned
with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images,
with primal possibilities of ideas. The character of significance and meaning clings to subjective
perception. It says more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to him for
whom the [p. 500] subjective factor has some meaning. To another, a reproduced subjective
impression seems to suffer from the defect of possessing insufficient similarity with the object; it
seems, therefore, to have failed in its purpose. Subjective sensation apprehends the background
of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but
the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a
psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the
present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense
sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a
consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and
momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which
was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the
present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to
give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation
conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a
wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future
event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted
sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.

*He essentially claims that Si types perceive the same objects as Se types, but Si types also compare these objects with previous experiences of similar objects.*


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> *This is the difference between objective and subjective according to Jung:
> 
> *Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective
> stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a
> subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes his
> subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely
> based upon the subjective portion of perception. What is meant by this finds its best illustration
> in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one
> and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none
> the less differ from the rest, not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly
> because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic
> variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form. Such qualities betray a more
> or less influential co-operation of the subjective factor. The subjective factor of sensation is
> essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition,
> which alters [p. 499] the sense-perception at its very source, thus depriving it of the character of
> a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject, and only
> secondarily to the object. How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most
> clearly in art. The ascendancy of the subjective factor occasionally achieves a complete
> suppression of the mere influence of the object; but none the less sensation remains sensation,
> although it has come to be a perception of the subjective factor, and the effect of the object has
> sunk to the level of a mere stimulant. Introverted sensation develops in accordance with this
> subjective direction. A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though
> objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject
> were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a
> matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the
> objective stimulus. Subjective perception differs remarkably from the objective. It is either not found at all in the object, or, at most, merely suggested by it; it can, however, be similar to the
> sensation of other men, although not immediately derived from the objective behaviour of things.
> It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness -- it is too genuine for that. But it
> makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to
> it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned
> with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images,
> with primal possibilities of ideas. The character of significance and meaning clings to subjective
> perception. It says more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to him for
> whom the [p. 500] subjective factor has some meaning. To another, a reproduced subjective
> impression seems to suffer from the defect of possessing insufficient similarity with the object; it
> seems, therefore, to have failed in its purpose. Subjective sensation apprehends the background
> of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but
> the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a
> psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the
> present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense
> sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a
> consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and
> momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which
> was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the
> present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to
> give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation
> conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a
> wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future
> event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted
> sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.
> 
> *He essentially claims that Si types perceive the same objects as Se types, but Si types also compare these objects with previous experiences of similar objects.*


This is a very long exposition noted by the absence of differentiating paragraphs, especially between Se and Si. Although his description is out there, to me it leaves open how we are to judge the 16 personalities, especially since Se and Si vary in their relative energy usage in the 16. I'm not sure he defines "objective" though it is implied by the detail he puts into subjective.

What stands out for me is the clarity in distinguishing between what is *inside* the observers head and what is out there *outside* that most would agree is objective. 

He makes use of the artist a bit. I wonder how much the artist is expressing Fi and Ni rather than Si? After all, if anyone is skilled with objective materials, it is the artist and that is Se. (I forget the landscaper may be different from the abstract expressionist.) Anyway a skilled artist might use Se as a tool rather than as a primary force. This gets complicated when we look into all 16. My notes say a *primary* Si user could be an "inspector" if they are supported by Te or a "nurturer" if they are supported by Fe.

No need to reply to this as these are just rambling thoughts. 

Tellus, I am still working on your previous message.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Both INTP and ENTJ have Thinking as the dominant  function in MBTT. They claim it is the same function in both types. This is incorrect in my view.
> 
> Socionics uses eight IM elements/functions (and eight aspects), so INTP and ENTJ don't have the same dominant/leading IM element. This is correct.


INTP = Ti Ne
ENTJ = Te Ni
Both lead with thinking, but they are not the same kind of thinking.





> A) Extraversion/introversion in the psychological sense. Some people call this "social extraversion/introversion". NEO PI-R: "Extraversion: quantity and intensity of energy directed outwards into the social world."
> 
> B) Extraversion/introversion in the Jungian sense.
> 
> The Jung Lexicon by Jungian analyst, Daryl Sharp, Toronto
> 
> "Introversion. A mode of psychological orientation where the movement of energy is toward the inner world."
> 
> Jung: "Everyone whose attitude is introverted thinks, feels, and acts in a way that clearly demonstrates that the subject is the prime motivating factor and that the object is of secondary importance." "Always he has to prove that everything he does rests on his own decisions and convictions, and never because he is influenced by anyone, or desires to please or conciliate some person or opinion."
> 
> This implies that ENTJ's Thinking is (mainly) objective and INTP's Thinking is (mainly) subjective according to Jung, which also corresponds to socionist Grigory Reinin's point of view.
> 
> Reinin:
> 
> - Subjective logic. It is my own logic, my understanding, explanation, description, concept, and theory of things. It is my hierarchy of notions of the things that are closer or farther, higher or lower. It is what I was taught, my view of this world, my world outlook. It includes my education, i.e. the system of my ideas and my schooling.
> 
> - Objective logic. Logic of the objective world - objective circumstances, facts. Example: the day began and it started raining. Systems, statistics. Event queue. Example: “I am late for work because the bridge collapsed". Laws, political policies of the government, stamps in the passport, traffic laws, prices, private summerhouse property, my territory, and design drawing of a unit. Thinking objectively people usually ask: “I want to know the reality of the matter.”


I regard internal/ external as more accurate but if you wish to reserve those terms for Socionics, I will use introverted/ extroverted which I don't hold as precise. Which to use may just exemplify the difference in our personalities. What you said above, I tend to put introversion/ subjective and extroversion/ objective together. These may cause a problem with precision though. I will try to think to myself introversion/ extroversion as "English internal/ external."

Later: How about *inside/ outside* meaning inside one's head & subjective vs outside one's head & objective? I'm fond of a top/down beginning rather than starting with expositions unless we are collecting data.






> Is this accurate, though? Is this the best distinction between ENTJ's dominant function and INTP's dominant function? It means that BOTH Te and Ti are related to Dario Nardi's F3 AND P3 posterior brain regions. So ENTJ and ESTJ are equally focused on definitions (as they are on drawing conclusions), and INTP and ISTP are equally focused on drawing conclusions. Is that actually true?
> 
> All of mathematics in textbooks would be objective logic. Why aren't ENTJ and/or ESTJ interested in mathematics? In what sense are ESTJs focused on systems? In what sense are an ESTJ manager's decisions and conclusions objective?
> 
> My view is still that Ti is about statics and Te is about dynamics. And both functions are subjective AND objective.


Above you are after the Ti/Te distinctions. Allow me to express my view of describing Ti/Te and we can compare afterward.

Ti and Te have in common they are about thinking. Perhaps we need a definition about what thinking is. I see *thinking* as performing a desired ordering function of some kind. It is about making active choices in ordering. I don't care for the word, "logic" as thinking need not be formal logic.

Ti and Te are vastly different in what they do in the brain, depending what the secondary supporting function is. There are going to be four categories when Ti or Te lead. (If only we could dispense with the history of what the MBTI and Socionics say, we could go directly to these two functions and four categories of thinking.)

I will address Ti and Te as leading functions keeping in mind what I say may be different when they are in lower positions. The four categories are:

In the MBTI:
*1. Ti Ne = INTP
2. Ti Se = ISTP
3. Te Ni = ENTJ
4. Te Si = ESTJ*
Let's see how each might work as they are all different.
___________________________________________
1. Ti Ne thinking is going to be founded on objective data taken from intuitive generalities from the outside world. The thinking itself is about ordering inside the person's head and is based on generalities from the outside world. Note that an extroverted person with Ne Ti, is fond of inside thinking but uses it for intuitive generalities in the outside world.

2. Ti Se thinking is going to be founded on objective specifics (typically sense sources) from the outside world. The thinking itself occurs inside the person's head and is based on specific things taken from the outside world. Note that an extroverted person with Se Ti accepts inside thinking but uses it for specific objective results in the outside world.

3. Te Ni thinking will be the reverse. It is founded on general intuitive sources inside the person's head, but is expressed as providing an order for the outside world. An introverted Ni Te person will use outside world generalities to provide support for inside intuitive generalities.

4. Te Si thinking is founded on specific (typically of the senses) subjective sources based on what is inside the person's head. It is expressed as providing order for the outside world. An introverted Si Te person will use the outside world ordering to provide support for inside subjective specifics.

Possible examples from real life:
___________________________________________
1a. Ti Ne. Architect does inside thinking based on outside building concepts.
1b. Ne Ti. Lawyer makes outside observation based on inside principles.

2a. Ti Se. Inspector has inside standards based on outside specifics.
2b. Se Ti. Doer does specific outside things based on inside thinking.

3a. Te Ni. Executive provides outside order based on inside generalities.
3b. Ni Te. Scientist uses outside generalities to satisfy inside intuition.

4a. Te Si. Supervisor provide outside order based on inside specifics.
4b. Si Te. Craftsman uses outside order to satisfy inside specifics.
___________________________________________
Not sure but let's see if this is ready to explain INTP/ ENTJ.

INTP = Ti Ne = 1a.
ENTJ = Te Ni = 3a.
The first difference is the ENTJ wants to provide an order for the outside world. The INTP want to produce ordering inside their head. These seem very close but there is an F difference. The ENTJ feels Fi for themselves; the INTP wishes Fe harmony but that has a lower priority.

The other difference is about the source. The ENTJ's source is internal subjective intuition; the INTP's source is objective outside data. It's a matter of priorities. For the INTP, the objective outside data is the means, not the end. For the ENTJ, the source is inside, but the priority is for the outside.

On the surface what we see may end up very close. Yet the motives are different. They could end up far apart if the motives (that is, feelings) are strong enough and not adequately supported by subordinate sources.

Tellus you may notice I like to do my own thinking. That is because I'm an INTP. That doesn't stop me from lifting what I can from outside sources. I realize Socionics has differences. I wonder what is to be found by examining that?



Tellus said:


> My view is still that Ti is about statics and Te is about dynamics. And both functions are subjective AND objective.


Let's take a look.

Ti Xe takes from the outside world (static) and does inside thinking. I suppose one could label the latter as static. Inside thinking is dynamic though, but is not seen by the outside world.
Te Xi takes from the inside world and does outside thinking. Outside means outside one's head and into social situations and is meant to influence. We could call that dynamic. My first reaction is not to focus on those terms (static and dynamic) unless there is a motive. As far as subjective and objective goes, both make use of inside and outside paired functions. That makes for subjective and objective. Is that what you mean?




Tellus said:


> All of mathematics in textbooks would be objective logic. Why aren't ENTJ and/or ESTJ interested in mathematics? In what sense are ESTJs focused on systems? In what sense are an ESTJ manager's decisions and conclusions objective?


You asked this question above. Here is my answer. The math in textbooks have already been thought out. Therefore the logic is Te in the outside world. When we work through new math problems, we use our inner thinking. That is Ti. When we ask about mathematics, we are dealing with two parts: already proven results and unproven results. The fun and pleasure in mathematics is the unproven results ... the means not the ends. When using math we a dealing with ends. When solving math problems, we a using means. They alternative so we have to be careful what we are talking about.

Ti people find problem solving appealing, the thinking process that is. ENTJs and ESTJs want results. Te is their goal, not Ti. Are ESTJ focused on systems? Answer: probably. They want to use them, not create them. Are ESTJs results objective? ESTJ = Te Si. The Te is, but it is only as good as the Si it is based on. If the Si has the wrong data, the Te will get it wrong. How would I describe that? Answer: The Te is relatively objective but poor. The Si is subjective.





Tellus said:


> We can you use outside (or outer) world and inside (or inner) world. Internal means implicit and external means explicit in Socionics. Thinking and Sensing are explicit, and Feeling and Intuition are implicit.


Not sure I want to use those words "implicit" or "explicit" unless they have a clear value. Those words depends on who is looking. Internal is implied when implicit; external when explicit. Not ready to say this is always the case.


----------



## Tellus

Ptaah said:


> Te: reaching the goal in the most effective and rapid way. Gathers empirical informations and understands how the brain works, but it is mainly concerned about the first thing.
> 
> Ti: Doing logical reasonings. Gathers empirical informations and understands how the brain works, but it is mainly concerned about the second thing.
> 
> Ti is the real function of logic. Te gathers empirical informations, but only to solve the problem.
> 
> Math is logic and therefore is about Ti,Ni and Ne. Te of course can help.
> 
> The best way of understanding Ti is studying Kant's philosophy. He was really a great INTP.


What do you base your conclusions on? Aushra's definitions or Jung's definitions/descriptions (or someone else)?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> I'm not sure he defines "objective" though it is implied by the detail he puts into subjective.


That was directly about introverted sensing and indirectly about extroverted sensing. See link above for more information about extroverted sensing.

Jung: 

"The rationality of both types [i.e. Te dominant and Fe dominant] is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."

Again, I don't think this works. Most INTPs are naturally interested in, for example, The Möbius strip. 

_"The Möbius strip or Möbius band is a surface with only one side and only one boundary. The Möbius strip has the mathematical property of being non-orientable. It can be realized as a ruled surface. It was discovered independently by the German mathematicians August Ferdinand Möbius and Johann Benedict Listing in 1858.
_
_An example of a Möbius strip can be created by taking a paper strip and giving it a half-twist, and then joining the ends of the strip to form a loop. However, the Möbius strip is not a surface of only one exact size and shape, such as the half-twisted paper strip depicted in the illustration. Rather, mathematicians refer to the closed Möbius band as any surface that is homeomorphic to this strip. Its boundary is a simple closed curve, i.e., homeomorphic to a circle. This allows for a very wide variety of geometric versions of the Möbius band as surfaces each having a definite size and shape. For example, any rectangle can be glued to itself (by identifying one edge with the opposite edge after a reversal of orientation) to make a Möbius band. Some of these can be smoothly modeled in Euclidean space, and others cannot. [...]"_

This is objective logic according to Jung. Why doesn't it excite the ENTJ and/or the ESTJ?

I will respond to your other comments later.


----------



## Ptaah

Tellus said:


> What do you base your conclusions on? Aushra's definitions or Jung's definitions/descriptions (or someone else)?



Jung's. But if I'm almost sure Aushra's definitions are the same.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> This is a very long exposition noted by the absence of differentiating paragraphs, especially between Se and Si. Although his description is out there, to me it leaves open how we are to judge the 16 personalities, especially since Se and Si vary in their relative energy usage in the 16. I'm not sure he defines "objective" though it is implied by the detail he puts into subjective.


"The rationality of both types [i.e. Te dominant and Fe dominant] is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable *from the collective standpoint*."



> What stands out for me is the clarity in distinguishing between what is inside the observers head and what is out there outside that most would agree is objective.


Yes, but... (see comments below)



> He makes use of the artist a bit. I wonder how much the artist is expressing Fi and Ni rather than Si?


Good point. I think he is wrong here.



> After all, if anyone is skilled with objective materials, it is the artist and that is Se. (I forget the landscaper may be different from the abstract expressionist.) Anyway a skilled artist might use Se as a tool rather than as a primary force.


His point is that an artist goes beyond the obvious and objective. And you are right, Se is used more as a tool. This is especially true for an ISFP / ESI artist, who has Se as a producing function. It is actually 4D (i.e. strongest) Fi and 4D Si that explains ESI's aptitude for artistry.



> INTP = Ti Ne
> ENTJ = Te Ni
> Both lead with thinking, but they are not the same kind of thinking.


Well, it is the same function according to Jung and MBTT, which is used in two different ways.



> I regard internal/ external as more accurate but if you wish to reserve those terms for Socionics, I will use introverted/ extroverted which I don't hold as precise. Which to use may just exemplify the difference in our personalities. What you said above, I tend to put introversion/ subjective and extroversion/ objective together. These may cause a problem with precision though. I will try to think to myself introversion/ extroversion as "English internal/ external."


OK



> Above you are after the Ti/Te distinctions. Allow me to express my view of describing Ti/Te and we can compare afterward.
> Ti and Te have in common they are about thinking. Perhaps we need a definition about what thinking is. I see thinking as performing a desired ordering function of some kind. It is about making active choices in ordering. I don't care for the word, "logic" as thinking need not be formal logic.


I like 'ordering' as well.



> Ti and Te are vastly different in what they do in the brain, depending what the secondary supporting function is. There are going to be four categories when Ti or Te lead. (If only we could dispense with the history of what the MBTI and Socionics say, we could go directly to these two functions and four categories of thinking.)


I agree with you, but this view does not correspond with Jung's subjective logic vs. objective logic.



> Later: How about inside/ outside meaning inside one's head & subjective vs outside one's head & objective? I'm fond of a top/down beginning rather than starting with expositions unless we are collecting data.
> ----
> I will address Ti and Te as leading functions keeping in mind what I say may be different when they are in lower positions. The four categories are:
> In the MBTI:
> 1. Ti Ne = INTP
> 2. Ti Se = ISTP
> 3. Te Ni = ENTJ
> 4. Te Si = ESTJ
> Let's see how each might work as they are all different.
> ___________________________________________
> 1. Ti Ne thinking is going to be founded on objective data taken from intuitive generalities from the outside world. The thinking itself is about ordering inside the person's head and is based on generalities from the outside world. Note that an extroverted person with Ne Ti, is fond of inside thinking but uses it for intuitive generalities in the outside world.
> 
> 2. Ti Se thinking is going to be founded on objective specifics (typically sense sources) from the outside world. The thinking itself occurs inside the person's head and is based on specific things taken from the outside world. Note that an extroverted person with Se Ti accepts inside thinking but uses it for specific objective results in the outside world.
> 
> 3. Te Ni thinking will be the reverse. It is founded on general intuitive sources inside the person's head, but is expressed as providing an order for the outside world. An introverted Ni Te person will use outside world generalities to provide support for inside intuitive generalities.
> 
> 4. Te Si thinking is founded on specific (typically of the senses) subjective sources based on what is inside the person's head. It is expressed as providing order for the outside world. An introverted Si Te person will use the outside world ordering to provide support for inside subjective specifics.


The subjective is not necessarily inside one's head, though. And the objective is not necessarily outside one's head. I think we need to distinguish between Jung's subjective vs. objective and inside vs. outside. For example, I can read your subjective logic on this forum.



> Possible examples from real life:
> ___________________________________________
> 1a. Ti Ne. Architect does inside thinking based on outside building concepts.
> 1b. Ne Ti. Lawyer makes outside observation based on inside principles.
> 
> 2a. Ti Se. Inspector has inside standards based on outside specifics.
> 2b. Se Ti. Doer does specific outside things based on inside thinking.
> 
> 3a. Te Ni. Executive provides outside order based on inside generalities.
> 3b. Ni Te. Scientist uses outside generalities to satisfy inside intuition.
> 
> 4a. Te Si. Supervisor provide outside order based on inside specifics.
> 4b. Si Te. Craftsman uses outside order to satisfy inside specifics.
> ___________________________________________
> Not sure but let's see if this is ready to explain INTP/ ENTJ.
> INTP = Ti Ne = 1a.
> ENTJ = Te Ni = 3a.
> The first difference is the ENTJ wants to provide an order for the outside world. The INTP want to produce ordering inside their head.
> The other difference is about the source. The ENTJ's source is internal subjective intuition; the INTP's source is objective outside data. It's a matter of priorities. For the INTP, the objective outside data is the means, not the end. For the ENTJ, the source is inside, but the priority is for the outside.
> On the surface what we see may end up very close. Yet the motives are different. They could end up far apart if the motives (that is, feelings) are strong enough and not adequately supported by subordinate sources.
> Tellus you may notice I like to do my own thinking. That is because I'm an INTP. That doesn't stop me from lifting what I can from outside sources. I realize Socionics has differences. I wonder what is to be found by examining that?


I think we need to agree on Jung's subjective vs. objective and inside vs. outside before I comment on this.



> Let's take a look.
> Ti Xe takes from the outside world (static) and does inside thinking. I suppose one could label the latter as static. Inside thinking is dynamic though, but is not seen by the outside world.
> Te Xi takes from the inside world and does outside thinking. Outside means outside one's head and into social situations and is meant to influence. We could call that dynamic. My first reaction is not to focus on those terms (static and dynamic) unless there is a motive. As far as subjective and objective goes, both make use of inside and outside paired functions. That makes for subjective and objective. Is that what you mean?


No, Ti is static because it processes static information. Te is dynamic because it processes dynamic information. And neither subjective/objective nor inside/outside are relevant to static/dynamic. For example, the Möbius strip is static information/logic, and calculations in a game of chess are dynamic information/logic. 

Why is "inside thinking" dynamic in your view?



> You asked this question above. Here is my answer. The math in textbooks have already been thought out. Therefore the logic is Te in the outside world. When we work through new math problems, we use our inner thinking. That is Ti. When we ask about mathematics, we are dealing with two parts: already proven results and unproven results. The fun and pleasure in mathematics is the unproven results ... the means not the ends. When using math we a dealing with ends. When solving math problems, we a using means. They alternative so we have to be careful what we are talking about.


Yes, but this would mean that INTP is not interested already proven results in textbooks. My view is that INTP is interested in BOTH proven results (i.e. the mathematical community's point of view) and unproven results (i.e. your own way of thinking about a problem).



> Ti people find problem solving appealing, the thinking process that is. ENTJs and ESTJs want results. Te is their goal, not Ti.


What kind of results do ENTJ and ESTJ want? The results from problems in mathematics textbooks? The results from mathematical theorems?


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> "The rationality of both types [i.e. Te dominant and Fe dominant] is orientated objectively, and depends upon objective data. Their reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable *from the collective standpoint*."


Agreed even though collective need not mean universal. It could be the Ti and Fi people are good at differentiation between those two.






> Good point. I think he is wrong here.


Re: Jung & the artist. I would say he probably had a different kind of art in mind and today we see more broadly.






> His point is that an artist goes beyond the obvious and objective. And you are right, Se is used more as a tool. This is especially true for an ISFP / ESI artist, who has Se as a producing function. It is actually 4D (i.e. strongest) Fi and 4D Si that explains ESI's aptitude for artistry.


I think I concur but what is "4D" and "ESI"? These are not in my vocabulary. If unimportant, no need to answer. 






> Well, it is the same function according to Jung and MBTT, which is used in two different ways.


Do you mean MBTT = MBTI? Why are we concerned about Jung if we can make more modern and refined differentiation? We are exploring Ti and Te differences and they ARE different though both think. It is a judgment to decide how far we want to go in examining these differences. I think the differences are important because they distinguish among the 16 personalities. INTP and INTJ differences have been touched on in other threads.






> I like 'ordering' as well.


Strangely I don't recall others emphasizing or even mentioning this word. (I could be wrong.) Could it be you and I have chosen a better outlook? Ordering means choosing arrangements which means making judgments. There may be a number of possible different orderings and thinking need not choose the "best" one. It is choice though. This is consistent with thinking being a judgmental function as is feeling.

Statements like, "thinking has to do with logic, consistency and avoiding contradictions" are consequences of thinking and are descriptive, not sources which explain causes.






> I agree with you, but this view does not correspond with Jung's subjective logic vs. objective logic.


Do I (or we) want to know what Jung says? Do you wish to repeat what he says for me? I'm torn between saying what I like and meshing with what others say. Does he say it better? In what way? 






> The subjective is not necessarily inside one's head, though. And the objective is not necessarily outside one's head. I think we need to distinguish between Jung's subjective vs. objective and inside vs. outside. For example, I can read your subjective logic on this forum.
> 
> I think we need to agree on Jung's subjective vs. objective and inside vs. outside before I comment on this.


Okay. As soon as I see what Jung has to say, we can work on this and I will give you my opinion or definition of inside/outside.




*******************************************************************
STATICs verus DYNAMICs


> No, Ti is static because it processes static information. Te is dynamic because it processes dynamic information. And neither subjective/objective nor inside/outside are relevant to static/dynamic.
> 
> Why is "inside thinking" dynamic in your view?


Hierarchy Theory.
I will introduce a concept called, "hierarchy." We can look at anything from the top down or from the bottom up. What this means is there exist levels. A concept at one level may differ at another level. When this is not recognized, confusion can occur. 

A personality as an INTP or an INTJ we can call the highest level. The two cognitive functions used are at the next lower level.


> For example, the Möbius strip is static information/logic, and calculations in a game of chess are dynamic information/logic.


An INTJ (the highest level) may view a Mobius strip (abbreviated Mobius) as static and chess as dynamic. Examination of the cognitive functions may reveal something different.
An INTP may view the Mobius as dynamic and chess as static. This is quite a difference. How could this come about? Let's look at the cognitive functions of each. 

First look at an INTP = Ti Ne. 
Ti is a broad concept. Ti thinks about Ne input. You agree Ne is static because it is an observation. If you wish to call Ti static because it processes Ne, this is a different use of the term, "static." One could also call Ti dynamic as it is making a judgment. Judgments are dynamic.

Said another way, the Ti process can be viewed in two ways: As a developing action or as a completed action. The former is dynamic; the latter static. The Ti process is broken down into inner thought and outer source material. The thought is dynamic; the material is static. This is a level down from the overall Ti process. 

A corresponding statement holds for Te.

Let's apply the above to the Mobius and to chess. When we look at those from the outside, typical of an INTJs Te, the mobius is static and chess is dynamic. That is the INTJs Ni at work.

Here is what an INTP might say:
When we observe the quiet Mobius, it is static. So are the rules for chess: static. When we activate the rules of chess, the action is dynamic. When we trace the surface of a Mobius, that is also dynamic. They are the same!

How would the hierarchy concept come into play and be useful? I want to introduce another concept: perspective. The INTP Ti Ne perspective is not the same as the INTJ Ni Te perspective. Their hierarchy views are different.

The primary (Ni) perspective of the INTJ on chess is it is a game to play and therefore is dynamic. The INTJs Te is in service of this dynamic playing. The view of the Mobius is not the same. The mobius is meant to be observed for its curious property and is therefore static. This is the hierarchical view from the top.

The secondary (Te) view of the INTJ on chess is thinking actual moves. This is a lower level in a hierarchical view and is dynamic. The view of the Mobius has no thinking (Te) interest (Fi) at all. It is what it is (Se) and interest stops there. This makes the Te perspective of the Mobius unmoving or static.

The primary (Ti) perspective of the INTP is the Mobius is something to think about. It has a strange one-side property having something to do with a twisted path. The thinking about this is dynamic but unseen by others. The INTP view of chess is different. The rules are set in stone. Thinking about changing the rules is not encouraged (Si). The rules are static. There may be an interest in strategy or what makes it an interesting game (Fe), but further thinking is of little interest.

The secondary (Ne) view of the INTP backs up the primary Ti but is lower on the hierarchical scale. Ne observes non twists and double twists are possible. Thinking about that is dynamic. 
___________________________

Can this be related to Socionics? Ti = open square = external statics of fields = external statics of relationships between objects = logical relationships between objects. When the INTP looks at the Mobius, ...

Summary so far. How we use the terms static and dynamic are not absolute. Their meaning is dependent on context. We cannot waltz around using these terms without sighting context.
___________________________

Socionics versus MBTI.
Another concept beside *hierarchy *and *perspective* is *analysis*. If experience (intuition) teaches us there are lots of personalities and a number of cognitive functions, we can try to refine and define them through analysis. Analysis has no set procedure. Analysis can be done in more than one way. How analysis is done depends on how we wish to use the results. The use of results we could label *context. * Who is using the results and how important are they to the user? The opposite of analysis we can call context. 

Example of analysis variations: i/e, introversion/ extroversion, internal/ external, inside/ outside, relationships/ objects, subjective/ objective. 
*******************************************************************





> Yes, but this would mean that INTP is not interested already proven results in textbooks. My view is that INTP is interested in BOTH proven results (i.e. the mathematical community's point of view) and unproven results (i.e. your own way of thinking about a problem).


The INTP is interested in both but for different reasons. The INTP cares about proven results in textbooks and journals as *means.* The INTP is interested in unproven results because it furthers thinking and discovery as a process even though the results are more means. The INTJ is interested in the same means but only as *ends* to apply somewhere. It's a matter of emphasis. One likes means; the other likes ends, but both work together.

Another way of looking at this is the play of INTP/ J/ P/ J, etc. Means and end productions alternate. Whoever comes up last wins.






> What kind of results do ENTJ and ESTJ want? The results from problems in mathematics textbooks? The results from mathematical theorems?


Both results are wanted as long as they are finished results ready to be applied.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

You sound Dynamic to me, Apple. From a Socionics standpoint, that is.

Anyway. I notice that failing to provide sources for the terms used is happening a LOT here. That seems like it isn't helping much, given that it has been directly stated that you are each familiar with different systems. If you are going to discuss theoretical principles of fundamentally different systems without defining the differences, this discussion will not have a happy ending. -_-

Have sources on the Static and Dynamic dichotomy as Socionics uses it.

Socionics Dichotomies: R2t1
Statics and dynamics - Wikisocion

Oh, and ESI is Ethical Sensory Introtim. Meaning ethical lead with a sensory creative and an introvert, so Fi and Se in the Ego.


----------



## BigApplePi

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I notice that failing to provide sources for the terms used is happening a LOT here. That seems like it isn't helping much, ...


It takes two to tango, not more. Two is difficult enough. More sources can mean more complications. 

May I call you an INFP? I'm an LII.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

BigApplePi said:


> It takes two to tango, not more. Two is difficult enough. More sources can mean more complications.
> 
> May I call you an INFP? I'm an LII.


I don't mind. Hell, you can call me Caitlyn if you want. I'm not exactly picky. 

Though, mildly curious. Do you mean MBTI INFP (FiNe) or Socionics INFp / IEI (NiFe)? 

More sources mean more complications, sure, although to be fair those complications were already there when the terms started being used. I'm basically lampshading it right now by pointing out that terms are being tossed back and forth in order to convey whole realms of meaning, such a the term Static or the term Dynamic, when these terms mean far more than the English definition and indeed are interlaced into the entire model of Dimensionality and the definitions of the IEs themselves, which is crucial to the differing definitions of each type.

Its like trying to explain why you are missing three apples when you had a batch of seven earlier to someone who does not understand the concept of subtraction. You can get there, sure. The prerequisite knowledge just makes it easier in a lot of ways.

I think that the biggest problem with socionics terms here is a lot of them are regular words.

Like the Reinin Dichotomies:
Carefree and farsighted Yielding and obstinate Static and dynamic
Democratic and aristocratic Tactical and strategic Constructivist and emotivist
Positivist and negativist Judicious and decisive Merry and serious
Process and result Asking and declaring

These don't explain themselves, yet they refer to something quite specific. Each of them. You can have an extremely happy-go-lucky optimistic Negativist, for example. 

Or the ways that an IE is defined. Internal and external, fields and objects, etc.

MBTI doesn't use these definitions. It doesn't translate. Its easier to translate from Socionics to MBTI than it is the other way around. In a way, MBTI is a FiTe construct. It is less about the objective logic and more about the application and in achieving interpersonal understanding. Its relational ethics, which is Fi in Socionics.

Also, @Tellus I am mildly confused - you keep asking our LII friend here which definitions he agrees with from what author and explaining where your logic differs. Why not make sure he knows what those definitions are and the implications thereof first by presenting the information and answering the questions in detail? Build a base from which to present the case for your own logic being superior to the work of those who came before, you know?


----------



## BigApplePi

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> I don't mind. Hell, you can call me Caitlyn if you want. I'm not exactly picky.
> 
> Though, mildly curious. Do you mean MBTI INFP (FiNe) or Socionics INFp / IEI (NiFe)?


One name for you is enough. I would never remember Caitlyn, Mr. Lord F Wulfheart. I have a table which says IEI = INFJ. Unfortunately for me I misread the table and saw FeNe. INFJ = Ni Fe is better.






> More sources mean more complications, sure, although to be fair those complications were already there when the terms started being used. I'm basically lampshading it right now by pointing out that terms are being tossed back and forth in order to convey whole realms of meaning, such a the term Static or the term Dynamic, when these terms mean far more than the English definition and indeed are interlaced into the entire model of Dimensionality and the definitions of the IEs themselves, which is crucial to the differing definitions of each type.


To me static means either the observer or the observed is still; dynamic means either the observer or the observed is moving. Neither Tellus nor myself always states the context which even though crucial, may lead to an understanding at some point. I'm hoping Tellus and I will get in sync later. I'm not sure how Tellus feels about this, but I like our interchange so far. You, yourself, are a 3rd party so you are presenting an Ni impression. As an INTP I don't trust Ni, lol.






> Its like trying to explain why you are missing three apples when you had a batch of seven earlier to someone who does not understand the concept of subtraction. You can get there, sure. The prerequisite knowledge just makes it easier in a lot of ways.
> 
> I think that the biggest problem with socionics terms here is a lot of them are regular words.


So be it. I will tell you what is on my mind. When I see two theories I want to unify them. That is my desire. If I don't get my wish, too bad for me. If I get my wish, it will be good for you. Look at what I write next.






> Like the Reinin Dichotomies:
> Carefree and farsighted Yielding and obstinate Static and dynamic
> Democratic and aristocratic Tactical and strategic Constructivist and emotivist
> Positivist and negativist Judicious and decisive Merry and serious
> Process and result Asking and declaring
> 
> These don't explain themselves, yet they refer to something quite specific. Each of them. You can have an extremely happy-go-lucky optimistic Negativist, for example.


Since unities can be split in many ways, I have to ask, what do you want to do with these splits? Unless Reinin comes up with something valuable, tell him to go take a flying leap, lol. 






> Or the ways that an IE is defined. Internal and external, fields and objects, etc.


This is currently under discussion by Tellus and myself. 






> MBTI doesn't use these definitions. It doesn't translate. Its easier to translate from Socionics to MBTI than it is the other way around. In a way, MBTI is a FiTe construct. It is less about the objective logic and more about the application and in achieving interpersonal understanding. Its relational ethics, which is Fi in Socionics.


I'm ready to agree with that. What do you yourself like about Socionics? Is it a practical endeavor or theoretical? How?






> Also, @*Tellus* I am mildly confused - you keep asking our LII friend here which definitions he agrees with from what author and explaining where your logic differs. Why not make sure he knows what those definitions are and the implications thereof first by presenting the information and answering the questions in detail? Build a base from which to present the case for your own logic being superior to the work of those who came before, you know?


At the moment Fenix, I'm eager to see what Tellus has to says about my presentation. He has given me references to definitions, I've looked at them, and am playing them by ear. I see this as a joint exploration, with unknown consequences.


----------



## Tellus

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Also, @Tellus I am mildly confused - you keep asking our LII friend here which definitions he agrees with from what author and explaining where your logic differs. Why not make sure he knows what those definitions are and the implications thereof first by presenting the information and answering the questions in detail? Build a base from which to present the case for your own logic being superior to the work of those who came before, you know?


He knows about the definitions of informations aspects in Socionics (internal statics of fields etc). Our discussion is about 'e' vs. 'i'. What is the most accurate distinction between an "extroverted" function (or aspect) and an "introverted" function? There are several suggestions:

objective vs. subjective (Jung, MBTT)

object vs. field (Aushra, mainstream Socionics)

essential properties vs. relations between essential properties (SSS)

reality vs. reflection of reality (Shulman)

dynamics vs. statics (my view)

You are welcome to join in.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

BigApplePi said:


> One name for you is enough. I would never remember Caitlyn, Mr. Lord F Wulfheart. I have a table which says IEI = INFJ. Unfortunately for me I misread the table and saw FeNe. INFJ = Ni Fe is better.


Haha fair enough. You can refer to me as just Fenix if that is easier. 

Ahhh, I see. Yeh, I do type as IEI which is NiFe. I am told my Ne is too strong to be Ignoring though, so some think I am EIE and others think I am IEE (FeNi and NeFi respectively).



BigApplePi said:


> To me static means either the observer or the observed is still; dynamic means either the observer or the observed is moving. Neither Tellus nor myself always states the context which even though crucial, may lead to an understanding at some point. I'm hoping Tellus and I will get in sync later. I'm not sure how Tellus feels about this, but I like our interchange so far. You, yourself, are a 3rd party so you are presenting an Ni impression. As an INTP I don't trust Ni, lol.


Erm, yeah, that is sort of what Static and Dynamic mean in Socionics context. The difference is that it is the information being processed that is being static or dynamic, which results in differences in world perception and resultant actions of people. You see the world as Static so you act in accordance with that belief, such as by instituting a change, or by adapting to existing structures you believe will not change, or...I think you get the idea.

I agree that you can reach an understanding with enough discussion. It looks to me like it is taking a very long time is all. Maybe I'm just too impatient for your debating style and am projecting onto you XD

Can you say more on how being a third party and having Ni is related? I have never heard this one before, and it sounds intriguing.



BigApplePi said:


> So be it. I will tell you what is on my mind. When I see two theories I want to unify them. That is my desire. If I don't get my wish, too bad for me. If I get my wish, it will be good for you. Look at what I write next.
> 
> Since unities can be split in many ways, I have to ask, what do you want to do with these splits? Unless Reinin comes up with something valuable, tell him to go take a flying leap, lol.


They are meant to work in the same manner as Thinking versus Feeling. However, they are mathematically derived from the other dichotomies.

That is, there is a dichotomy for each combination of the basic 4 MBTI letters, sort of. The combined traits generate a new dichotomous spectrum for the types to fall on.



BigApplePi said:


> I'm ready to agree with that. What do you yourself like about Socionics? Is it a practical endeavor or theoretical? How?


I enjoy the theoretical aspect. I like playing with it and testing out different types for people. I also like peering inside and labeling what I see as this or that function or type, and then putting it all together and noting the contradictions and trying to figure out what the reason for it all is. Then I compare the results with the types and the people I know and repeat process for them. Its sort of like I am testing to see if the theories have validity, but at the same time I don't mind if they don't.



BigApplePi said:


> At the moment Fenix, I'm eager to see what Tellus has to says about my presentation. He has given me references to definitions, I've looked at them, and am playing them by ear. I see this as a joint exploration, with unknown consequences.


Heh. Ne much? Haha all right have fun man! We shall see what he says 



Tellus said:


> He knows about the definitions of informations aspects in Socionics (internal statics of fields etc). Our discussion is about 'e' vs. 'i'. What is the most accurate distinction between an "extroverted" function (or aspect) and an "introverted" function? There are several suggestions:
> 
> objective vs. subjective (Jung, MBTT)
> 
> object vs. field (Aushra, mainstream Socionics)
> 
> essential properties vs. relations between essential properties (SSS)
> 
> reality vs. reflection of reality (Shulman)
> 
> dynamics vs. statics (my view)
> 
> You are welcome to join in.


How are dynamics versus statics the distinction between E and I elements if Ne is Static and Te is Dynamic? Or do you disagree with that distinction between Ne and Te?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


First of all, here's a correction. Jungian functions do not include information aspects. However, Jung (and MB community) describes what sort of information the functions process. So both functions/IM elements (Socionics) and Jungian functions process information, but Socionics also defines eight different kinds of information (i.e. aspects).



> Agreed even though collective need not mean universal.


What do you mean by universal?



> It could be the Ti and Fi people are good at differentiation between those two.


Can you explain this part a bit further?



> Re: Jung & the artist. I would say he probably had a different kind of art in mind and today we see more broadly.


Maybe



> I think I concur but what is "4D" and "ESI"? These are not in my vocabulary. If unimportant, no need to answer.


D = dimensionality in Socionics... which corresponds to preference/strength.



> Do you mean MBTT = MBTI?


MBTT = Myers-Briggs type theory



> Why are we concerned about Jung if we can make more modern and refined differentiation?
> ---
> Do I (or we) want to know what Jung says? Do you wish to repeat what he says for me? I'm torn between saying what I like and meshing with what others say. Does he say it better? In what way?


Those definitions by various socionists and descriptions by MB typologists are based on Jung's objective vs. subjective. For example, object vs. field is very similar to objective vs. subjective. So I think we have to consider Jung's viewpoint.



> We are exploring Ti and Te differences and they ARE different though both think.


Okay, so you agree with me that Jung was wrong about this, right?

"When the objective orientation receives a certain predominance, the thinking is extraverted. This circumstance changes nothing as regards the logic of thought -- it merely determines that difference between thinkers which James regards as a matter of temperament. The orientation towards the object, as already explained, makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered."




> It is a judgment to decide how far we want to go in examining these differences.


It is up to you. 



> I think the differences are important because they distinguish among the 16 personalities.


Yes



> Strangely I don't recall others emphasizing or even mentioning this word. (I could be wrong.) Could it be you and I have chosen a better outlook? Ordering means choosing arrangements which means making judgments. There may be a number of possible different orderings and thinking need not choose the "best" one. It is choice though. This is consistent with thinking being a judgmental function as is feeling.
> 
> Statements like, "thinking has to do with logic, consistency and avoiding contradictions" are consequences of thinking and are descriptive, not sources which explain causes.


I agree.



> Okay. As soon as I see what Jung has to say, we can work on this and I will give you my opinion or definition of inside/outside.


http://www.cyjack.com/cognition/(ebook pdf) jung, carl - the psychological types.pdf

You can read this... or read those quotes I have posted.

-----

EDIT

I: "For example, I can read your subjective logic on this forum."

Do you agree with me that subjective logic isn't just inside one's head?



> STATICs verus DYNAMICs
> Hierarchy Theory.
> I will introduce a concept called, "hierarchy." We can look at anything from the top down or from the bottom up. What this means is there exist levels. A concept at one level may differ at another level. When this is not recognized, confusion can occur.
> A personality as an INTP or an INTJ we can call the highest level. The two cognitive functions used are at the next lower level.
> An INTJ (the highest level) may view a Mobius strip (abbreviated Mobius) as static and chess as dynamic. Examination of the cognitive functions may reveal something different.
> An INTP may view the Mobius as dynamic and chess as static. This is quite a difference. How could this come about? Let's look at the cognitive functions of each.
> 
> First look at an INTP = Ti Ne.
> Ti is a broad concept. Ti thinks about Ne input. You agree Ne is static because it is an observation.
> 
> If you wish to call Ti static because it processes Ne, this is a different use of the term, "static." One could also call Ti dynamic as it is making a judgment. Judgments are dynamic.
> Said another way, the Ti process can be viewed in two ways: As a developing action or as a completed action. The former is dynamic; the latter static. The Ti process is broken down into inner thought and outer source material. The thought is dynamic; the material is static. This is a level down from the overall Ti process.
> A corresponding statement holds for Te.
> Let's apply the above to the Mobius and to chess. When we look at those from the outside, typical of an INTJs Te, the mobius is static and chess is dynamic. That is the INTJs Ni at work.
> Here is what an INTP might say:
> When we observe the quiet Mobius, it is static. So are the rules for chess: static. When we activate the rules of chess, the action is dynamic. When we trace the surface of a Mobius, that is also dynamic. They are the same!
> How would the hierarchy concept come into play and be useful? I want to introduce another concept: perspective. The INTP Ti Ne perspective is not the same as the INTJ Ni Te perspective. Their hierarchy views are different.
> The primary (Ni) perspective of the INTJ on chess is it is a game to play and therefore is dynamic. The INTJs Te is in service of this dynamic playing. The view of the Mobius is not the same. The mobius is meant to be observed for its curious property and is therefore static. This is the hierarchical view from the top.
> The secondary (Te) view of the INTJ on chess is thinking actual moves. This is a lower level in a hierarchical view and is dynamic. The view of the Mobius has no thinking (Te) interest (Fi) at all. It is what it is (Se) and interest stops there. This makes the Te perspective of the Mobius unmoving or static.
> The primary (Ti) perspective of the INTP is the Mobius is something to think about. It has a strange one-side property having something to do with a twisted path. The thinking about this is dynamic but unseen by others. The INTP view of chess is different. The rules are set in stone. Thinking about changing the rules is not encouraged (Si). The rules are static. There may be an interest in strategy or what makes it an interesting game (Fe), but further thinking is of little interest.
> The secondary (Ne) view of the INTP backs up the primary Ti but is lower on the hierarchical scale. Ne observes non twists and double twists are possible. Thinking about that is dynamic.
> ___________________________
> Can this be related to Socionics? Ti = open square = external statics of fields = external statics of relationships between objects = logical relationships between objects. When the INTP looks at the Mobius, ...
> Summary so far. How we use the terms static and dynamic are not absolute. Their meaning is dependent on context. We cannot waltz around using these terms without sighting context.
> ___________________________
> Socionics versus MBTI.
> Another concept beside hierarchy and perspective is analysis. If experience (intuition) teaches us there are lots of personalities and a number of cognitive functions, we can try to refine and define them through analysis. Analysis has no set procedure. Analysis can be done in more than one way. How analysis is done depends on how we wish to use the results. The use of results we could label context. Who is using the results and how important are they to the user? The opposite of analysis we can call context.
> Example of analysis variations: i/e, introversion/ extroversion, internal/ external, inside/ outside, relationships/ objects, subjective/ objective.
> *******************************************************************


I will comment on this, but we need to speak the same language first. "You agree Ne is static because it is an observation". This would be an attempt to define the actual Ne process, which I think is very difficult. So socionists and I have defined information aspects instead. However, the aspects must correspond with the processes, which socionists have disregarded. Furthermore, "...because it is an observation" would mean that all perceiving functions are static.

Ne (both process and aspect) is dynamic since it considers the potential behavior of objects. For example, a football flying through the air is dynamic information (and the process is also dynamic), ie Se. Watching a soccer/football game and thinking about the ball's possible trajectory is Ne.

Standing still and observing something seems static, yes. But we are talking about the cognitive process. Try to imagine what the actual thought process looks like when you are using Ne.



> The INTP is interested in both but for different reasons. The INTP cares about proven results in textbooks and journals as means. The INTP is interested in unproven results because it furthers thinking and discovery as a process even though the results are more means.


THIS IS THE MAIN POINT: If INTP cares about proven results in mathematics (textbooks), then ENTJ/ESTJ should care about unproven results in mathematics. But they obviously don't.



> The INTJ is interested in the same means but only as ends to apply somewhere. It's a matter of emphasis. One likes means; the other likes ends, but both work together.
> Both results are wanted as long as they are finished results ready to be applied.


This is a misconception, and it is one reason why Socionics models (Model A, Model B, Model G...) and my Model D are superior to MB models/Beebe model. INTJ / ILI is not interested in Te as a goal, it is just a tool for Ni (see accepting vs. producing functions). Both INTP and INTJ are interested in Ni and Ti. These functions complement each other. The difference is that INTP thinks Ti is more important and INTJ thinks Ni is more important (i.e. "valued" functions).


----------



## Tellus

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> How are dynamics versus statics the distinction between E and I elements if Ne is Static and Te is Dynamic? Or do you disagree with that distinction between Ne and Te?


Yes, I think both Aushra and Jung were wrong. I have explained my view on Jung's subjective vs. objective in this thread (the last couple of posts), and my view on Aushra's definitions of information aspects in another thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/963002-alternative-view-information-aspects.html


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> First of all, here's a correction. Jungian functions do not include information aspects. However, Jung (and MB community) describes what sort of information the functions process. So both functions/IM elements (Socionics) and Jungian functions process information, but Socionics also defines eight different kinds of information (i.e. aspects).


Both Socionics and MBTI define eight. Would it be correct to say information *elements* & Jung are subjective while information *aspects *are meant to be objective, roughly speaking?




> What do you mean by universal? Can you explain this part a bit further?


You said, "[Te & Fe] reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable *from the collective standpoint*." Universal means in all cases. Just because the collective says something doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. I was reacting to if Jung was implying the collective unconscious is an end all and be all. I don't trust the universality of that. Te might be able to pick out exceptions where the collective unconscious is flawed making it unreasonable.






> Those definitions by various socionists and descriptions by MB typologists are based on Jung's objective vs. subjective. For example, object vs. field is very similar to objective vs. subjective. So I think we have to consider Jung's viewpoint.


That sounds good. Note I may not be able to absorb everything Jung says. 

Later: object and objective/ field and subjective need not be identical. How could they be different? Suppose the object is a drop of water and the field is a lake. Then the reverse could hold. The lake is not subjective but is objectively identifiable. The drop is not so objective if it lies within the lake and is elusive as to perceiving it. We cannot take for granted the two are identical.





> Okay, so you agree with me that Jung was wrong about this, right?


We agree Ti and Te are different. I won't beat up on Jung about this especially since I've not studied his details.





> "When the objective orientation receives a certain predominance, the thinking is extraverted. This circumstance changes nothing as regards the logic of thought -- it merely determines that difference between thinkers which James regards as a matter of temperament. The orientation towards the object, as already explained, makes no essential change in the thinking function; only its appearance is altered."


I have no response to this currently.





> I agree. [about what thinking is].


*Then we will keep in mind that "ordering" is a possible definitive way to regard thinking.
*





> I will comment on this, but we need to speak the same language first. "You agree Ne is static because it is an observation". This would be an attempt to define the actual Ne process, which I think is very difficult. So socionists and I have defined information aspects instead. However, the aspects must correspond with the processes, which socionists have disregarded. Furthermore, "...because it is an observation" would mean that all perceiving functions are static.


Any comments are welcome especially about hierarchy theory.

I agree we need to speak the same language. However there is a problem. We are talking about too many things at the same time. At least I see it that way. In reading below, haven't we talked about the football before? I would have to search for that conversation for consistency, as I've forgotten if it was reconciled. You say the Ne process is difficult. I have a *simplification* about a complex process. Here it is:

S and N operate in a hierarchy. S refers to specifics; N refers to wholes. Specifics are parts belonging to some whole. When enough wholes are experienced, they can become specifics if there is an even higher level whole. This is a hierarchical structure. For example, a word is in the middle of a hierarchy. Below are letters; above are sentences. A word is whole as to letters, but specific to a sentence. A word can either be S or N. Meaning it is sensed or intuited. It is intuited if we have a group of ordered letters. (Letters in isolation are sensed.) A word is sensed if we pick one out of a sentence. The difference depends on the context. 

I realize this may be a new way (theory) of looking at S and N, but we can check out this theory in your football example. 






> Ne (both process and aspect) is dynamic since it considers the potential behavior of objects. For example, a football flying through the air is dynamic information (and the process is also dynamic), ie Se. Watching a soccer/football game and thinking about the ball's possible trajectory is Ne.
> 
> Standing still and observing something seems static, yes. But we are talking about the cognitive process. Try to imagine what the actual thought process looks like when you are using Ne.


Static and dynamic below can be treated the same way as sensed and intuited above. They are part of a hierarchy.

A football flying through the air can be thought of (you asked about the actual thought process) as either S or N; static or dynamic. If we think of the football as moving, and its trajectory as a set of possibilities, that has all sorts of associations. That is intuitive and dynamic. If we freeze the flight by thinking of the football alone or even its trajectory, that is S and is static. That makes the football and its trajectory either static or dynamic. It depends on the context. What is the context? I'm not sure I can name them all. Let's try. 

A* Te* user might see the football as moving. Why? Possibly because their Ni is interested in the result. A* Ti* user has a choice and is different. A Ti user can see the football as still if they are interested in marking the coordinates in space. Same with the trajectory. It is a curve on a graph and is fixed. I may not be an expert on knowing these Te and Ti users, but I can say it is quite possible each is looking at the football differently. They are different personalities.

This means when we ask about statics or dynamics, we must ask for context. This context concept applies quite broadly to personality theory. We have a few personality theories and it is commonly asked, which is best? ... or if they are equal, how do we reconcile them? We have Socionics, MBTI, Enneagram and more. I will now present an organizational theory which has drawbacks of complexity but I don't see how it can be avoided. 

Picture a square divided into eight horizontal sections. Name each of the sections according to the eight Socionics functions. We have to face the fact that MBTI is not exactly the same. We take the same square and draw eight veritical sections. Name each of the verticals according to the eight MBTI cognitive functions. The square now has 64 compartments and looks like a checkerboard. Each compartment therefore agrees with both personality theories. The rest illustrate differences. 

Do you agree this "checkboard" a is valid theory? The problem is it is too complicated to be practical. We want to simply and in doing so have to pick and choose. But we are different people. We end up where one of us picks one *perspective* and the other picks another perspective. If we want further complications, we could create a cube and add Enneagram theory. (People actually do this when they fill out their PerC profile.)

If we were to pick a particular cell out of 8x8x9, it would have a Socionics definition, an MBTI one, and an Enneagram one. It might read: Ti Socionics, Ti MBTI, Enneagram investigator. Such a cell as this is possible. An adjacent cell might show up slight differences. A random cell might have no such person.





> THIS IS THE MAIN POINT: If INTP cares about proven results in mathematics textbooks, then ENTJ/ESTJ should care about unproven results in mathematics. But they obviously don't.


Huh? No. Let me repeat. The INTP both cares and doesn't care. The INTP cares about means. The INTP doesn't care about ends. The ENTJ/ESTJ is the opposite. They care about ends ... usability. Unproven results are useless to them so they don't care. Note these these statements are generalities. They are not universal truths. Exceptions may be found.





> This is a misconception, and it is one reason why Socionics models (Model A, Model B, Model G...) and my Model D are superior to MB models/Beebe model. INTJ / ILI is not interested in Te as a goal, it is just a tool for Ni (see accepting vs. producing functions). Both INTP and INTJ are interested in Ni and Ti. These functions complement each other. The difference is that INTP thinks Ti is more important and INTJ thinks Ni is more important (i.e. "valued" functions).


I agree with the jist of this. Exceptions: I wouldn't use the word, "superior." They are just different. I wouldn't use the words, "more important." They are just different specialties. This is probably explained more clearly with hierarchy theory. 

As an INTP, I favor Ti not because it is objectively better but because I am more disposed this way as a personality. Why would I be disposed this way? That is a topic for another different thread.



I forgot to ask. Do you have any definitive links for models G and D (for my records)?


----------



## BigApplePi

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Haha fair enough. You can refer to me as just Fenix if that is easier.
> 
> Ahhh, I see. Yeh, I do type as IEI which is NiFe. I am told my Ne is too strong to be Ignoring though, so some think I am EIE and others think I am IEE (FeNi and NeFi respectively).


Oh Lord. Calling you "Fenix" is okay for me, but others might not know who that is.




> Erm, yeah, that is sort of what Static and Dynamic mean in Socionics context. The difference is that it is the information being processed that is being static or dynamic, which results in differences in world perception and resultant actions of people. You see the world as Static so you act in accordance with that belief, such as by instituting a change, or by adapting to existing structures you believe will not change, or...I think you get the idea.
> 
> I agree that you can reach an understanding with enough discussion. It looks to me like it is taking a very long time is all. Maybe I'm just too impatient for your debating style and am projecting onto you XD


If you are the impatient type, never ever get into a debate with an INTP. They will drag you in and around and over everything until you are worn out. Their whole purpose is the journey so it is important to never get there.




> Can you say more on how being a third party and having Ni is related? I have never heard this one before, and it sounds intriguing.


Certainly I can say more, but is anyone interested? You say you are "intrigued" but are you sincere? Third party? Picture two heavenly bodies in space nicely orbiting each other. You, the 3rd party, encounter them. What do you think will happen to the nice predictable orbit you see? Answer: it's totally unpredictable ... and you have an Ni feeling motivating you?






> They [Reinin dichotomies] are meant to work in the same manner as Thinking versus Feeling. However, they are mathematically derived from the other dichotomies.


Mathematically? If that's true, there is a bridge I want to sell you. How many ways does one want to split things?





> That is, there is a dichotomy for each combination of the basic 4 MBTI letters, sort of. The combined traits generate a new dichotomous spectrum for the types to fall on.


Elaborate?






> I enjoy the theoretical aspect. I like playing with it and testing out different types for people. I also like peering inside and labeling what I see as this or that function or type, and then putting it all together and noting the contradictions and trying to figure out what the reason for it all is. Then I compare the results with the types and the people I know and repeat process for them. Its sort of like I am testing to see if the theories have validity, but at the same time I don't mind if they don't.


Now that is intriguing. I could peer in and watch what you're doing. My interest would be to explain everything. These things are not random and there is no such thing as contradictions.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Both Socionics and MBTI define eight. Would it be correct to say information elements & Jung are subjective while information aspects are meant to be objective, roughly speaking?


No. IM elements and functions process information. Information aspects _are_ defined information. That's all.



> You said, "[Te & Fe] reasonableness corresponds with what passes as reasonable from the collective standpoint."


That's a quote by Jung.



> Universal means in all cases. Just because the collective says something doesn't mean there aren't exceptions.


OK



> I was reacting to if Jung was implying the collective unconscious is an end all and be all. I don't trust the universality of that. Te might be able to pick out exceptions where the collective unconscious is flawed making it unreasonable.


I don't see how the "collective unconscious" is relevant here. Can you explain?



> That sounds good. Note I may not be able to absorb everything Jung says.
> Later: object and objective/ field and subjective need not be identical. How could they be different? Suppose the object is a drop of water and the field is a lake. Then the reverse could hold. The lake is not subjective but is objectively identifiable. The drop is not so objective if it lies within the lake and is elusive as to perceiving it. We cannot take for granted the two are identical.


Are you referring to field in the physical sense. 'Field' means something specific in Socionics (see previously posted links).



> We agree Ti and Te are different. I won't beat up on Jung about this especially since I've not studied his details.


*Okay, but this is important if we want to define 'e' and 'i'. We have to disprove Jung and some socionists (or my viewpoint).*



> Then we will keep in mind that "ordering" is a possible definitive way to regard thinking.


Yes



> Any comments are welcome especially about hierarchy theory.
> STATICs verus DYNAMICs
> Hierarchy Theory.
> I will introduce a concept called, "hierarchy." We can look at anything from the top down or from the bottom up. What this means is there exist levels. A concept at one level may differ at another level. When this is not recognized, confusion can occur.
> A personality as an INTP or an INTJ we can call the highest level. The two cognitive functions used are at the next lower level.
> An INTJ (the highest level) may view a Mobius strip (abbreviated Mobius) as static and chess as dynamic. Examination of the cognitive functions may reveal something different.
> An INTP may view the Mobius as dynamic and chess as static. This is quite a difference. How could this come about? Let's look at the cognitive functions of each.
> 
> First look at an INTP = Ti Ne.
> Ti is a broad concept. Ti thinks about Ne input. You agree Ne is static because it is an observation.


No. See previous comment.



> If you wish to call Ti static because it processes Ne, this is a different use of the term, "static." One could also call Ti dynamic as it is making a judgment. Judgments are dynamic
> 
> Said another way, the Ti process can be viewed in two ways: As a developing action or as a completed action. The former is dynamic; the latter static. The Ti process is broken down into inner thought and outer source material. The thought is dynamic; the material is static. This is a level down from the overall Ti process.
> A corresponding statement holds for Te.
> Let's apply the above to the Mobius and to chess. When we look at those from the outside, typical of an INTJs Te, the mobius is static and chess is dynamic. That is the INTJs Ni at work.
> Here is what an INTP might say:
> When we observe the quiet Mobius, it is static. So are the rules for chess: static. When we activate the rules of chess, the action is dynamic. When we trace the surface of a Mobius, that is also dynamic. They are the same!
> How would the hierarchy concept come into play and be useful? I want to introduce another concept: perspective. The INTP Ti Ne perspective is not the same as the INTJ Ni Te perspective. Their hierarchy views are different.
> The primary (Ni) perspective of the INTJ on chess is it is a game to play and therefore is dynamic. The INTJs Te is in service of this dynamic playing. The view of the Mobius is not the same. The mobius is meant to be observed for its curious property and is therefore static. This is the hierarchical view from the top.
> The secondary (Te) view of the INTJ on chess is thinking actual moves. This is a lower level in a hierarchical view and is dynamic. The view of the Mobius has no thinking (Te) interest (Fi) at all. It is what it is (Se) and interest stops there. This makes the Te perspective of the Mobius unmoving or static.
> The primary (Ti) perspective of the INTP is the Mobius is something to think about. It has a strange one-side property having something to do with a twisted path. The thinking about this is dynamic but unseen by others. The INTP view of chess is different. The rules are set in stone. Thinking about changing the rules is not encouraged (Si). The rules are static. There may be an interest in strategy or what makes it an interesting game (Fe), but further thinking is of little interest.
> The secondary (Ne) view of the INTP backs up the primary Ti but is lower on the hierarchical scale. Ne observes non twists and double twists are possible. Thinking about that is dynamic.


Here you are trying to define the actual cognitive processes. Why are judging functions dynamic in your view? Because that kind of thinking seems more active?

We either define information or the processes. We cannot mix them up.



> I agree we need to speak the same language. However there is a problem. We are talking about too many things at the same time. At least I see it that way. In reading below, haven't we talked about the football before? I would have to search for that conversation for consistency, as I've forgotten if it was reconciled. You say the Ne process is difficult. I have a simplification about a complex process.


No, I am saying that it is very difficult to define any cognitive process. Jung describes functions indirectly via information. 



> S and N operate in a hierarchy. S refers to specifics; N refers to wholes. Specifics are parts belonging to some whole. When enough wholes are experienced, they can become specifics if there is an even higher level whole. This is a hierarchical structure. For example, a word is in the middle of a hierarchy. Below are letters; above are sentences. A word is whole as to letters, but specific to a sentence. A word can either be S or N. Meaning it is sensed or intuited. It is intuited if we have a group of ordered letters. (Letters in isolation are sensed.) A word is sensed if we pick one out of a sentence. The difference depends on the context.


Now you have switched method. You were referring to the Ne process in the previous post, but you are referring to certain (defined) information here, which is processed by S and N functions.

And I disagree with your distinction between S and N. S perceives obvious information, and N perceives "hidden" information. It is not as if you are using N to assemble/connect letters into a word.



> If we freeze the flight by thinking of the football alone or even its trajectory, that is S and is static. That makes the football and its trajectory either static or dynamic. It depends on the context. What is the context? I'm not sure I can name them all. Let's try.


Well, then it is not about dynamic information (Se). The football alone or its trajectory would be Si. 



> A Te user might see the football as moving. Why? Possibly because their Ni is interested in the result.


How can a perceiving function (Ni) be "interested in the result"?



> A Ti user has a choice and is different. A Ti user can see the football as still if they are interested in marking the coordinates in space. Same with the trajectory. It is a curve on a graph and is fixed. I may not be an expert on knowing these Te and Ti users, but I can say it is quite possible each is looking at the football differently. They are different personalities.
> This means when we ask about statics or dynamics, we must ask for context. This context concept applies quite broadly to personality theory. We have a few personality theories and it is commonly asked, which is best? ... or if they are equal, how do we reconcile them? We have Socionics, MBTI, Enneagram and more. I will now present an organizational theory which has drawbacks of complexity but I don't see how it can be avoided.


No, it does not depend on the context. Seeing a football as still is always about Si (unless it is "hidden" information, which would be Ni) for any type.



> Picture a square divided into eight horizontal sections. Name each of the sections according to the eight Socionics functions. We have to face the fact that MBTI is not exactly the same. We take the same square and draw eight veritical sections. Name each of the verticals according to the eight MBTI cognitive functions. The square now has 64 compartments and looks like a checkerboard. Each compartment therefore agrees with both personality theories. The rest illustrate differences.


What is your point? Why do you suddenly mention differences (if there are any?) between MBTI functions and functions in Socionics?



> Huh? No. Let me repeat. The INTP both cares and doesn't care. The INTP cares about means. The INTP doesn't care about ends. The ENTJ/ESTJ is the opposite. They care about ends ... usability. Unproven results are useless to them so they don't care.


Okay. This does not correspond with Jung's point of view, right? 

-------

Is 'means' vs. 'ends' accurate, though? Consider an ENTJ chess player or CEO. Is he (or she) just interested in the results or usability? My view is that he is interested in the process/strategy that results in a win or a profit.



> I agree with the jist of this. Exceptions: I wouldn't use the word, "superior." They are just different. I wouldn't use the words, "more important." They are just different specialties. This is probably explained more clearly with hierarchy theory.
> As an INTP, I favor Ti not because it is objectively better but because I am more disposed this way as a personality. Why would I be disposed this way? That is a topic for another different thread.


Yes, let's skip the models in this thread. I just responded to your comment.



> I forgot to ask. Do you have any definitive links for models G and D (for my records)?


Model D

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ModelViktor/


----------



## BigApplePi

BigApplePi said:


> Both Socionics and MBTI define eight. Would it be correct to say information elements & Jung are subjective while information aspects are meant to be objective, roughly speaking?





Tellus said:


> No. IM elements and functions process information. Information aspects are defined information. That's all.


What are you to make of this?
"The information elements (also IM elements, elements of information metabolism, or, confusingly, "functions") are eight mental categories that play a key role in interpersonal interaction. They are denoted using the same symbols and names as the information aspects. The difference between them is that information elements are subjective properties of the psyche, whereas information aspects are objective properties of reality independent from psyche." Socionics Information Elements

How can I rely on sources when I read this:
"The central idea of socionics is that information is intuitively divisible into eight categories, called information aspects or information elements," Socionics - the16types.info - Introduction to Socionics







Tellus said:


> *Okay, but this is important if we want to define 'e' and 'i'. We have to disprove Jung and some socionists (or my viewpoint).*


I have a different attitude and it may be peculiar to my personality. Others may prefer less precise more descriptive approaches to these terms, leaving deductions therefrom not precise. I like precise terms if it it possible to find them. Then see where they take us. Therefore I regard both Jung and socionists as inspiring but not definitive. Can't we stop interpreting them and use their inspirations instead?

So far I like *i and e* to mean *inside and outside* as I've defined earlier. Would you like to proceed with my definitions? Would you like to continue with what someone else favors? We have to decide.

More terms: "Ordering" is a possible definitive way to regard thinking.
Feeling we have yet to agree on. Do we want or need to agree or do you favor something else?
Perception is either S or N. S is specific; N is general. I like those as part of their definitions. Would you like to proceed with my definitions? Would you like to continue what someone else favors? We have to decide.






Tellus said:


> Here you are trying to define the actual cognitive processes. Why are judging functions dynamic in your view? Because that kind of thinking seems more active?


Here is my answer: Judging functions can be thought of as dynamic if we think of them as a selective process among a pool of possibilities. Ordering, for example, arranges or moves something. Evaluating ranks something favorably or unfavorably which also chooses something.
Perceptive functions observe without moving anything even though they may be perceiving something which is moving.
Judging changes a view (dynamic); Perceiving leaves it alone (static).
Would you like to proceed with my interpretations as above? Would you like to continue with what someone else favors? We have to decide. I hope to elaborate below.





Tellus said:


> We either define information or the processes. We cannot mix them up.


Agreed.





Tellus said:


> No, I am saying that it is very difficult to define any cognitive process. Jung describes functions indirectly via information.


I don't want them to be difficult at all. I want them to be clear and simple as I've defined above. The complications arise when we try to read a human experience. The complications arise if only because more than one cognitive function is operating. That is the way human cognition is.






> And I disagree with your distinction between S and N. S perceives obvious information, and N perceives "hidden" information. It is not as if you are using N to assemble/connect letters into a word.


S perceives specific information. Specific is obvious; obvious is specific. I like the word, "specific" because its meaning is more clear. 

N does not perceive hidden information. Hidden information is no longer conscious if it once was. Hidden information is the details. That is, specific information. N does not assemble letters into words. The assemblage is done subconsciously. N perceives the word as a whole without parts. When a word is conscious, we forget the letters of which it is made. They disappear from consciousness. It is intuition which "magically" turns meaningless letters into a meaningful word. There is more to it than this, which I'll speak about below.

I am reminded of the Socionics concepts of objects and fields. The objects are specifics. They are imbedded in the fields which contain the objects. The field hold the objects which are interrelated to each other. That's the way letters and words work.

This must be understood or we cannot proceed further. 

I think I see what you may have in mind about N. It seems to operate as magic. N is about hidden information but it carries a consciousness about a whole of which the parts are hidden and not conscious.

Perhaps I should stop here, but I'm tempted to move on.




> Well, then it is not about dynamic information (Se). The football alone or its trajectory would be Si.


This is going to be complex and I may miss some points. As above, S is static. S is only an observation. So far there is no Se or Si. e and i refer to inside and outside. Observing the football is Se because I'm observing what is outside me. I see the football at point 1, 2, 3, and so on. Suddenly my mind goes to Si because points 1, 2, and 3 remind me of a trajectory. Now I visualize a trajectory out there. That returns me to Se. So Se, Si alternates. None of these observations are moving. I just see them. What moves is the football and my body. Those should not be confused with what is in my mind.







> How can a perceiving function (Ni) be "interested in the result"?


I misspoke. It is not Ni which is interested in the result. It is Te in conjunction with Fi which backs up the Ni. The Ni only observes. Te interprets the movement; Fi provides the value (motivation). Ni observes. Te and Fi judges.







> What is your point? Why do you suddenly mention differences (if there are any?) between MBTI functions and functions in Socionics?


I have no point if we don't want to talk about MBTI and Socionics differences.




> Is 'means' vs. 'ends' accurate, though? Consider an ENTJ chess player or CEO. Is he (or she) just interested in the results or usability? My view is that he is interested in the process/strategy that results in a win or a profit.


It's a matter of both. On a time scale, which ends up last? ... means or ends? The ENTJ wants results in the end. Their interest in means has a subordinate value to getting there. 

The INTP is different. They are interested in ends also, but the priority lies in understanding the process which gets there.






> https://www.facebook.com/groups/ModelViktor/


Sorry. I don't use Facebook.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> What are you to make of this?
> "The information elements (also IM elements, elements of information metabolism, or, confusingly, "functions") are eight mental categories that play a key role in interpersonal interaction. They are denoted using the same symbols and names as the information aspects.
> The difference between them is that information elements are subjective properties of the psyche, whereas information aspects are objective properties of reality independent from psyche." Socionics Information Elements
> How can I rely on sources when I read this:
> "The central idea of socionics is that information is intuitively divisible into eight categories, called information aspects or information elements," Socionics - the16types.info - Introduction to Socionics


There are different sources and different views. Information elements and information aspects are sometimes used interchangeably. But that is inaccurate, since you and I are referring to mainstream Socionics. 

There are two main organizations in Socionics, IIS and SRSI. SRSI are only using 'aspects' and 'functions'. (I don't know what IIS are using). And Aushra, the founder of Socionics, used 'aspects' and 'elements of IM' (or IM elements). There is no need to get confused by this aspect (used in the common sense here) of Socionics. However, you cannot rely on all sources in Socionics, unfortunately.

"The difference between them is that information elements are subjective properties of the psyche, whereas information aspects are objective properties of reality independent from psyche." 

This is correct according to mainstream Socionics. SSS (i.e. the main alternative in Socionics) sees it differently. They claim there is no information outside the psyche, which is very problematic. But that is off topic.



> I have a different attitude and it may be peculiar to my personality. Others may prefer less precise more descriptive approaches to these terms, leaving deductions therefrom not precise. I like precise terms if it it possible to find them. Then see where they take us. Therefore I regard both Jung and socionists as inspiring but not definitive. Can't we stop interpreting them and use their inspirations instead?


Of course we can. This is how we see the difference between my (INTJ, ILI) conscious/mental Te- (i.e. conclusions) and your (INTP, LII) unconscious/vital Te-, though. (There are actually two different Te; Te+ and Te-...in my view)



> So far I like i and e to mean inside and outside as I've defined earlier. Would you like to proceed with my definitions? Would you like to continue with what someone else favors? We have to decide.


Let's argue for your inside vs. outside, and we'll see if it works.

It depends on what exactly you mean by inside and outside. Can you define it? There could be inside and outside information, but is there an outside cognitive process?



> More terms: "Ordering" is a possible definitive way to regard thinking.
> Feeling we have yet to agree on. Do we want or need to agree or do you favor something else?


Let's skip Thinking vs. Feeling for now.



> Perception is either S or N. S is specific; N is general. I like those as part of their definitions. Would you like to proceed with my definitions? Would you like to continue what someone else favors? We have to decide.


No, specific (S) vs. general (N) is inaccurate in my view. The big difference between S and N is that the latter is about cross-contextual information. Let's say you are at a circus watching an elephant. The obvious information about the elephant (trunk, tail, legs...) is Si. If you suddenly think about a poacher, then you are using Ni. Ni is usually in abstract or general form, but the poacher could be a specific poacher that you have met. However, if you zoom in on the poacher you are not using Ni any more, but Si instead.



> Here is my answer: Judging functions can be thought of as dynamic if we think of them as a selective process among a pool of possibilities. Ordering, for example, arranges or moves something. Evaluating ranks something favorably or unfavorably which also chooses something.
> Perceptive functions observe without moving anything even though they may be perceiving something which is moving.
> Judging changes a view (dynamic); Perceiving leaves it alone (static).
> Would you like to proceed with my interpretations as above? Would you like to continue with what someone else favors? We have to decide. I hope to elaborate below.


I like this answer, but I disagree. The fact that you have arranged something - for example, compared the size of two chairs (Ti) - does not necessarily imply a change according to me. You had no view before, and now you have a view/opinion. Your mind has changed, but so does a new observation (i.e. a perception).

Instead, I am suggesting 'relationships between objects' (and subjects) vs. 'objects' (and subjects). All judging functions are about relationships between objects.



> S perceives specific information. Specific is obvious; obvious is specific. I like the word, "specific" because its meaning is more clear.
> 
> N does not perceive hidden information. Hidden information is no longer conscious if it once was. Hidden information is the details. That is, specific information. N does not assemble letters into words. The assemblage is done subconsciously. N perceives the word as a whole without parts. When a word is conscious, we forget the letters of which it is made. They disappear from consciousness. It is intuition which "magically" turns meaningless letters into a meaningful word. There is more to it than this, which I'll speak about below.


Well, I mean "hidden" only in the sense that it is not obvious, not in the conscious vs. unconscious sense. You are also not consciously aware of the elephant's tail (see previous example) when you are thinking about its trunk.

Again, I am disagreeing with you. It isn't intuition that turns letters into a meaningful word. The letters in a word is just a group of sounds, which we have learnt in school to associate with an object. If you read this: T R E E, then you will see an image of a (general) tree. This connection between the word and the image is not intuition. Instead, it is two aspects of Si which are connected.

And we don't forget the letters when a word is conscious. But we see a group of letters, i.e. a word, instead of single letters. However, when we see the image/object which the word is referring to, then the letters disappear from consciousness.



> I am reminded of the Socionics concepts of objects and fields. The objects are specifics. They are imbedded in the fields which contain the objects. The field hold the objects which are interrelated to each other. That's the way letters and words work.


Again, 'field' refers to an introverted aspect/IM element in Socionics. And N vs. S is entirely different.



> This must be understood or we cannot proceed further.


I agree with you.



> I think I see what you may have in mind about N. It seems to operate as magic. N is about hidden information but it carries a consciousness about a whole of which the parts are hidden and not conscious.


No, my view is the complete opposite. There isn't anything magical about Ni/Ne at all. See comments above.



> This is going to be complex and I may miss some points. As above, S is static. S is only an observation. So far there is no Se or Si. e and i refer to inside and outside. Observing the football is Se because I'm observing what is outside me. I see the football at point 1, 2, 3, and so on. Suddenly my mind goes to Si because points 1, 2, and 3 remind me of a trajectory. Now I visualize a trajectory out there. That returns me to Se. So Se, Si alternates. None of these observations are moving. I just see them. What moves is the football and my body. Those should not be confused with what is in my mind.


Are you saying that introverted (inside, 'i') functions are always related to (long-term) memory. Is that the main distinction between 'e' and 'i' in your view?



> I misspoke. It is not Ni which is interested in the result. It is Te in conjunction with Fi which backs up the Ni. The Ni only observes. Te interprets the movement; Fi provides the value (motivation). Ni observes. Te and Fi judges.


OK, good.



> It's a matter of both. On a time scale, which ends up last? ... means or ends? The ENTJ wants results in the end. Their interest in means has a subordinate value to getting there.
> The INTP is different. They are interested in ends also, but the priority lies in understanding the process which gets there.


Yes, but both types are using both Te and Ti. You are describing the difference between a conscious Te and an unconscious Ti (ENTJ) VS. an unconscious Te and a conscious Ti (INTP).


----------



## Tellus

Consider this brain map. Te corresponds to Premotor Sequential Thinking, and Ti corresponds to Symbols.


----------



## IamHereToMakeyouInsane

69 - 69 = 0 = no sex.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...



Here's an alternative approach which supports my view that each Jungian function is related to a specific area (or areas) in the brain.

http://www.initforlife.com/home/default.asp


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Here's an alternative approach which supports my view that each Jungian function is related to a specific area (or areas) in the brain.
> 
> Free Online Personality Test


Not sure what that test's relation to the brain mapping is. Am working on a reply to your last message. ("Pionics"?) I agree it would be desirable to describe the brain areas as the brain is a physical foundation for what is real. I would have a trust that brain areas define something meaningful. This trust is not absolute though. Conceptual refinements as Jung has provided could be an alternative to real life applications.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Not sure what that test's relation to the brain mapping is.


Good point, but I don't see any reason to doubt the relation between this test and their brain mapping more than the relation between Jungian (or Socionics) tests and types/functions.

My current view is dynamic vs. statics (e vs. i), as you know. This could be interpreted as 'what something _does'_ and 'what something _is'_ (perceptual thought). But I think we should consider their view as well, that 'e' corresponds to 'what something _means'_ (conceptual thought).


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> This is how we see the difference between my (INTJ, ILI) conscious/mental Te- (i.e. conclusions) and your (INTP, LII) unconscious/vital Te-, though. (There are actually two different Te; Te+ and Te-...in my view)


Can you define Te, Te+ and Te-? Those could be useful terms.





> Let's argue for your inside vs. outside, and we'll see if it works. It depends on what exactly you mean by inside and outside. Can you define it? There could be inside and outside information, but is there an outside cognitive process?


Yes. We think of the entire psyche and a system. Inside refers to functions going on referring to objects inside one's head. That is an inside system. Outside refers to functions going one referring to objects outside one's head. These functions can be intuition, sensing, feeling or thinking. A further definition of inside and outside needs work. Perhaps first by example, then generalizing.








> Let's skip Thinking vs. Feeling for now.


I had some time to think about this. Thinking is about order; feeling is about intensity. I'll avoid elaboration.




> No, specific (S) vs. general (N) is inaccurate in my view. The big difference between S and N is that the latter is about cross-contextual information. Let's say you are at a circus watching an elephant. The obvious information about the elephant (trunk, tail, legs...) is Si. If you suddenly think about a poacher, then you are using Ni. Ni is usually in abstract or general form, but the poacher could be a specific poacher that you have met. However, if you zoom in on the poacher you are not using Ni any more, but Si instead.


This needs to be improved upon with more examples to work with ... or maybe this one. Ni has to be about something. I'm guessing if your mind goes to some possibility of a poacher, then that is a generality. The instant it goes to a particular poacher that is Si.

Later: You start by seeing the elephant. That is Se. If you remember past elephants inside your head, that is Si. Now an elephant can have many contexts or associations. There are going to kill my elephant, elephant is a big game ambition, the most intelligent mammal ever is the elephant, this circus is going to burn down. I put these as Ni. These are all inside your mind and are subjective as long as they are your imaginings. They are contexts for elephants. One may have many intuitive views of a poacher. Call these views Ni. A particular poacher is Si. Continuing this example, circuses in general, groups of elephants, entertainments, audiences viewers as a group are all Ne. They are Ne as long as they are objectively in the outside world. They are generalities or contexts for circuses. If you focus on this circus, this group of elephants, this audience you are experiencing Se. Both of these Ne's and Se's are outside your head. (They are inside your brain, but the objects are outside.)







> I like this answer, but I disagree. The fact that you have arranged something - for example, compared the size of two chairs (Ti) - does not necessarily imply a change according to me. You had no view before, and now you have a view/opinion. Your mind has changed, but so does a new observation (i.e. a perception).


If we were talking about dynamic vs static, the chairs were observed (Se static), Ti decided one was larger. That is a change (dynamic) from ignorance or neutrality. Perhaps this is a bad example as the thinking was primitive.








> Instead, I am suggesting 'relationships between objects' (and subjects) vs. 'objects' (and subjects). All judging functions are about relationships between objects.


Isn't that consistent with what I said? Judging necessarily means choosing one way over another way. Those two ways are now related. The relationship exists in the mind of the judger as a weighing of the entities, be they objects or subjects.






> Well, I mean "hidden" only in the sense that it is not obvious, not in the conscious vs. unconscious sense. You are also not consciously aware of the elephant's tail (see previous example) when you are thinking about it's trunk.


We need to fix the example we are talking about so we can be in the same place.




> Again, I am disagreeing with you. It isn't intuition that turns letters into a meaningful word. The letters in a word is just a group of sounds, which we have learnt in school to associate with an object. If you read this: T R E E, then you will see an image of a (general) tree. This connection between the word and the image is not intuition. Instead, it is two aspects of Si which are connected.


That example needs analysis as to what is actually happening. It is complex. A question is, how do letters turn into a word? Consider these letters: THING, THIMK, TINK, THINK, THIGH, THIN, HTANK. Now put each of these "words" into this sentence:

"I XXXX about working with the MBTI until I can make some sense of it."

What words from that list are possible XXXX's? Only one of them is spelled correctly but our intuition will accept other words as possible typos. Our intuition turned meaningless words and wrong words into possible solutions. Once we have the intuited word we can have the image. That is a separate process. Or maybe the sentence itself helped the image. Words and image connections are a brain function topic perhaps outside of MBTI/ Socionics. Aren't they brain mappings? Both words remembered and images are Si. (If they are printed on the page, we see them as Se.) The letters are not as I claim they are subconscious.

We have to stop here unless we agree.





I wrote this earlier:
Not sure I can get this across or if I we are in different places. The intuition is that the word has a meaning as a unitary whole. This whole exists by virtue of the "magical" hidden letters. No letters then no word. Yet the letters disappear into the unconscious. The intuition (as I'm defining it) is that the word exists. Consider the letters hsif. No intuition. It is meaningless. Now same letters: fish. We now intuit something. We do not see the letters consciously unless there is a typo which says something is rong with the word.





> And we don't forget the letters when a word is conscious. But we see a group of letters, i.e. a word, instead of single letters. However, when we see the image/object which the word is referring to, then the letters disappear from consciousness.


We don't forget the letters? I do. The letters may be visible, but are they conscious? I don't think so. Not in my case. I see the word, never seeing the letters ... unless the word is speled rong. Then I see the letters because the word fails to register an unambiguous image.




> No, my view is the complete opposite. There isn't anything magical about Ni/Ne at all.


If I used the word "magical" that was a bad choice of words. Let's see if I can make sense out of it anyway. Intuition sees something whole. It disregards the parts even though parts are there. Intuition is a perception that can be wrong on closer examination (say be Se or Si). Intuition says something general about what it is referring to. Back to the elephant/ poacher example. Intuition places the elephant in a context. That context is a guess about the elephant and can be wrong. Intuition says THIMK was meant to mean THINK. What is magical it that the whole is perceived and the brain believes it without checking out all the parts.








> Are you saying that introverted (inside, 'i') functions are always related to (long-term) memory. Is that the main distinction between 'e' and 'i' in your view?


Long-term memory? Possibly. I'd have to think that over. You want to rule out short-term memory? That sounds like something to be checked out by Dario Nardi. (Se).





> Yes, but both types are using both Te and Ti. You are describing the difference between a conscious Te and an unconscious Ti (ENTJ) VS. an unconscious Te and a conscious Ti (INTP).


You posted an image of brain functions. Te corresponds to Premotor Sequential Thinking, and Ti corresponds to Symbols.

This had me thinking about the original theme of this thread: Te and Ti in mathematics. Why don't we tackle some real mathematics and see what we get?

2x3x4=24. 2x3x4x5=120. 2x3x4x5x6=720. Very little thinking. If we remember this, recalling it will be Si. Do you see a pattern? That pattern gives us something to think about, maybe.

Here is a definition: A prime number is a number (no fractions allowed) divisible only by 1 and itself. So 24=2x3x4 is not prime; 7 is prime. So what?

The ancient Greeks wondered if the number of primes was infinite. Who knows? If we are lucky we can get a proof one way or the other. We don't know the answer to start with. If we are skilled, maybe we can identify Premotor Sequential Thinking (Te) and Symbols (Ti).

Do you see those equations above? None of the right side numbers is prime. (That's a little Te). Now what if you add 1 to 2x3x4x5x6? Do you get a prime or not? Who cares? Back to the original problem. Is the number of primes infinite? Another way of saying that is given any prime P, is there a bigger one? If you can always find a bigger one, that would prove primes go on forever and therefore are infinite. Makes sense? I'm not sure what cognitive functions are involved there. Sounds like a few. 

Anyway some Greek had a brilliant idea. Suppose we start with any prime number P. Multiply from 1 all the way to P: 1x2x3x ... x(P-2)x(P-1)xP. Then add one. Let N = 1x2x3x ... x(P-2)x(P-1)xP+1. Is N prime or not? Who knows. We don't know. Maybe. Maybe not.

There are two cases: (1) If it is prime, it is bigger than P and the theorem is proved.
(2) If it is not prime it has factors. But none of the factors up to P are factors of N. Why not? Because if you try to divide N by any number up to P you get a remainder of one. Therefore the undiscovered factor must be bigger than P and the theorem is proved: No matter what P you pick, there is a bigger one.

This brilliant piece of thinking is Ti (and Ni). It was an idea cooked up entirely in that Greek's head. The idea was to define the number N after noticing a pattern.

Symbols were involved here. That was Ti. There was sequential thinking that was Ti also. But it was complex.

Now suppose we forget this Ti thinking inside the Greeks head and just write down the proof mechanically so another can read it. Anyone reading the proof is doing sequential thinking which is Te. So the Ti has turned into Te depending on the observer. The symbols too become Te. (There is Se and Si involved).

This means we can't arbitrarily assign symbols to that part of the brain. *Following someone else's mathematical proof (Te) is a different process from discovering or creating a proof (Ti).* We'd have to have Dario Nardi make many tests to see how these different sections of the brain average out.


----------



## Cataclysm

How long have you been at it?


----------



## Mr Oops

I think mathematics is essentially 4D Ti and 3D Te.
Comes in 4 different configurations. Where as physics and applied stuff is 4D Te.








However I don't accept this comic because math is not a science! Also, different sciences have different approaches which destroys the derivatives argumentation.
Science at its extremes is 4D Te and 3D Ti. Figuring out and decoding from data.


----------



## BigApplePi

Mr Oops said:


> I think mathematics is essentially 4D Ti and 3D Te.
> Comes in 4 different configurations. Where as physics and applied stuff is 4D Te.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science at its extremes is 4D Te and 3D Ti. Figuring out and decoding from data.


Mathematics is different. It is an abstraction and a generalization. The others all have substance.





> However I don't accept this comic because math is not a science!


Why isn't math a science? It follows the scientific method. It makes observations of patterns. It hypothesizes rules for those patterns. It proves those rules as theorems. It tests those rules with specific examples to work.

Mathematics is also an art. Why? Because coming up with those patterns requires creativity, not mere discovery. Those other sciences arise naturally so aren't art. 





> Also, different sciences have different approaches which destroys the derivatives argumentation.


They started with physics. Put physics together in a special way and you get chemistry. Put chemistry together in a special way and you get biology. Put biology together in a special way and you get psychology. Put psychology together in a special way and you get sociology. The different approaches are the special ways.

Is technology an art? That was left out!


----------



## Mr Oops

Mathematics is not verifiable IRL hence it fails to be scientific. Actually many mathematicians become happy when they invent something non-usable IRL. Mathematics is collection of logical patterns based on as little of of axioms as possible. It can be totally out of reality. Now a physics may want to use it as tool but mathematics do not give the underlying explanation without physical understanding. Hence physicists are happy play with symbolic software to save their time in mathematical dullness. Plug and play.


Chemistry approach is very different from physics. You can certainly do physical chemistry and chemical physics. Physics deals with abstracted phenomena and builds from there. Chemistry deduces itself from empirical data of matter and produces approximate categorical patterns. You might want to say that you can make physics to describe chemistry. However this not a way how chemist do chemistry at high levels where exceptions are plenty hence role of physics is usually to produce numerical tools chemists to save time in empiricism.


----------



## BigApplePi

Good questions.


Mr Oops said:


> Mathematics is not verifiable IRL hence it fails to be scientific


.
I didn't know that. Is it an axiom? Doesn't mathematics follow the scientific method to make discoveries? Isn't that enuf to qualify? 





> Actually many mathematicians become happy when they invent something non-usable IRL. Mathematics is collection of logical patterns based on as little of of axioms as possible. It can be totally out of reality. Now a physics may want to use it as tool but mathematics do not give the underlying explanation without physical understanding. Hence physicists are happy play with symbolic software to save their time in mathematical dullness. Plug and play.


Not sure what you mean by "out of reality." Here at the bottom I gave an example of a theorem about the infinity of primes. So what if it's an abstraction. Was not science (even psychology) used to discover it?





> Chemistry approach is very different from physics. You can certainly do physical chemistry and chemical physics. Physics deals with abstracted phenomena and builds from there. Chemistry deduces itself from empirical data of matter and produces approximate categorical patterns. You might want to say that you can make physics to describe chemistry. However this not a way how chemist do chemistry at high levels where exceptions are plenty hence role of physics is usually to produce numerical tools chemists to save time in empiricism.


I'm no expert on chemistry. Are you saying chemistry is not based on laws of physics? I don't mean the higher level things. I mean foundations. Water is two part hydrogen and one part oxygen. Do they combine following laws of physics or don't they?


----------



## Tellus

Mr Oops said:


> ...


This is completely off-topic, I know, but 1+2+3+4+... does not equate to -1/12!


----------



## Tellus

Mr Oops said:


> I think mathematics is essentially 4D Ti and 3D Te.


Why isn't 3D Ti (or 2D, or 1D) mathematics in your view?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Can you define Te, Te+ and Te-? Those could be useful terms.


Ni blocked with Te results in Ni+ and Te-. Si blocked with Te results in Si- and Te+.

Signs of functions | School of System Socionics

It is actually the aspects that cause +/- (according to me), not the IM elements or the functions.

SSS are using +/- in Model A, but I think that is impossible.



> Yes. We think of the entire psyche and a system. Inside refers to functions going on referring to objects inside one's head. That is an inside system. Outside refers to functions going one referring to objects outside one's head. These functions can be intuition, sensing, feeling or thinking. A further definition of inside and outside needs work. Perhaps first by example, then generalizing.


Consider 3+1 > 3. This expression is clearly outside your head. If I ask you to verify whether the expression is correct or not, then you will be using a logical function. Is that Te in your view?

If yes, then you must also explain why ESTJ and/or ENTJ don't find mathematics or other definitions interesting. Coming up with new mathematics or solving mathematical problems in your own way, which you are referring to as 'inside Thinking' (Ti), is actually Ne. Checking the validity of those new ideas is Ti (and Te), though.



> I had some time to think about this. Thinking is about order; feeling is about intensity. I'll avoid elaboration.


I disagree with you about this, but let's focus on intuition vs. sensing first.



> This needs to be improved upon with more examples to work with ... or maybe this one. Ni has to be about something. I'm guessing if your mind goes to some possibility of a poacher, then that is a generality. The instant it goes to a particular poacher that is Si.


It is not just a possibility of a poacher, Ni is the actual image of the poacher. 

Sensing is about all objects that we experience (and have experienced) via our senses. This is all we've got. Even fantasy is ultimately about sensing. Okay, so what is intuition? It is the RESULT of the linkage between distantly related (and previously sensed) data/objects. So Ni is also about sensing in a way. Consider Dario Nardi's T6 and P4pos brain regions (Ni), and F4 (Ne).

A 'Torreya nucifera' is a specific object. A 'tree' is its corresponding general object. It is not as if we are using intuition as soon as we are generalizing.



> Later: You start by seeing the elephant. That is Se.


Both dynamic and static information about the elephant? Its movements and its appearance? If yes, why aren't SLEs interested in (for example) antiquities or the Antiques Roadshow?



> Now an elephant can have many contexts or associations. There are going to kill my elephant, elephant is a big game ambition, the most intelligent mammal ever is the elephant, this circus is going to burn down. I put these as Ni. These are all inside your mind and are subjective as long as they are your imaginings. They are contexts for elephants. One may have many intuitive views of a poacher. these views Call Ni.


OK



> Continuing this example, circuses in general, groups of elephants, entertainments, audiences viewers as a group are all Ne. They are Ne as long as they are objectively in the outside world. They are generalities or contexts for circuses. If you focus on this circus, this group of elephants, this audience you are experiencing Se. Both of these Ne's and Se's are outside your head. (They are inside your brain, but the objects are outside.)


"I would like to visit a circus this summer". I am not thinking of a specific circus so it is about general information. Is my image of a circus (or the word) in this example intuition according to you?

This is my view:

general object 1

specific object 1a
specific object 1b
specific object 1c
etc.

general object 2

specific object 2a
specific object 2b
specific object 2c
etc.

INTUITION links general object 1 with general object 14, or general object 1 with specific object 26, or specific object 1 with specific object 52 etc etc.

Nardi, F4 brain region: "Accurately place concepts by testing them against many categories at once to find a best-fit." That is Ne!



> If we were talking about dynamic vs static, the chairs were observed (Se static), Ti decided one was larger. That is a change (dynamic) from ignorance or neutrality. Perhaps this is a bad example as the thinking was primitive.


No, nothing has changed since you didn't have an opinion before. You haven't even seen or considered the chairs before your first evaluation. It is not 'zero apples to four apples'. It is 'nothing to four apples'. 



> Isn't that consistent with what I said? Judging necessarily means choosing one way over another way. Those two ways are now related. The relationship exists in the mind of the judger as a weighing of the entities, be they objects or subjects.


Good, then we are agreeing on this at least.



> That example needs analysis as to what is actually happening. It is complex. A question is, how do letters turn into a word? Consider these letters: THING, THIMK, TINK, THINK, THIGH, THIN, HTANK. Now put each of these "words" into this sentence:
> "I XXXX about working with the MBTI until I can make some sense of it."
> What words from that list are possible XXXX's? Only one of them is spelled correctly but our intuition will accept other words as possible typos. Our intuition turned meaningless words and wrong words into possible solutions. Once we have the intuited word we can have the image. That is a separate process. Or maybe the sentence itself helped the image. Words and image connections are a brain function topic perhaps outside of MBTI/ Socionics. Aren't they brain mappings? Both words remembered and images are Si. (If they are printed on the page, we see them as Se.) The letters are not as I claim they are subconscious.
> We have to stop here unless we agree.


I think we agree here. Si remembers the sounds of the correct word in this particular sentence. However, figuring out a new word, or more precisely, an image of a new word (i.e. a new possible solution) is Ne.



> I wrote this earlier:
> Not sure I can get this across or if I we are in different places. The intuition is that the word has a meaning as a unitary whole. This whole exists by virtue of the "magical" hidden letters. No letters then no word. Yet the letters disappear into the unconscious. The intuition (as I'm defining it) is that the word exists. Consider the letters hsif. No intuition. It is meaningless. Now same letters: fish. We now intuit something. We do not see the letters consciously unless there is a typo which says something is rong with the word.


It is important that we agree on this. It is not intuition that makes 'fish' meaningful here. These are connections between visual Si (i.e. the group of letters), auditory Si (i.e. the sounds of vowels and consonants) and the living object/organism, which you recognize and therefore they are meaningful. These are NOT distantly-related aspects of 'fish'.



> We don't forget the letters? I do. The letters may be visible, but are they conscious? I don't think so. Not in my case. I see the word, never seeing the letters ... unless the word is speled rong. Then I see the letters because the word fails to register an unambiguous image.


Again, a word is a group of letters. It's a mix of this group of letters, i.e. a word, and the image. You are conscious of both, but not at the same time.



> If I used the word "magical" that was a bad choice of words. Let's see if I can make sense out of it anyway. Intuition sees something whole. It disregards the parts even though parts are there. Intuition is a perception that can be wrong on closer examination (say be Se or Si). Intuition says something general about what it is referring to. Back to the elephant/ poacher example. Intuition places the elephant in a context. That context is a guess about the elephant and can be wrong. Intuition says THIMK was meant to mean THINK. What is magical it that the whole is perceived and the brain believes it without checking out all the parts.


Yes, intuition places the elephant in a context. BUT this context does not have to be something general or comprehensive. Intuition just links two (or more) objects. And the new object, the poacher in our example, is the context.

Nardi, P4pos: "Link distantly-related data to get ah-ha solutions". That is Ni.

It seems as if intuition "sees something whole", but that is just a consequence of many links. Elephant - poacher, elephant - Africa, elephant - strength, elephant - wisdom etc.

No, intuition doesn't say THIMK since it is about imagery instead of language.



> Long-term memory? Possibly. I'd have to think that over. You want to rule out short-term memory? That sounds like something to be checked out by Dario Nardi. (Se).


Yes, you should do that. How can an outside object (and thereby 'e') ever be related to long-term memory? Hence, 'i' is always related to long-term memory, right?. N.B. The cognitive functions cover all information processing that is relevant to personality theory.



> You posted an image of brain functions. Te corresponds to Premotor Sequential Thinking, and Ti corresponds to Symbols.
> This had me thinking about the original theme of this thread: Te and Ti in mathematics. Why don't we tackle some real mathematics and see what we get?
> 2x3x4=24. 2x3x4x5=120. 2x3x4x5x6=720. Very little thinking. If we remember this, recalling it will be Si. Do you see a pattern? That pattern gives us something to think about, maybe.
> Here is a definition: A prime number is a number (no fractions allowed) divisible only by 1 and itself. So 24=2x3x4 is not prime; 7 is prime. So what?
> The ancient Greeks wondered if the number of primes was infinite. Who knows? If we are lucky we can get a proof one way or the other. We don't know the answer to start with. If we are skilled, maybe we can identify Premotor Sequential Thinking (Te) and Symbols (Ti).
> Do you see those equations above? None of the right side numbers is prime. (That's a little Te). Now what if you add 1 to 2x3x4x5x6? Do you get a prime or not? Who cares? Back to the original problem. Is the number of primes infinite? Another way of saying that is given any prime P, is there a bigger one? If you can always find a bigger one, that would prove primes go on forever and therefore are infinite. Makes sense? I'm not sure what cognitive functions are involved there. Sounds like a few.
> Anyway some Greek had a brilliant idea. Suppose we start with any prime number P. Multiply from 1 all the way to P: 1x2x3x ... x(P-2)x(P-1)xP. Then add one. Let N = 1x2x3x ... x(P-2)x(P-1)xP+1. Is N prime or not? Who knows. We don't know. Maybe. Maybe not.
> There are two cases: (1) If it is prime, it is bigger than P and the theorem is proved.
> (2) If it is not prime it has factors. But none of the factors up to P are factors of N. Why not? Because if you try to divide N by any number up to P you get a remainder of one. Therefore the undiscovered factor must be bigger than P and the theorem is proved: No matter what P you pick, there is a bigger one.
> This brilliant piece of thinking is Ti (and Ni). It was an idea cooked up entirely in that Greek's head. The idea was to define the number N after noticing a pattern.
> Symbols were involved here. That was Ti. There was sequential thinking that was Ti also. But it was complex.
> Now suppose we forget this Ti thinking inside the Greeks head and just write down the proof mechanically so another can read it. Anyone reading the proof is doing sequential thinking which is Te. So the Ti has turned into Te depending on the observer. The symbols too become Te. (There is Se and Si involved).
> This means we can't arbitrarily assign symbols to that part of the brain. Following someone else's mathematical proof (Te) is a different process from discovering or creating a proof (Ti). We'd have to have Dario Nardi make many tests to see how these different sections of the brain average out.


First of all, Euclid's proof is beautiful. But I don't think this example makes our problem any clearer. Your view is still that following someone else's mathematical proof is Te and creating a proof is Ti. That is fairly close to Jung's point of view. However, this contradicts our experiences of the types (and my point of view). See previous comments about ENTJ/ESTJ vs. INTP. And again, discovering and creating a proof is Ne. What is Ti in this process in your view? Can you give me a concrete example?


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Ni blocked with Te results in Ni+ and Te-. Si blocked with Te results in Si- and Te+.


Not sure how to make use of this. Would you say N moves outward while S focuses inward ... or does that oversimplify?






> Consider 3+1 > 3. This expression is clearly outside your head. If I ask you to verify whether the expression is correct or not, then you will be using a logical function. Is that Te in your view?


That is a direct question about a specific item. Instead of looking at this from the bottom up, suppose we try top-down. That means looking at the general situation first. Let's look at Te and Ti generally.

*Inside* refers to functions going on referring to objects inside one's head. That is an inside system. *Outside* refers to functions going on referring to objects outside one's head. That is an outside system. 

In the case of *Te*, the thinking will be about things directly in the environment like actual charts, dinner table arrangements, arranging facts, being fair with people, management decisions. This is in contrast with inside *Ti* thinking which is about things inside one's head, like theory about an internal model, how to tear things apart, looking at causes and effects, and seeing how parts can fit within an internal model or system. 

So which is 3+1 > 3? Answer: it depends on the viewer. If the viewer leads with Te, they we see that equation objectively on a display. Their Se recognizes it. A little thinking about the display says it's good. Since the thinking is about an outside entity, it's Te. Also since the inequality seems good, the Te is done and thinking goes on to something else. Maybe the Te thinker doesn't do any calculations at all. "Any fool can see the left side is larger." That is an intuitive decision. Ni and Se.

If the viewer is a Ti thinker, they may not think this way. Their Si recognizes the symbols as familiar and probably legitimate. One could speculate this is not a great example to challenge Ti thinking, but let's see. The Te thinker may say "this is over and done with. I'm done." Not so the Ti thinker. The Ti thinker may want to see how this works. They may take the inequality off the outward display and pull it into their head. 

They made start thinking about it. After all what do we do when the inequality is much more complicated? How do we formally verify it? Am I allowed to subtract 3 from both sides? Not sure until I recall I can do the same things to both sides of an equation (Si). If someone tells me to go ahead and I decide that is okay, that is Te. The Te person has already done with thinking. What forces me to subtract the Ti person asks? Why not divide? If I recognize that as a choice, that is Ti. After subtracting, inspecting the results I get some fraction > 0. That is Se if I write that down. Is a positive fraction > 0? My memory says it is so (Si). The Ti person continues on. If one can not only subtract, but divide, what else is there? Maybe there are broader rules that can take care of any inequality. We don't know.






> If yes, then you must also explain why ESTJ and/or ENTJ don't find mathematics or other definitions interesting.


I can only speculate. Te wants to get things done; Ti likes inside brain jobs. To be interested in mathematics one has to be willing to play with it. Maybe the ESTJ/ENTJ are too interested in other priorities.





> Coming up with new mathematics or solving mathematical problems in your own way, which you are referring to as 'inside Thinking' (Ti), is actually Ne. Checking the validity of those new ideas is Ti (and Te), though.


Yes there is lots of Ne. Ne is only observation. The Ti and Te performs judgments about that Ne. 




> I disagree with you about this, but let's focus on intuition vs. sensing first.


Then intuition and sensing it is. We can drop thinking vs feeling.






> It is not just a possibility of a poacher, Ni is the actual image of the poacher.


Can we drop this elephant/poacher example? It is leading me and misleading me in too many wrong directions. Maybe later.






> Sensing is about all objects that we experience (and have experienced) via our senses. This is all we've got. Even fantasy is ultimately about sensing. Okay, so what is intuition? It is the RESULT of the linkage between distantly related (and previously sensed) data/objects. So Ni is also about sensing in a way. Consider Dario Nardi's T6 and P4pos brain regions (Ni), and F4 (Ne).
> 
> A 'Torreya nucifera' is a specific object. A 'tree' is its corresponding general object. It is not as if we are using intuition as soon as we are generalizing.


I will drop specific and general and look at another conceptualization. It hasn't been used before that I know of so it will be controversial. I am proposing it explains a lot about S and N and could solve the problem of distinguishing between the two and in turn help personality theory. It is a story about a whole and its parts. See if you like it. 


When we perceive an entity as it is without analysis, that is a "whole" entity. When we perceive it that way is it intuition. It is intuition in the dictionary sense because although it is actually made up of its parts, the perception abandons those parts from consciousness. When we perceive parts of this whole relative to that whole, that is sensing. It is sensing because we are focusing on a part of a whole knowing very well there is a larger whole. When we perceive any whole as part of a context, it now becomes part of that context and is sensed. This is a process of whole to part or part to whole and defines the difference between sensing and intuition.

Let's see if this can be verified by applying the above statements. Consider a 'torreya nucifera'. If I'm looking at a particular one directly in a context in which it stands, that is sensing. If I check out its details by examining leaves, trunk, branches, and color that is sensing. If I If I perceive this is such a tree avoiding checking out the details I just mentioned that is intuition. (Note later checking of details may discover intuition was falsely perceived. If I perceive that is torreya nucifera in a forest of torreya nucifera's that is a compound observation. The torreya nucifera is sensed; the forest is intuited. It may not be an adequate forest. If I see a forest as part of a geographical town's county, that is sensing; the town is intuited. If I see a town in a United States State, the town is sensed; the State is intuited.

Summarizing and simplifying: 
If we perceive something as a whole ignoring its parts in the context of an environment, that is *intuition*. 
If we perceive something without considering its environment, with the option of noting its parts, it itself is a part and we are perceiving *sensation*. 

Does this check out with other examples? We shall see.





> Both dynamic and static information about the elephant? Its movements and its appearance? If yes, why aren't SLEs interested in (for example) antiquities or the Antiques Roadshow?


I propose temporarily dropping the elephant/ poacher as too complex. Is an SLE = ESTP? I don't follow this question. Why would an SLE be interested in past articles unless he was running the show?






> "I would like to visit a circus this summer". I am not thinking of a specific circus so it is about general information. Is my image of a circus (or the word) in this example intuition according to you?


If you'd like to, that is Fi. The general circus you have in mind is Ni if it's in your head as fancy.







> This is my view:
> 
> general object 1
> 
> specific object 1a
> specific object 1b
> specific object 1c
> etc.
> 
> general object 2
> 
> specific object 2a
> specific object 2b
> specific object 2c
> etc.
> 
> INTUITION links general object 1 with general object 14, or general object 1 with specific object 26, or specific object 1 with specific object 52 etc etc.


This linkage if seen as a whole is Ni. As soon as you divide it into parts, if you are remembering specific objects, that is Si. If you are forgetting your image of the circus you want to visit, and changing to scanning for general objects as possibilities in the outside world, that is Ne.





> Nardi, F4 brain region: "Accurately place concepts by testing them against many categories at once to find a best-fit." That is Ne!


It think so. (It is hard to know exactly what is going on here.) The circus example above was hard enough. I hope I explained it.






> It is important that we agree on this. It is not intuition that makes 'fish' meaningful here. These are connections between visual Si (i.e. the group of letters), auditory Si (i.e. the sounds of vowels and consonants) and the living object/organism, which you recognize and therefore they are meaningful. These are NOT distantly-related aspects of 'fish'.


At this point I find it hard to grasp what we are talking about here without writing too many paragraphs. My claim is we must see "fish" whether it be the sound or the entire whole word group of letters to perceive we are talking about the water swimmer. bis or fig or fuz doesn't do it. 

Let's try applying the theory I posed above and see if it helps. To make this meaningful I choose the sentence, "The pond was teaming with fish and I caught one."
Summarizing and simplifying: 
If we perceive something as a whole ignoring its parts in the context of an environment, that is *intuition*. 
If we perceive something without considering its environment, with the option of noting its parts, it itself is a part and we are perceiving *sensation*.

Applying, if we see the letters in the sentence forming "fish" or the sounds sounding "phish" if we are reading aloud, that is Si sensation. Suddenly the entity in the sentence changes to intuition (Ne) when we jump to knowing what was in the pond and what we now hold in our hands was what the sentence meant. That changes back to sensation when we forget we were reading a sentence and now feel it in our hands.

I know that is a little hard to grasp that that is intuition, but that is because I have chosen a poor example. I need to do better.







> Yes, intuition places the elephant in a context. BUT this context does not have to be something general or comprehensive. Intuition just links two (or more) objects. And the new object, the poacher in our example, is the context.


I will drop the word "general" and substitute the word "whole." The elephant has a context and yes there are linkages. We have an intuition about the elephant.




> Nardi, P4pos: "Link distantly-related data to get ah-ha solutions". That is Ni.
> 
> It seems as if intuition "sees something whole", but that is just a consequence of many links. Elephant - poacher, elephant - Africa, elephant - strength, elephant - wisdom etc.


We agree.






> First of all, Euclid's proof is beautiful. But I don't think this example makes our problem any clearer. Your view is still that following someone else's mathematical proof is Te and creating a proof is Ti. That is fairly close to Jung's point of view. However, this contradicts our experiences of the types (and my point of view). See previous comments about ENTJ/ESTJ vs. INTP. And again, discovering and creating a proof is Ne. What is Ti in this process in your view? Can you give me a concrete example?


It is quite possible analytical clarity can't be the outcome of this beautiful prime number proof example. Not without writing lots of paragraphs. The reason is too much is going on. Too much Ni, Ne, Si, Se. Parsing all that would take effort.

The concrete example of Ti lies within the theorem proof above. Yes there is a lot of Ne going on. The linkage, the decision making is Ti. There is a lot of Ne there. The Ti thinking is the decision making in picking and choosing. Lots of people knew the Ne. It was Ti that put it all together. Te gets credit too. T was the master of the proof. N was only the slave. T did the work. N was just existent.

Hold on. I just thought of this. The theme of this thread you posed was Te vs Ti in mathematics. Here we have an example. Doesn't this theme ASSUME we want to parse those two? Suppose we were asked this: Which hand steers the wheel of an automobile, left vs right? What if it is more important to know that both hands do it as a unit than to find out which one does it? Could it be that Te and Ti in this proof are so intertwined that there is no need to answer the question?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


Your inside vs. outside is very similar to this:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...orks-please-only-people-pure-logic-enter.html

"4. Extroverted function is all about 'The World'.
4.1. 'The World' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is currently perceived by the sensing organs.
5. Introverted function is all about 'The Mind'.
5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs."


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Not sure how to make use of this. Would you say N moves outward while S focuses inward ... or does that oversimplify?


Yes, that is an oversimplification. 

This is why we need + and -. LSI is interested in specific aspects of Ti (machines...) while LII is interested in general aspects of Ti (mathematics...). SLE/ESTP is focused on minimizing physical threats while SEE/ESFP avoid physical threats. Their Se are obviously different.

It is also important to separate +/- from dimensionality/"strength"/preference. The former is about focus and the latter is about interest. 



> That is a direct question about a specific item. Instead of looking at this from the bottom up, suppose we try top-down. That means looking at the general situation first. Let's look at Te and Ti generally.
> Inside refers to functions going on referring to objects inside one's head. That is an inside system. Outside refers to functions going on referring to objects outside one's head. That is an outside system.
> In the case of Te, the thinking will be about things directly in the environment like actual charts, dinner table arrangements, arranging facts, being fair with people, management decisions. This is in contrast with inside Ti thinking which is about things inside one's head, like theory about an internal model, how to tear things apart, looking at causes and effects, and seeing how parts can fit within an internal model or system.
> So which is 3+1 > 3? Answer: it depends on the viewer. If the viewer leads with Te, they we see that equation objectively on a display. Their Se recognizes it. A little thinking about the display says it's good. Since the thinking is about an outside entity, it's Te. Also since the inequality seems good, the Te is done and thinking goes on to something else. Maybe the Te thinker doesn't do any calculations at all. "Any fool can see the left side is larger." That is an intuitive decision. Ni and Se.
> If the viewer is a Ti thinker, they may not think this way. Their Si recognizes the symbols as familiar and probably legitimate. One could speculate this is not a great example to challenge Ti thinking, but let's see. The Te thinker may say "this is over and done with. I'm done." Not so the Ti thinker. The Ti thinker may want to see how this works. They may take the inequality off the outward display and pull it into their head.
> They made start thinking about it. After all what do we do when the inequality is much more complicated? How do we formally verify it? Am I allowed to subtract 3 from both sides? Not sure until I recall I can do the same things to both sides of an equation (Si). If someone tells me to go ahead and I decide that is okay, that is Te. The Te person has already done with thinking. What forces me to subtract the Ti person asks? Why not divide? If I recognize that as a choice, that is Ti. After subtracting, inspecting the results I get some fraction > 0. That is Se if I write that down. Is a positive fraction > 0? My memory says it is so (Si). The Ti person continues on. If one can not only subtract, but divide, what else is there? Maybe there are broader rules that can take care of any inequality. We don't know.
> I can only speculate. Te wants to get things done; Ti likes inside brain jobs. To be interested in mathematics one has to be willing to play with it. Maybe the ESTJ/ENTJ are too interested in other priorities.


First of all, Ti is not creative. "Why not divide..." Those thoughts are Ne. "If I recognize that as choice, that is Ti" Yes, that is Ti (and Te). "If one can not only subtract, but divide, what else is there?" And that is Ne.

My view: 
Ti is about definitions. 
Te is about logical deductions.

Your view:
Ti is about inside logic, both definitions and logical deductions. 
Te is about outside logic, both definitions and logical deductions.

*What kind of outside definitions are ENTJ and ESTJ focused on???
*
We know that ENTJ and ESTJ like to organize. Is organization the same as categorization. No! Organization has a purpose, i.e. efficiency/effectiveness, besides the classification. "If I put my big tools here and my small tools over there, then I will be able to work more efficiently". Ti focuses on a comparison between A and B. Te considers this comparison (A vs. B) as well, but focuses on the connection between A/B and some other aspects, X/Y. "If A then X, else Y..."

This is why I claim Te information is about _external dynamics of relationships_, and Ti information is about _external statics of relationships_.

MBTI Today (and Jung)
Te: Take several disparate objects and organize those using objective criteria; ask someone else to identify the criteria that you used. 

Ti: Think of all the different kinds of objects that you have and categorize them in your mind into mutually exclusive groupings; write those categories down to determine if there are any overlapping categories. 



> Yes there is lots of Ne. Ne is only observation. The Ti and Te performs judgments about that Ne.


Your inside Thinking (Ti) seems creative. There is nothing creative about Ti at all (in my view).



> Can we drop this elephant/poacher example? It is leading me and misleading me in too many wrong directions. Maybe later.


OK



> I will drop specific and general and look at another conceptualization.


Good



> It hasn't been used before that I know of so it will be controversial. I am proposing it explains a lot about S and N and could solve the problem of distinguishing between the two and in turn help personality theory. It is a story about a whole and its parts. See if you like it.
> When we perceive an entity as it is without analysis, that is a "whole" entity. When we perceive it that way is it intuition. It is intuition in the dictionary sense because although it is actually made up of its parts, the perception abandons those parts from consciousness. When we perceive parts of this whole relative to that whole, that is sensing. It is sensing because we are focusing on a part of a whole knowing very well there is a larger whole. When we perceive any whole as part of a context, it now becomes part of that context and is sensed. This is a process of whole to part or part to whole and defines the difference between sensing and intuition.
> Let's see if this can be verified by applying the above statements. Consider a 'torreya nucifera'. If I'm looking at a particular one directly in a context in which it stands, that is sensing. If I check out its details by examining leaves, trunk, branches, and color that is sensing. If I If I perceive this is such a tree avoiding checking out the details I just mentioned that is intuition. (Note later checking of details may discover intuition was falsely perceived. If I perceive that is torreya nucifera in a forest of torreya nucifera's that is a compound observation. The torreya nucifera is sensed; the forest is intuited. It may not be an adequate forest. If I see a forest as part of a geographical town's county, that is sensing; the town is intuited. If I see a town in a United States State, the town is sensed; the State is intuited.
> Summarizing and simplifying:
> If we perceive something as a whole ignoring its parts in the context of an environment, that is intuition.
> If we perceive something without considering its environment, with the option of noting its parts, it itself is a part and we are perceiving sensation.
> Does this check out with other examples? We shall see.


If you perceive something as a whole ignoring its parts in the context of an environment, what do you actually see? It is not clear what you mean by "whole" or "analysis" here. Is it a fuzzy image? Is it a concept or an abstraction? How can you see a tree without any details?



> I propose temporarily dropping the elephant/ poacher as too complex. Is an SLE = ESTP? I don't follow this question. Why would an SLE be interested in past articles unless he was running the show?


Yes, SLE corresponds to ESTP. Because the ESTP is not just considering the past but also actual objects in the 'here and now' when he/she is visiting the Antiques Roadshow. If the ESTP is focused on both static and dynamic aspects of objects in the 'here and now', then he/she should also be interested in antiquities.



> If you'd like to, that is Fi. The general circus you have in mind is Ni if it's in your head as fancy.


OK. Here's another example. You are lying in bed with your eyes closed and you are thinking about a mathematical problem. Suddenly you see a solution. That is Ne in my view. Do you agree with me? If yes, how is Ne about an outside object in this example?



> At this point I find it hard to grasp what we are talking about here without writing too many paragraphs. My claim is we must see "fish" whether it be the sound or the entire whole word group of letters to perceive we are talking about the water swimmer. bis or fig or fuz doesn't do it.
> Let's try applying the theory I posed above and see if it helps. To make this meaningful I choose the sentence, "The pond was teaming with fish and I caught one."
> Summarizing and simplifying:
> If we perceive something as a whole ignoring its parts in the context of an environment, that is intuition.
> If we perceive something without considering its environment, with the option of noting its parts, it itself is a part and we are perceiving sensation.
> Applying, if we see the letters in the sentence forming "fish" or the sounds sounding "phish" if we are reading aloud, that is Si sensation. Suddenly the entity in the sentence changes to intuition (Ne) when we jump to knowing what was in the pond and what we now hold in our hands was what the sentence meant. That changes back to sensation when we forget we were reading a sentence and now feel it in our hands.
> I know that is a little hard to grasp that that is intuition, but that is because I have chosen a poor example. I need to do better.


I am still disagreeing with you. "Knowing... what the sentence meant" is Si (and Se). There are only three ways to understand the meaning of that sentence. You have seen an abstract representation, and/or you have watched a TV show about fishing, and/or you have been fishing yourself. Let's say 'pond + fish + caught' didn't make sense to you before, but then you experienced these three aspects of fishing and suddenly they made sense. This is not cross-contextual information, since 'pond, fish and caught' were present. There were direct connections between the words and your experience. However, if you caught an eel and it slipped out of your hands, and you suddenly realized the meaning of the idiom 'slippery as an eel', then you used intuition (Ni).



> It is quite possible analytical clarity can't be the outcome of this beautiful prime number proof example. Not without writing lots of paragraphs. The reason is too much is going on. Too much Ni, Ne, Si, Se. Parsing all that would take effort.
> The concrete example of Ti lies within the theorem proof above. Yes there is a lot of Ne going on. The linkage, the decision making is Ti. There is a lot of Ne there. The Ti thinking is the decision making in picking and choosing. Lots of people knew the Ne. It was Ti that put it all together. Te gets credit too. T was the master of the proof. N was only the slave. T did the work. N was just existent.
> Hold on. I just thought of this. The theme of this thread you posed was Te vs Ti in mathematics. Here we have an example. Doesn't this theme ASSUME we want to parse those two? Suppose we were asked this: Which hand steers the wheel of an automobile, left vs right? What if it is more important to know that both hands do it as a unit than to find out which one does it? Could it be that Te and Ti in this proof are so intertwined that there is no need to answer the question?


Picking and choosing is Te according to me.

They are intertwined, but it is still possible to separate them.


----------



## Messenian

Tellus said:


> There are four aspects of mathematics that are processed by Te and Ti. (Ne deals with new patterns and connections)
> 
> 1) The multiplication table is like a language or facts: *Te*
> 
> 2) 3x=6, and general rules for equations => Therefore x=2 (logical deduction): *Te*
> 
> 3) Notice that the left side of an equation equals the right side, 2x = x + x (incl. estimations): *Ti*
> 
> 4) Visualize any mathematical objects: *Ti*
> 
> Do you agree with me?



I haven't thought of it this way. What I have noticed is that applied maths, plus anything related to stochastic processes = Te , and pure maths (maths for the sake of maths, maths as a way of exploring pretty much everything, including aesthetic dimensions) = Ti


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Yes, that is an oversimplification.
> 
> This is why we need + and -. LSI is interested in specific aspects of Ti (machines...) while LII is interested in general aspects of Ti (mathematics...). SLE/ESTP is focused on minimizing physical threats while SEE/ESFP avoid physical threats. Their Se are obviously different.
> 
> It is also important to separate +/- from dimensionality/"strength"/preference. The former is about focus and the latter is about interest.
> 
> 
> 
> At first that seems accurate, but not the details. So many things are being talked about at once. An analysis of this is not the same as organizing this. Certainly the Se's are different. One is fed by Ti; the other by Fi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, Ti is not creative. "Why not divide..." Those thoughts are Ne. "If I recognize that as choice, that is Ti" Yes, that is Ti (and Te). "If one can not only subtract, but divide, what else is there?" And that is Ne.
> 
> My view:
> Ti is about definitions.
> Te is about logical deductions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on here. There is the observational view which is Ne. I agree. There is also the judgmental view which I hold is what we decide to do with the observations. That we can divide is an observation. Choosing among subtraction, division and more is Tx judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your view:
> Ti is about *inside* logic, both definitions and logical deductions.
> Te is about *outside* logic, both definitions and logical deductions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I make that choice as a practical way to proceed. We can and are looking at alternate ways to proceed, but doing both at once leads to disorganization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of outside definitions are ENTJ and ESTJ focused on???
> 
> We know that ENTJ and ESTJ like to organize. Is organization the same as categorization. No! Organization has a purpose, i.e. efficiency/effectiveness, besides the classification. "If I put my big tools here and my small tools over there, then I will be able to work more efficiently". Ti focuses on a comparison between A and B. Te considers this comparison (A vs. B) as well, but focuses on the connection between A/B and some other aspects, X/Y. "If A then X, else Y..."
> 
> This is why I claim Te information is about external dynamics of relationships, and Ti information is about external statics of relationships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My first reaction to this is there are many choices of ways to go. How do we choose?
> ENTJ = Te Ni Se Fi; ESTJ = Te Si Ne Fi; ExTJ = Te Xi Ye Fi. Both of these are concerned with outside definitions and logic in a general way which is my view. What you say after that seems okay. Yes Te is about external dynamics of relationships. Then you jump to Ti. There is no Ti here. ExTJs do not do Ti.
> 
> You say, "Ti information is about external statics of relationships." This is for Ti thinkers. It occurs inside the Ti person's head. If the Ti person wants to compare outside things, they can do that but it's an inside job. The Te person is different. They are actually outside. You are right when you say organization is different from categorization. The organization observes outside things: Se. Categorization observes inside things: Si. This may be a simplification, but I'm working on the difference you have observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MBTI Today (and Jung)
> Te: Take several disparate objects and organize those using objective criteria; ask someone else to identify the criteria that you used.
> 
> Ti: Think of all the different kinds of objects that you have and categorize them in your mind into mutually exclusive groupings; write those categories down to determine if there are any overlapping categories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without studying it, that seems okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your inside Thinking (Ti) seems creative. There is nothing creative about Ti at all (in my view).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Would you like me to reflect on creativity? I forget who brought this up first. It seems to be a different topic.
> Creativity refers to something new. Seems to me that is a Ti/Xe/Xi/Fe combination for the Ti person. One observes and then chooses. One chooses and observes some more ... a loop. Each needs the other. I suppose anyone can be creative. Creativity belongs to the personality as a whole, not the function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you perceive something as a whole ignoring its parts in the context of an environment, what do you actually see? It is not clear what you mean by "whole" or "analysis" here. Is it a fuzzy image? Is it a concept or an abstraction? How can you see a tree without any details?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These are excellent questions. My answer is you do see a lot, but it is a matter of focus, awareness and consciousness. When one sees an entity as a whole, they focus on the unification. Any "parts" go to the unconscious even though they are there. Here is an example from art (assuming you stand back). There is no horse. But we are deceived because we see only the whole and ignore the parts (unless we look more closely).
> https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...m_horse_by_indigo_98-d4qnopf.png&action=click
> Perhaps I'm not emphasizing this "whole" enough. It is important to note one is not cognitive of the parts. One is so busy with the whole and its environmental application that the consciousness of parts vanishes to zero. My own intuition (Ne) says that during cognition there should be a continual shifting between whole and part, part and whole all during the process. Rephrasing, the whole does not see the parts because one is busy relating this "whole" to other things in the environment. This whole is viewed as part of the environment. No conscious analysis of it is performed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, SLE corresponds to ESTP. Because the ESTP is not just considering the past but also actual objects in the 'here and now' when he/she is visiting the Antiques Roadshow. If the ESTP is focused on both static and dynamic aspects of objects in the 'here and now', then he/she should also be interested in antiquities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the issue you are after here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Here's another example. You are lying in bed with your eyes closed and you are thinking about a mathematical problem. Suddenly you see a solution. That is Ne in my view. Do you agree with me? If yes, how is Ne about an outside object in this example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Ne provided the data. Ti made the connection identifying it as a prospective solution. The INTP personality is operating with an inside system but the cognitive function Ne data was taken from who knows where? Maybe the Ne was identified from the outside and translated into Si by pulling a part of that Ne to the inside. The solution may have been Si, not exactly Ne. I'd have to return to that "Infinity of Primes" proof to check that out. One may very well discover the Ne was some broad whole observation and it was Si that was picked out as a solution. You are asking about the nature of mathematical thought. I have a book on the subject but I'd have to locate that book. I do recall the title. It is: "The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field" by Jacques Hadamard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still disagreeing with you. "Knowing... what the sentence meant" is Si (and Se). There are only three ways to understand the meaning of that sentence. You have seen an abstract representation, and/or you have watched a TV show about fishing, and/or you have been fishing yourself. Let's say 'pond + fish + caught' didn't make sense to you before, but then you experienced these three aspects of fishing and suddenly they made sense. This is not cross-contextual information, since 'pond, fish and caught' were present. There were direct connections between the words and your experience. However, if you caught an eel and it slipped out of your hands, and you suddenly realized the meaning of the idiom 'slippery as an eel', then you used intuition (Ni).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The sentence talked about was, "The pond was teaming with fish and I caught one." I'm a little or more than a little uncertain where we are going with this. Suppose I said that an INTJ would see this eel experience as Ni/Te but an INTP saw it as Ti/Ne? Without carefully analyzing the whole thing, is this not feasible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Picking and choosing is Te according to me. They are intertwined, but it is still possible to separate them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah. Yes it is, but only if you are deliberately consciously picking and choosing. What if an INTJ does that? The INTJ uses Te. Now me, an INTP? I don't deliberately pick and choose first. That is because I first look. I don't act firmly. Instead I use intuition, Ne as my observation first. Then I think about it afterward (Ti). It's a matter of the approach style. IOW it's a matter of person-ality.
> 
> Be that as it may, are Te and Ti intertwined? I have two answers. One answer is yes; the other is no. Ask this question about an organism: Is what runs a human organism the breathed gas, the liquid bloodstream or the mechanical heart? My answer is the whole integrated gas, liquid and solid runs the organism. None of those three run it alone. It is run by those three parts plus their proper relationships all intertwined. The parts can be identified but no one part runs the show. If you try to pull out one part you find it works only if you also identify the relationships with the other parts. If you pick out any of those relationships you come face-to-face with the other two parts.
> 
> I have a theory on tools for understanding. (Would you like to see a writeup on these tools?)
> One of those tools is called "*perspective*." The perspective I just offered is the organism runs as an integrated whole. Here is another:
> 
> The human organism runs on oxygen. Without it the bloodstream won't work. Without the bloodstream the heart has nothing to pump. It is the oxygen that makes the human organism work.
Click to expand...


----------



## Tellus

*Angular gyrus *is definitely related to Ti (and Ni?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_gyrus

*Mathematics and Spatial Cognition*

Since 1919, brain injuries to the angular gyrus have been known to often cause arithmetic deficits. Functional imaging has shown that while other parts of the parietal lobe bilaterally are involved in approximate calculations due to its link with spatiovisual abilities, the left angular gyrus together with left Inferior frontal gyrus [Te?] are involved in exact calculation due to verbal arithmetic fact retrieval. When activation in the left angular gyrus is greater, a person's arithmetic skills are also more competent.

*Attention*

The right angular gyrus has been associated with spatiovisual attention toward salient features. It may allocate attention by employing a bottom-up strategy which draws on the area's ability to attend to retrieved memories. For example, the angular gyrus plays a critical role in distinguishing left from right, by integrating conceptual understanding of the language term "left" or "right" with its location in space. Furthermore, the angular gyrus has been associated with orienting in three dimensional space, not because it interprets space, but because it may control attention shifts in space.


----------



## Tellus

Messenian said:


> I haven't thought of it this way. What I have noticed is that applied maths, plus anything related to stochastic processes = Te , and pure maths (maths for the sake of maths, maths as a way of exploring pretty much everything, including aesthetic dimensions) = Ti



Why do you think applied maths is Te and pure maths is Ti?

I don't agree with you but I do think most ILI / INTJ mathematicians have chosen applied maths, mathematical physics or geometry/analysis.


----------



## Messenian

Just from a mix of personal experience and from my observations of how a couple INTPs that I have known, dealt with maths. 

Own experience with maths : school in my country tends to teach maths in a 'maths for the sake of maths' way, without drawing any relationships to practical applications. I spent my school years increasingly disliking maths and getting increasingly bad at them. Until , at Uni age, a maths tutor seemed to realise that I would 'get' maths once connections to real problem solving were drawn. Within a year I became quite good in maths to the point where I achieved one of the highest scores in my region for entry into my country's top business school thanks to my maths grades. However, I never developed an actual interest in maths or even, if you will, a fascination for its inherent beauty, elegance etc. It remained a tool and just a tool, in which I had no interest after it had been used to deal with a practical problem. The INTPs that I have met, on the other hand, seem to develop a certain fascination for maths and their Ti loves to tinker with it and to use maths to explore all aspects of the world, no matter how remote from the actual application of maths to solve known practical problems of the present. To Ti doms, maths is worth exploring and playing with, for its own sake. Kind of like to Ni doms , the subjective impressions that the world makes upon one's psyche, including impressions that seem to simply stem out of nowhere, are worth endless exploration, seemingly for these impressions' own sake. 

Also, the INTPs I met to a certain degree seemed to be in a sort of quest to develop a master, deterministic model of how the world works. OK, all types develop a model of how the world works, my impression has been that only the INTPs are so convinced that the world, including human behaviour, is fundamentally deterministic and that therefore a master model that can predict and explain everything with mathematical precision and certainty can be built. Now, I do not know if other ILIs share this view, but I know I don't. I do not think that the world and its evolution can be explained in its entirety by a reduction to mathematical concepts, because I do not think that mathematics, for all its undisputed utility, lie at the core of everything that is. Mathematics is just a useful tool for dealing with certain aspects of life, under certain circumstances. It is but a tool amongst many, and I see no reason to develop an almost mystical fascination with a tool. I haven't interacted much with other ILIs though, so I can't say whether most would be closer to my view or to the INTPs' view, as I have observed it.


----------



## BigApplePi

Messenian said:


> Just from a mix of personal experience and from my observations of how a couple INTPs that I have known, dealt with maths.
> 
> Own experience with maths : school in my country tends to teach maths in a 'maths for the sake of maths' way, without drawing any relationships to practical applications. I spent my school years increasingly disliking maths and getting increasingly bad at them. Until , at Uni age, a maths tutor seemed to realise that I would 'get' maths once connections to real problem solving were drawn. Within a year I became quite good in maths to the point where I achieved one of the highest scores in my region for entry into my country's top business school thanks to my maths grades. However, I never developed an actual interest in maths or even, if you will, a fascination for its inherent beauty, elegance etc. It remained a tool and just a tool, in which I had no interest after it had been used to deal with a practical problem. The INTPs that I have met, on the other hand, seem to develop a certain fascination for maths and their Ti loves to tinker with it and to use maths to explore all aspects of the world, no matter how remote from the actual application of maths to solve known practical problems of the present. To Ti doms, maths is worth exploring and playing with, for its own sake. Kind of like to Ni doms , the subjective impressions that the world makes upon one's psyche, including impressions that seem to simply stem out of nowhere, are worth endless exploration, seemingly for these impressions' own sake.


I would say the math world is a closed system, except around the philosophical edges. We could say those who like to play in this closed world are Ti doms. Tools within that world are math tools useful only to further exploration of this closed world. Those who aren't interested in this world, but rather the real world outside deal with ourside things which not being so well defined, use math as a tool to structure this outside world. They use Te and can be Ni doms.



> Also, the INTPs I met to a certain degree seemed to be in a sort of quest to develop a master, deterministic model of how the world works. OK, all types develop a model of how the world works, my impression has been that only the INTPs are so convinced that the world, including human behaviour, is fundamentally deterministic and that therefore a master model that can predict and explain everything with mathematical precision and certainty can be built. Now, I do not know if other ILIs share this view, but I know I don't. I do not think that the world and its evolution can be explained in its entirety by a reduction to mathematical concepts, because I do not think that mathematics, for all its undisputed utility, lie at the core of everything that is. Mathematics is just a useful tool for dealing with certain aspects of life, under certain circumstances. It is but a tool amongst many, and I see no reason to develop an almost mystical fascination with a tool. I haven't interacted much with other ILIs though, so I can't say whether most would be closer to my view or to the INTPs' view, as I have observed it.


I suppose imposing the abstract world upon the outside world is going to meet with error as the outside world is not closed. I suppose such imposition is like a limit. One can progress toward the goal and get as close as one is able, but never getting there.

A good tool for handling this is probability and statistics. Don't probability and statistics bridge the gap between the abstractions of math and the world as reality?


----------



## Messenian

BigApplePi said:


> I would say the math world is a closed system, except around the philosophical edges. We could say those who like to play in this closed world are Ti doms. Tools within that world are math tools useful only to further exploration of this closed world. Those who aren't interested in this world, but rather the real world outside deal with ourside things which not being so well defined, use math as a tool to structure this outside world. They use Te and can be Ni doms.
> 
> 
> I suppose imposing the abstract world upon the outside world is going to meet with error as the outside world is not closed. I suppose such imposition is like a limit. One can progress toward the goal and get as close as one is able, but never getting there.
> 
> A good tool for handling this is probability and statistics. Don't probability and statistics bridge the gap between the abstractions of math and the world as reality?



I think that the description of a closed system and its appeal to Ti is good, based on what I have observed and experienced. 

The attempt to impose a model developed on the abstract world is a good description of what I have observed in INTPs, although the world 'impose' may be unfair to what they are trying to do. I have a hard time imagining any INTP wanting to impose something on something else. But yes, I did find it somewhat puzzling and a bit amusing when my INTP friends expressed their amazement at how things in the real world had not evolved in the way their internally developed theoretical model of the world predicted they would! But ofc, being INTPs, rather than getting stuck at this, they would return to their drawing boards to work on a new model. 

I do think that probability studies bridge the gap, to a degree. I do think that randomness is a big part of the world and the application of what we know about stochastic processes, to the real world, is pretty evident. Perhaps that's why I got interested in probability and its mathematical studies pretty much as soon as they were introduced to me at school. I felt 'finally! Something that relates to the real world"


----------



## BigApplePi

Messenian said:


> I think that the description of a closed system and its appeal to Ti is good, based on what I have observed and experienced.
> 
> The attempt to impose a model developed on the abstract world is a good description of what I have observed in INTPs, although the world 'impose' may be unfair to what they are trying to do. I have a hard time imagining any INTP wanting to impose something on something else. But yes, I did find it somewhat puzzling and a bit amusing when my INTP friends expressed their amazement at how things in the real world had not evolved in the way their internally developed theoretical model of the world predicted they would! But ofc, being INTPs, rather than getting stuck at this, they would return to their drawing boards to work on a new model.
> 
> I do think that probability studies bridge the gap, to a degree. I do think that randomness is a big part of the world and the application of what we know about stochastic processes, to the real world, is pretty evident. Perhaps that's why I got interested in probability and its mathematical studies pretty much as soon as they were introduced to me at school. I felt 'finally! Something that relates to the real world"


My use of the word, "impose" was a bit of hyperbole. Excuse it, lol.

Tell me if this story amuses you as I've wanted the chance to tell it. 

Suppose we ask the question, are there any even prime numbers and you ask this to an outsider. You give examples: 7, 23, 3457339, 34327, etc. I could go on and you would find none of these number is prime. Would you conclude the probability of a prime number chose at random is not even is zero? Surely the answer is yes. Is it therefore a theorem? No. One has to reveal there is an everyday secret even number that is prime. That number is two! This means one can be confidently right an infinite number of times yet wrong as an absolute. Weird, eh?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


First of all, my point of view has changed since post 450. I don't think dynamic vs. static works. Why? Well, we cannot ignore the fact that extroverts interact with objects and introverts don't (i.e. Jung's point of view). A dynamic "extroverted" function would consider all dynamic aspects of objects, so it would also passively observe/define objects.

Okay, so how do we explain that SLI / ISTJ likes the Antiques Roadshow and SLE / ESTP finds it boring? The difference is that SLE doesn't know how to USE these products/objects. I think you have mentioned this explanation in a previous post, right?

This is my current view:

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/1018369-definitions-cognitive-functions-mk-iii.html



> At first that seems accurate, but not the details. So many things are being talked about at once. An analysis of this is not the same as organizing this. Certainly the Se's are different. One is fed by Ti; the other by Fi.


It is actually the blocking ("fed by Ti...") that causes +/- according to socionists (and me). This would imply that LII in Model A looks like this: Ti-, Ne+, Fi-, Se+ // Fe-, Si+, Te-, Ni+... However, Te+ and Si- are much more evident in LII. THAT is why we need +/- and another model than Model A. But let's skip +/- in this thread.



> Hold on here. There is the observational view which is Ne. I agree. There is also the judgmental view which I hold is what we decide to do with the observations. That we can divide is an observation. Choosing among subtraction, division and more is Tx judgment.


"what we decide to do" is about Te in my view. Yes, choosing among subtraction... is Tx judgement. 



> I make that choice as a practical way to proceed. We can and are looking at alternate ways to proceed, but doing both at once leads to disorganization.


OK, let's focus on "your" view first.



> My first reaction to this is there are many choices of ways to go. How do we choose?
> ENTJ = Te Ni Se Fi; ESTJ = Te Si Ne Fi; ExTJ = Te Xi Ye Fi. Both of these are concerned with outside definitions and logic in a general way which is my view. What you say after that seems okay. Yes Te is about external dynamics of relationships. Then you jump to Ti. There is no Ti here. ExTJs do not do Ti.


Let's ignore "external dynamics of relationships". See link above... and btw, you and I are using two completely different 'external'.

This is important. If Te is a conscious function then Ti is an unconscious function. That was Jung's viewpoint as well. However, ExTJ's Ti is sometimes processed consciously in Socionics, but in a different manner. First comes an automatic reaction THEN (perhaps just a second later) we are consciously aware of the information.



> You say, "Ti information is about external statics of relationships." This is for Ti thinkers. It occurs inside the Ti person's head. If the Ti person wants to compare outside things, they can do that but it's an inside job. The Te person is different. They are actually outside. You are right when you say organization is different from categorization. The organization observes outside things: Se. Categorization observes inside things: Si. This may be a simplification, but I'm working on the difference you have observed.


Do you claim that an ExTJ business leader has to be physically at the plant in order to organize the production etc? He cannot visualize the production at home and then draw conclusions/organize it according to you, right?



> Without studying it, that seems okay.


Well, this is the standard viewpoint. You and I are now approaching Jung from two different directions.



> Would you like me to reflect on creativity? I forget who brought this up first. It seems to be a different topic.
> 
> Creativity refers to something new. Seems to me that is a Ti/Xe/Xi/Fe combination for the Ti person. One observes and then chooses. One chooses and observes some more ... a loop. Each needs the other. I suppose anyone can be creative. Creativity belongs to the personality as a whole, not the function.


I disagree completely with this. Ne and Ni are creative because... well, they create objects. You observe new combinations of previously sensed objects due to Ne/Ni connections.



> These are excellent questions. My answer is you do see a lot, but it is a matter of focus, awareness and consciousness. When one sees an entity as a whole, they focus on the unification. Any "parts" go to the unconscious even though they are there. Here is an example from art (assuming you stand back). There is no horse. But we are deceived because we see only the whole and ignore the parts (unless we look more closely).
> https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...m_horse_by_indigo_98-d4qnopf.png&action=click


This is an optical illusion, but I don't think it is related to intuition. "The information gathered by the eye is processed in the brain to give a percept that does not tally with a physical measurement of the stimulus source." 



> Perhaps I'm not emphasizing this "whole" enough. It is important to note one is not cognitive of the parts. One is so busy with the whole and its environmental application that the consciousness of parts vanishes to zero.
> My own intuition (Ne) says that during cognition there should be a continual shifting between whole and part, part and whole all during the process. Rephrasing, the whole does not see the parts because one is busy relating this "whole" to other things in the environment. This whole is viewed as part of the environment. No conscious analysis of it is performed.


Are you saying that intuition is a completely unconscious process? If yes, how do you explain/describe intuitive types like ENFP, ENTP, INFJ and INTJ?

Or, are you saying that intuition is unconscious while sensing is conscious? If yes, is sensing unconscious while intuition is conscious? 

'The "whole" relating to other things in the environment' is almost the same as my point of view. Ni and Ne connect one object with another object in my view. But I don't see why we need this "whole" concept and why it must be things in the environment. 



> What is the issue you are after here?


I argued for dynamic vs. static, but I have changed my mind. See comment above (ESTP...).



> The Ne provided the data. Ti made the connection identifying it as a prospective solution. The INTP personality is operating with an inside system but the cognitive function Ne data was taken from who knows where? Maybe the Ne was identified from the outside and translated into Si by pulling a part of that Ne to the inside. The solution may have been Si, not exactly Ne. I'd have to return to that "Infinity of Primes" proof to check that out. One may very well discover the Ne was some broad whole observation and it was Si that was picked out as a solution. You are asking about the nature of mathematical thought. I have a book on the subject but I'd have to locate that book. I do recall the title. It is: "The Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field" by Jacques Hadamard.


Mathematicians usually try to solve theorems, right? You are exploring new ground, so there are sometimes no Si facts (i.e. already proven theory) to lean on. This is why Ne actually solves the problem. Ne thinks out of the box. Other functions are of course involved as well, but the key function is Ne. 

However, my point was that an "outside" function doesn't make any sense in this example. You have closed your eyes, so you cannot see any outside objects. Ne cannot be involved! 



> The sentence talked about was, "The pond was teaming with fish and I caught one." I'm a little or more than a little uncertain where we are going with this. Suppose I said that an INTJ would see this eel experience as Ni/Te but an INTP saw it as Ti/Ne? Without carefully analyzing the whole thing, is this not feasible?


My point here is that knowing the meaning of a sentence is not about Intuition. It is about facts, Si. Sensing reads the lines while Intuition reads between the lines. "Let's go fishing" could mean "Let's go seducing a girl" at a pub.

Both types are using both functions. It could be Ni or Ne for both types. It depends on the (exact) situation.



> Ah. Yes it is, but only if you are deliberately consciously picking and choosing. What if an INTJ does that? The INTJ uses Te. Now me, an INTP? I don't deliberately pick and choose first. That is because I first look. I don't act firmly. Instead I use intuition, Ne as my observation first. Then I think about it afterward (Ti). It's a matter of the approach style. IOW it's a matter of person-ality.


It depends on what we are talking about. If we are talking about concrete objects then it is actually the other way around. INTP's egos in Model D: TiNe, TeSi. INTJ's egos in Model D: NiTe, NeFi



> Be that as it may, are Te and Ti intertwined? I have two answers. One answer is yes; the other is no. Ask this question about an organism: Is what runs a human organism the breathed gas, the liquid bloodstream or the mechanical heart? My answer is the whole integrated gas, liquid and solid runs the organism. None of those three run it alone. It is run by those three parts plus their proper relationships all intertwined. The parts can be identified but no one part runs the show. If you try to pull out one part you find it works only if you also identify the relationships with the other parts. If you pick out any of those relationships you come face-to-face with the other two parts.


"The parts can be identified but no one par runs the show" Yes... and, in a sense, we also have to identify the relationship between the functions.



> I have a theory on tools for understanding. (Would you like to see a writeup on these tools?)
> One of those tools is called "perspective." The perspective I just offered is the organism runs as an integrated whole. Here is another:
> The human organism runs on oxygen. Without it the bloodstream won't work. Without the bloodstream the heart has nothing to pump. It is the oxygen that makes the human organism work.


You can post the write-up... but it is a bit off-topic.


----------



## Messenian

BigApplePi said:


> My use of the word, "impose" was a bit of hyperbole. Excuse it, lol.
> 
> Tell me if this story amuses you as I've wanted the chance to tell it.
> 
> Suppose we ask the question, are there any even prime numbers and you ask this to an outsider. You give examples: 7, 23, 3457339, 34327, etc. I could go on and you would find none of these number is prime. Would you conclude the probability of a prime number chose at random is not even is zero? Surely the answer is yes. Is it therefore a theorem? No. One has to reveal there is an everyday secret even number that is prime. That number is two! This means one can be confidently right an infinite number of times yet wrong as an absolute. Weird, eh?


Yeah, a high number of observations of one thing still do not constitute mathematical proof that this thing is the only valid instance. kinda reminds me of the story about how the conviction that all swans are white was demolished when men discovered Australia and its black swans. 

Now that you mention prime numbers, I remembered that I was not actually taught prime numbers at school. Ever. I ignored their very existence until I accidentally bought and read a quasi fiction novel about prime numbers and famous mathematical problems. Now that I am in the UK I notice that kids are introduced to prime numbers at like year 3 or something. I went through half a lifetime and a career in business consulting and financial services without ever having to know of, or use prime numbers. So all these thought experiments about prime numbers and stuff like that seem like a waste of time to me, even though it isn't because who knows what kind of future discoveries and practical solutions to all kinds of problems might stem from someone's intellectual masturbation with abstract numbers which happen to share some common properties. Hell, if we ever meet aliens we might need prime numbers to decipher their language and save the earth or something. Who knows


----------



## BigApplePi

Messenian said:


> Yeah, a high number of observations of one thing still do not constitute mathematical proof that this thing is the only valid instance. kinda reminds me of the story about how the conviction that all swans are white was demolished when men discovered Australia and its black swans.
> 
> Now that you mention prime numbers, I remembered that I was not actually taught prime numbers at school. Ever. I ignored their very existence until I accidentally bought and read a quasi fiction novel about prime numbers and famous mathematical problems. Now that I am in the UK I notice that kids are introduced to prime numbers at like year 3 or something. I went through half a lifetime and a career in business consulting and financial services without ever having to know of, or use prime numbers. So all these thought experiments about prime numbers and stuff like that seem like a waste of time to me, even though it isn't because who knows what kind of future discoveries and practical solutions to all kinds of problems might stem from someone's intellectual masturbation with abstract numbers which happen to share some common properties. Hell, if we ever meet aliens we might need prime numbers to decipher their language and save the earth or something. Who knows


You are right. I'm in the United States and I don't recall prime numbers ever been mentioned in school. However as a kid I always enjoyed fun math books written for the layman and primes were the thing. They have a very practical application. I may not be able to tell this story correctly but it goes something like this. Large primes are used to code secret messages. If you give a person a number publically that is very large and make it 
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz = wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww times yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy where the w's and y's are a prime number, the z's can be used for the secret message. One can't unlock the code because one won't know how to factor the z number as the two factors are too large to figure out. This technique is actually used. I think it's called, "public key cryptography." It can be googled but I haven't checked it out.


----------



## Saberlynx

I'm a mathematician. INTPs are better at pure math. INTJs better at applied maths. I'm sort of in the middle. I do pure math also has obvious applications.


----------



## Tellus

Messenian said:


> Just from a mix of personal experience and from my observations of how a couple INTPs that I have known, dealt with maths.
> 
> Own experience with maths : school in my country tends to teach maths in a 'maths for the sake of maths' way, without drawing any relationships to practical applications. I spent my school years increasingly disliking maths and getting increasingly bad at them. Until , at Uni age, a maths tutor seemed to realise that I would 'get' maths once connections to real problem solving were drawn. Within a year I became quite good in maths to the point where I achieved one of the highest scores in my region for entry into my country's top business school thanks to my maths grades. However, I never developed an actual interest in maths or even, if you will, a fascination for its inherent beauty, elegance etc. It remained a tool and just a tool, in which I had no interest after it had been used to deal with a practical problem. The INTPs that I have met, on the other hand, seem to develop a certain fascination for maths and their Ti loves to tinker with it and to use maths to explore all aspects of the world, no matter how remote from the actual application of maths to solve known practical problems of the present. To Ti doms, maths is worth exploring and playing with, for its own sake. Kind of like to Ni doms , the subjective impressions that the world makes upon one's psyche, including impressions that seem to simply stem out of nowhere, are worth endless exploration, seemingly for these impressions' own sake.
> 
> Also, the INTPs I met to a certain degree seemed to be in a sort of quest to develop a master, deterministic model of how the world works. OK, all types develop a model of how the world works, my impression has been that only the INTPs are so convinced that the world, including human behaviour, is fundamentally deterministic and that therefore a master model that can predict and explain everything with mathematical precision and certainty can be built. Now, I do not know if other ILIs share this view, but I know I don't. I do not think that the world and its evolution can be explained in its entirety by a reduction to mathematical concepts, because I do not think that mathematics, for all its undisputed utility, lie at the core of everything that is. Mathematics is just a useful tool for dealing with certain aspects of life, under certain circumstances. It is but a tool amongst many, and I see no reason to develop an almost mystical fascination with a tool. I haven't interacted much with other ILIs though, so I can't say whether most would be closer to my view or to the INTPs' view, as I have observed it.


You are describing the difference between LII's mental Ti and ILI's vital Ti. Yes, most of us (ILIs) are not fascinated by math anymore, but we used to like it during our childhood or youth. However, there are (adult) ILI mathematicians, like John Nash, Roger Penrose, Edward Crane, Edward Frenkel (Numberphile)... So why do some ILIs still find Ti interesting (except "private explorations" at home)? My hypothesis is that they didn't "explore" Ti enough during their childhood/youth.


----------



## Tellus

Saberlynx said:


> I'm a mathematician. INTPs are better at pure math. INTJs better at applied maths. I'm sort of in the middle. I do pure math also has obvious applications.


What's your type?


----------



## Saberlynx

Tellus said:


> What's your type?


INTJ. In pure math, you basically learn a definition and prove things about it. You sort of have to deal with the fact that math is self contained and sort of solipsistic. A lot of mathematics, like abstract algebra and number theory, will be almost impossible to explain to laymen because they have very little to do with any physical reality. My INTP boyfriend is fascinated by Set Theory and Modal Logic. I find them incredibly solipsistic and well, useless. Which is why Ti is useful. I don't like numbers or details so no stats for me, but I do like to apply my math. Hence I do applied Topology.


----------



## Tellus

Saberlynx said:


> INTJ. In pure math, you basically learn a definition and prove things about it. You sort of have to deal with the fact that math is self contained and sort of solipsistic. A lot of mathematics, like abstract algebra and number theory, will be almost impossible to explain to laymen because they have very little to do with any physical reality. My INTP boyfriend is fascinated by Set Theory and Modal Logic. I find them incredibly solipsistic and well, useless. Which is why Ti is useful. I don't like numbers or details so no stats for me, but I do like to apply my math. Hence I do applied Topology.


This is a very good example of the difference between INTJ and INTP in mathematics. And I think applied topology is an excellent choice for INTJs.


----------



## Tellus

Tellus said:


> There are four aspects of mathematics that are processed by Te and Ti. (Ne deals with new patterns and connections)
> 
> 1) The multiplication table is like a language or facts: *Te*
> 
> 2) 3x=6, and general rules for equations => Therefore x=2 (logical deduction): *Te*
> 
> 3) Notice that the left side of an equation equals the right side, 2x = x + x (incl. estimations): *Ti*
> 
> 4) Visualize any mathematical objects: *Ti*
> 
> Do you agree with me?


Here's an update:

1) is actually *Si*.

4) is *Si *and *Ni*. (Ti then notices/compares specific features of those visualized objects)


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> 4) Visualize any mathematical objects: *Ti*





Tellus said:


> 4) is *Si *and *Ni*. (Ti then notices/compares specific features of those visualized objects)


We might dare to add Fi to this. How so? Fi is a judgmental feeling. There is a beauty in finding elegant connections, the easiest way to do something. Looking for art. Fi can lean on Ni and look at Si to come up with this. Felt in the eye of the beholder. Ti can pass another judgment, verifying.


----------



## BigApplePi

Saberlynx said:


> INTJ. In pure math, you basically learn a definition and prove things about it. You sort of have to deal with the fact that math is self contained and sort of solipsistic. A lot of mathematics, like abstract algebra and number theory, will be almost impossible to explain to laymen because they have very little to do with any physical reality. My INTP boyfriend is fascinated by Set Theory and Modal Logic. I find them incredibly solipsistic and well, useless. Which is why Ti is useful. I don't like numbers or details so no stats for me, but I do like to apply my math. Hence I do applied Topology.


I'm not sure we can't say the same about any closed system and argue those within the system have no interest in being outside the system. 

How interested would a chess player be in Go? How interested is a political conservative in a political progressive? How interested is an electrical engineer in chemical engineering? How interested is the ladies sowing circle in military exercises? How interested is a number theorist in the foundations of mathematics?


----------



## Tellus

Here's yet another view on the functions and extraversion/introversion. It seems quite similar to "outside/inside"... "Extroverted output rationalizes data in real-time":

My Take on Temperament

My Take on Introversion and Extroversion


----------



## seriousguy

Tellus said:


> ... So why do some ILIs still find Ti interesting (except "private explorations" at home)? My hypothesis is that they didn't "explore" Ti enough during their childhood/youth.


Are you saying not every ILI has developed Ti fully in their childhood, and thus they explore it later in their adulthood? Or you mean they developed it only partially? Because Ni+ strengthens Ti-, one can't have good/strong Ni+ without good/strong Ti- according to me.


----------



## seriousguy

Tellus said:


> Here's an update:
> 
> 1) is actually *Si*.
> 
> 4) is *Si *and *Ni*. (Ti then notices/compares specific features of those visualized objects)


Why comparison is only Ti and not Si according to you? Isn't every "introverted" functions about comparison/identification/recognition?

...noticing specific features of objects... that is more Si to me. Ti is comparison of their internal properties, i.e., "This page has x2+y2 in first line. In the second paragraph, general equation is mentioned", "This page has x3+y3..." -> this is Si (i.e., reading written stuff, noticing the difference in texts, remembering the text as they are written exactly), "Page 1 includes 10 questions. The first two questions have been answered already as samples.. okay it means Total Questions: 10, Questions Answered: 2, Not Answered: 8" -> this is Ti (i.e., systematization, structuring, comparison/relation of internal properties), or in other words, when one "organizes" the information to be able to recall easily according to his own personal understanding/model, then he/she uses Ti. SLIs have an incredibly good recall of the information they have collected in the classroom (Si-). Internally they may also organize the information for themselves (Ti+). They may say things like, "This is what the teacher xyz have said".


----------



## seriousguy

BigApplePi said:


> *Inside* refers to functions going on referring to objects inside one's head. That is an inside system. *Outside* refers to functions going on referring to objects outside one's head. That is an outside system.
> 
> In the case of *Te*, the thinking will be about things directly in the environment like actual charts, dinner table arrangements, arranging facts, being fair with people, management decisions. This is in contrast with inside *Ti* thinking which is about things inside one's head, like theory about an internal model, how to tear things apart, looking at causes and effects, and seeing how parts can fit within an internal model or system.


Several good thoughts in your post. It's pretty clear to me that "outside" doesn't mean looking visually outside of yourself or your surrounding, nor "inside" implies looking in your head. Every functions are coming from one's head, mental functions specifically are more "in front" of your head. Ti may look outside and start categorizing the objects as if one is developing the understanding for its own sake, i.e., "this mobile phone has the cheap battery and it comes with a low cost charger", but Te may organize the thoughts in the head in order to take some action, i.e., "Putting the other battery will make the phone run longer" even though you are not putting the battery yet, and just rehearsing about it or making the conclusion "in your head". One can organize the charts, tables, teams, etc. "in the head" without actually organizing externally and he/she is doing Te.

Tellus' example of ILI chess players rehearsing about the pieces movements blindfolded is a good example of Te without actually organizing / taking action. Both "extroverted" and "introverted" functions can communicate with the outside world, but "extroverted" functions tend to be faster, and so one talks quickly when using the functions. I personally don't like *talking = extroversion, reserved = introversion*, the major difference between "e" and "i" is that "e" functions expand and are relatively faster and "i" functions converge and are relatively slower.



Tellus said:


> Your inside vs. outside is very similar to this:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...orks-please-only-people-pure-logic-enter.html
> 
> "4. Extroverted function is all about 'The World'.
> 4.1. 'The World' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is currently perceived by the sensing organs.
> 5. Introverted function is all about 'The Mind'.
> 5.1. 'The Mind' refers to any Object (see point 3) that is not currently perceived by the sensing organs."


I think within introverts/extroverts there are two categories: The first category is how much one is concerned about the external world. The second category is how much one uses extroverted/introverted function. Many introverts use extroverted functions quite a lot in the sense of taking a lot of action, but they still seem to be concerned with their self and their own thoughts/world.


----------



## DarkSideOfLight

48 pages of trolling. You guys are that goood.


----------



## Tellus

seriousguy said:


> Are you saying not every ILI has developed Ti fully in their childhood, and thus they explore it later in their adulthood?


Yes, that is my hypothesis.



> Or you mean they developed it only partially? Because Ni+ strengthens Ti-, one can't have good/strong Ni+ without good/strong Ti- according to me.


Yes, Ni+ and Ti- go hand in hand. But "strength" (i.e. interest, preference) does not necessarily correspond with how much time you spent exploring a function in your childhood. Maybe your parents encouraged other activities.


----------



## Tellus

seriousguy said:


> Why comparison is only Ti and not Si according to you? Isn't every "introverted" functions about comparison/identification/recognition?


Every "introverted" function is about identification. But only Ti and Fi are judging functions, i.e. they compare certain features of objects (and subjects). For example, you observe a cow (Si) and suddenly you remember another cow that you saw a month ago (Si). That is not a comparison.



> ...noticing specific features of objects... that is more Si to me.


I agree... as long as you aren't comparing sizes, weights, shapes etc.



> Ti is comparison of their internal properties, i.e., "This page has x2+y2 in first line. In the second paragraph, general equation is mentioned", "This page has x3+y3..." -> this is Si (i.e., reading written stuff, noticing the difference in texts, remembering the text as they are written exactly), "Page 1 includes 10 questions.


Reading written stuff is both Ti and Si... it is mostly Si, though. Noticing differences in physical objects (including words) is always Ti. Reading "horse" and visualizing a horse is Si. Remembering the text is also Si.



> The first two questions have been answered already as samples.. okay it means Total Questions: 10, Questions Answered: 2, Not Answered: 8" -> this is Ti (i.e., systematization, structuring, comparison/relation of internal properties), or in other words, when one "organizes" the information to be able to recall easily according to his own personal understanding/model, then he/she uses Ti.


No, organizing the information to be able to recall it easily is Te. "it means" ... you are drawing a conclusion. But systematization and structuring is Ti. 




> SLIs have an incredibly good recall of the information they have collected in the classroom (Si-).


Yes



> Internally they may also organize the information for themselves (Ti+).


That is Te+. Si- is the goal, and Te+ is the tool.


----------



## Tellus

seriousguy said:


> I think within introverts/extroverts there are two categories: The first category is how much one is concerned about the external world. The second category is how much one uses extroverted/introverted function. Many introverts use extroverted functions quite a lot in the sense of taking a lot of action, but they still seem to be concerned with their self and their own thoughts/world.


Can you give me a concrete example?


----------



## BigApplePi

BigApplePi said:


> Instead of looking at this from the bottom up, suppose we try top-down. That means looking at the general situation first. Let's look at Te and Ti generally.
> 
> *Inside* refers to functions going on referring to objects inside one's head. That is an inside system. *Outside* refers to functions going on referring to objects outside one's head. That is an outside system.
> 
> In the case of *Te*, the thinking will be about things directly in the environment like actual charts, dinner table arrangements, arranging facts, being fair with people, management decisions. This is in contrast with inside *Ti* thinking which is about things inside one's head, like theory about an internal model, how to tear things apart, looking at causes and effects, and seeing how parts can fit within an internal model or system.


It might be useful (or not) to attempt more formal definitions of inside and outside while noting that a boundary line could be necessarily blurred.

We could start with a pool of specific examples (perhaps already covered in this thread) and label them inside or outside and combine them when generalizations. We are looking for definitions.

*Outside*: "actual charts, dinner table arrangements, arranging facts, being fair with people, management decisions."
*Inside*: "things inside one's head, like theory about an internal model, how to tear things apart, looking at causes and effects, and seeing how parts can fit within an internal model or system."

Note that while all these entities occur inside one's brain, we are looking at how these entities are treated. 

The outside entities above *can be converted to inside* by thinking of chart theory, arrangement theory, fairness theory, management theory. If such generalized theory occurs at all, outside functions now have a partial inside function making outside/ inside a little blurred.

The inside entities above *can be converted to outside* by objectifying internal models, diagramming tearing things apart, listing pictorially causes and effects, demostrating actual parts fitting in a model. If such specific events occur at all, inside functions now have a partial outside function making inside/ outside a little blurred.

Note that other cognitive functions come into play and just how that occurs might be something to look at. Inside and outside functions do not occur in isolation. How this happens can be a theory in its own right.


----------



## seriousguy

Tellus said:


> Every "introverted" function is about identification. But only Ti and Fi are judging functions, i.e. they compare certain features of objects (and subjects). For example, you observe a cow (Si) and suddenly you remember another cow that you saw a month ago (Si). That is not a comparison.


When you read a paper, and its text reminds you of the text written somewhere else, then that is Si? If you say, "This text is similar to the text written in that paper", you are still doing Si, right? This is identification/recognition, but not comparison? Okay, but if one says, "This page has 100 words in its first paragraph, while that page has 150 words in its first paragraph", then that would be Ti according to you?



> Reading written stuff is both Ti and Si... it is mostly Si, though. Noticing differences in physical objects (including words) is always Ti. Reading "horse" and visualizing a horse is Si. Remembering the text is also Si.


If reading written stuff was solely Si, then only strong Si could be able to read stuff  Actually, reading stuff "carefully" or "zooming in" the details is Si, this is when someone "consciously" uses Si, otherwise all types use Si, unconsciously/subconsciously at times (i.e., strong Ne+ interpreting the words before reading it properly first). I getting neurotic about words before publishing this post (i.e., perfectionism regarding details)... is it Si- or Ti+ according to you?



> No, organizing the information to be able to recall it easily is Te. "it means" ... you are drawing a conclusion. But systematization and structuring is Ti.


It depends. "This department has 15 classrooms in the ground, 10 classrooms in the first floor....", "The ground rooms have labels from gf-00 to gf-14. The first floor rooms have labels ff-00 to ff-09. Classes of 2nd semester takes place in ground floor only, the gf-10 to gf-14 classes are reserved for labs. gf-08 and gf-09 is for teachers' room....". This is Te+ or Ti+ according to you? I have mental SiTe so those sentences might be Te+, but I do think that I categorize the information something like this to remember the details. Are these categorization (Ti+) or organization (Te+), according to you?



> That is Te+. Si- is the goal, and Te+ is the tool.


So, whenever I organize the information to recall easily later is I doing Te+? "Let's write the important classroom information (i.e., names of teachers, classes timings, etc.) in this notebook, as this is the notebook that I use/open regularly for my other works... the rest information could be written in other notebooks that are present for every topics/subject..." -> This is Te+? My understanding is that those conclusions are Te+ ("Let's write..." -> deduction!), but unconsciously Ti+ too, because I know which stuff I use and are "important" to me than the other stuff, and thus are more "accessible" to me. This is what I referred as "self-organization", meaning organizing yourself so that you come across as responsible and don't lose stuff/information. Are ILIs more or less "responsible" than IEIs in such tasks? Is concrete organization solely Te+ or it is Ti+ too? As a matter of fact, my LII friend sees the clear lack of "responsibility" on my side and I take it as an insult. I always thought that was my hidden agenda Ti+, because IEIs tend to make their best efforts to come across as responsible/organized, but isn't "come across" implies "society" -> likely mental Te+!


----------



## seriousguy

Tellus said:


> Yes, Ni+ and Ti- go hand in hand. But "strength" (i.e. interest, preference) does not necessarily correspond with how much time you spent exploring a function in your childhood. Maybe your parents encouraged other activities.


My personal experience suggests that adults have much less interest in their Demonstrative function, but as it is utilized a lot in the childhood, it still has a large influence in the decision making, for example, adult ambiverted IEI may not say his/her moral judgments about people, but he/she still uses Fi+ for "motivation", maybe this is what you mean by "exploration"? So, let's say adult ambiverted ILI who is focused a lot socially (Fe+) from childhood start taking interest in mathematics/intellectualism (Ti-) as that is how he/she can influence people?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> @Tellus. This is a delayed response. I will try to avoid technical terms and just talk. I'm thinking the personality as a whole includes all behavior, what is inside us and what others see which is outside us. An INTJ is a combination of what is inside and what is outside. I don't know how to make any distinction as I'd claim they are one. Cognitive functions are different. They are something less. They contribute to what we are but don't make us what we are. They are parts of us.


The cognitive functions only cover cognitive processes (i.e. cognitions, including "social cognitions"), so yes they are something less. However, the cognitive functions always interact with emotions, desires and behavior. You cannot do anything consciously without using the functions.



> For example, INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se. That Ni/ Te may contribute to most of what an INTJ is but not necessarily. Other functions like Fi or Se could be prominent or over-developed while Ni or Te are underdeveloped.
> The principle behind this is, "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts." I don't see why this would not be true for personality any less than for anything else.


There is no doubt NiTe is most evident in INTJ. But the functions are connected and interdependent, so they are in a sense equally important. 

What do you mean by over-developed and under-developed? There are subtypes...



> Why should they? They are different things. Different things have to be broken down if it's desired to explain other things. It's hard to explain a snake by looking at an elephant. They do have things in common though.


Good, we agree then.



> I thought cognitive functions are supposed to be conscious. One could argue what we are is 99 percent unconscious. I don't deny our use of cognitive function is highly correlated to what we are, but what we are is much more.


Yes, we have a body, emotions and desires. Anything more? What do you mean by "we are much more"?



> I have no way of knowing what Jung was talking about. There is no reason for a person to have this "sense of wholeness." That doesn't even apply to the body which has all sorts of attention grabbing diverse competing parts. Granted as one matures it might be a good idea to "pull oneself together" for better living.
> As to myths, ceremonies and checkpoints in life, why not? They give reflection on what and where we are.


OK



> Are you asking for a model of the unconscious? Is Socionics a candidate? Another view is there is NO model that is universal. Rather that the unconscious is random. I won't buy that, but just consider it. There are many models associated with the personality but they may not be broken down the way Socionics/MBTI are. Not sure what you have in mind.


No, I was not asking for a model of the unconscious. I was referring to Model A. My point was that Harold Grant's model and Model A are incomplete. 

Can we ever model the unconscious? I don't think so... Okay, so what about Id functions in model A. Well, they are not really unconscious, rather preconscious, i.e. something between conscious and unconscious. 

"In psychoanalysis, preconscious are the thoughts which are unconscious at the particular moment in question, but which are not repressed and are therefore available for recall and easily 'capable of becoming conscious'—a phrase attributed by Sigmund Freud to Joseph Breuer"



> I wasn't thinking deeply on that. Only that Ne means N-extroverted. No. The INTP need not look animated. Off hand, Ne means intuitional observation of the outside world. It's just a way of observing. Absolutely unnecessary to get excited about that. The INTP could be excited for any and a lot of reasons. That is emotional and personal I suppose. I don't see any clear correlation between Ne and behavior in the INTP.


Good. Let's return to our topic. 

If INTP doesn't get excited while using Ne, then what is the connection between extroverted behavior and 'extraverted attitude + function' (Jung)? If the answer is none, then we must ask ourselves why INTP, a Ti dominant type, is introverted.


----------



## seriousguy

DavidH said:


> Personalities are unique to each individual. Personality types are classifications of those personalities along criteria of the one classifying.


I understand, but cognition is only one aspect of our personality, so those classifications (MBTI/Socionics) are not enough to define all aspects of our personality. Tellus tries very hard to explain all aspects of our personality with information processing/Socionics.


----------



## BigApplePi

Reflections.



Tellus said:


> What do you mean by over-developed and under-developed? There are subtypes...


Not sure what a subtype is. If there are too many subtypes that could become unwieldy. By developed, I mean the breadth and depth of a particular function. Just because an INTP has the potential for fascile use of Ti doesn't mean that Ti has been practiced. We can bet a thirty year old INTP has a greater facility with Ti than a five year old INTP. 




> BigApplePi: "One could argue what we are is 99 percent unconscious. I don't deny our use of cognitive function is highly correlated to what we are, but what we are is much more."





> Yes, we have a body, emotions and desires. Anhttp://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/850778-mathematics-te-vs-ti.htmlything more? What do you mean by "we are much more"?


Not sure what you are asking. That 99 percent is us. That 99 percent is not very known to those outside us except possibly our personal physician and psychoanalyst combined. We can use introspection to look into our own unconscious selves and make discoveries.




> No, I was not asking for a model of the unconscious. I was referring to Model A. My point was that Harold Grant's model and Model A are incomplete.


Do I want to know about Harold Grant and Model A? Time does not permit such study ... unless their relevancies can be summarized in a few sentences.



> Can we ever model the unconscious? I don't think so... Okay, so what about Id functions in model A. Well, they are not really unconscious, rather preconscious, i.e. something between conscious and unconscious.
> 
> "In psychoanalysis, preconscious are the thoughts which are unconscious at the particular moment in question, but which are not repressed and are therefore available for recall and easily 'capable of becoming conscious'—a phrase attributed by Sigmund Freud to Joseph Breuer"


I see this "preconscious" as an intermediary on the scale of consciousness to unconsciousness. Come to think of it we know a lot about the unconscious. Psychoanalysts go directly to the mind and physicians go directly to the body which the brain is aware of. Let them describe their models of those.





> If INTP doesn't get excited while using Ne, then what is the connection between extroverted behavior and 'extraverted attitude + function' (Jung)? If the answer is none, then we must ask ourselves why INTP, a Ti dominant type, is introverted.


Generally speaking the INTP will be introverted because their main function Ti is introverted. Should Ne take over at any point they will behave extroverted but that is behavior only. Should Ne become dominant that wouldn't be an INTP. It would be ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si. Same with INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se. Should Te be dominant, they would be an extrovert and would be an ENTJ.

Extroverted behavior and extroverted attitude? Suppose I generalize and just take behavior and attitude. Behavior we see from the outside. Attitude? That would seem to be an inner disposition. I don't see much difference as to what we are. We are both our inner attitude and our outer behavior. They merge to make us who we are. Objectivity and subjectivity do not apply.

The wish to type people is an analytical process when we wish to tell people apart or predict. Behavior is something different. If I had to guess, behavior is identical to action and says how a person interacts with their environment and is non-analytical. The observation of laughter, for example, is observing behavior and is independent of what type one is. Anyone can laugh. Predicting laughter is different. An INTJ may never laugh while an INTP finds things ridiculous.

For a further clue to where I'm coming from I wrote an essay in 2010 on Understanding. Would you like to see it?


----------



## FaintStar

@DavidH

Maybe. Although, none of this is the Answer to my original question related to how this thread was started. It started off with Te and Ti association with Mathematics.

And then my 2nd main question - why can't Te and Ti work simultaneously.

However, instead of having any proper answers to my questions, it is just swirling around..and I don't like to get dragged into it.
Now it has grown into this creature that has too many appendages and everyone pulling it in many different directions.


----------



## DavidH

seriousguy said:


> I understand, but cognition is only one aspect of our personality, so those classifications (MBTI/Socionics) are not enough to define all aspects of our personality. Tellus tries very hard to explain all aspects of our personality with information processing/Socionics.


That is incorrect. MBTI and Socionics are not cognition classifications. They are personality classifications. Personalities include cognition and are included in the classifications.

What you are referring to is the personal preference of forum dwellers to disregard the other aspects of personalities and focus on cognition. This is indicative of the desire to focus on cognition separate from objectively observable information. This in turn is indicative of a cognitive disconnect. These things exist outside of the scope of Socionics.

MBTI and Socionics both directly focus on objectively observable traits and characteristics of individuals and supply model theories to attempt to explain such. They are both simplified and straightforward. To attempt to assert that these two personality classification systems are cognition classification systems is both dishonest and disrespectful. 

We all at some point in our lives have the desire to focus on the things which seem to benefit us the most. Be that as it may, we have both the duty and the responsibility to both ourselves and others to accept things as they are. This includes the aspects we favor. And this includes the aspects we disfavor. And it is important to that we learn to balance these things. Not just for our own lives, but for the lives around us as well.

What Tellus is doing is attempting to author his own version of Socionics. This is due to the viewpoints from which the existing versions of Socionics are frameworked not being perceived as similar to his own. As such, the framework developed from that viewpoint must also be different.

Scanning for where the specific disagreement may be arising, I notice a discussion on mental health. The traits and characteristics which exist in those with mental disabilities exist within all people. They are fundamental parts of being human. Those with mental disorders. They exhibit unhealthy levels of these traits and characteristics. These unhealthy levels are both maladaptive and dysfunctional and are classified as disorders for such reasons. They are both personality traits and characteristics and mental disability traits and characteristics. Some are labeled personality disorders with a verbatim emphasis on personality. These are facts. 

Following the existence of these facts are where the disagreement on this matter between he and yourself starts. Similar to the aforementioned personality vs cognition. Tellus is supporting that personality type classifications and mental disorder classifications are identical. There is evidence within the various works of Socionics authors to support such claims. You are supporting that personality type classifications and mental disorder classifications are mutually exclusive. There is evidence within the various works of Socionics authors to support such claims. He is comparing. You are contrasting. Neither is accurate. They are two separate classification frameworks for human personality. Personality type determines the direction that an individual is different from the average person. Mental disorders determine the degree that an individual is different than the average person to determine if the individual has a disorder or not, and then the location of the disorder. The two partially overlap. Recognizing such. Comparing and contrasting such. These are steps necessary to clearly see the benefits and faults of both. The Swiss Cheese Model  is an appropriate example. 

I would like the both of you to take time on the opposing side of the fence. He contrasting personality vs cognition and personality types vs mental disorders. You comparing personality/cognition and personality types/mental disorders. You both have an opportunity to learn from each other.


----------



## DavidH

FaintStar said:


> @DavidH
> 
> Maybe. Although, none of this is the Answer to my original question related to how this thread was started. It started off with Te and Ti association with Mathematics.
> 
> And then my 2nd main question - why can't Te and Ti work simultaneously.
> 
> However, instead of having any proper answers to my questions, it is just swirling around..and I don't like to get dragged into it.
> Now it has grown into this creature that has too many appendages and everyone pulling it in many different directions.


Yes. That is correct. I acknowledge and respect your questions, feelings, and concerns.

When we are faced with problems we first either consider the problem or we act against the problem. Other problems will arise dependent on the decision. When they do, we consider these problems or we act against them. Without a healthy balance between the two we will either not act enough or not consider enough. This is both damaging to our own lives and the lives around us. We each have the responsibility to expect that each individual respects both their own selves and others enough to see to this balance within their own lives and the lives of others. It is this expectation and effort within each of us which allows us to treat each other with mutual respect.

What you are referencing is the Asking/Declaring Reinin Dichotomy, also referenced as the Questim/Declatim Reinin Dichotomy. Questim is to consider. Declatim is to act. Tellus' original post is Questim. Although he does Declatim at times, he is Questim predominantly. Subsequent posters are Questim. For every question, another question arises. For every answer, two questions arise. No healthy balance grounds it back to simple reality. 

Socionics itself is similar. The issues present with individuals learning it are due to lack of succinct and distinct basic information. It is conflated. This is the unhealthy imbalance between Questim over Declatim preventing it from ever being properly study and having practical value to individuals. The Functional Analysis portion of MBTI is similar. Questions (Questims) such as Te vs Ti, which should be a simple one post Answer (Declatim), become 50 page long threads, entire forums, and new systems themselves. This is due to the lack of responsibility and respect of Questim individuals to be sufficiently Declatim. Similar issues are present in life when Declatim individuals do not sufficiently Questim. These issues are present within all people. Be that as it may, we each have the responsibility to both respect and expect from others that we work together as people to maintain a healthy balance that is in the best interest of all.

In such light, my posts both answer with relavent information and reply with a question in the form of presenting an opportunity to declare.

I sincerely hope that you will consider providing answers to my exercise.


----------



## BigApplePi

@*DavidH
*@*FaintStar
*
There are questions and there are answers ... inquires and replies. How things go depend a lot on who is asking and who is telling. People are complex. How do we know what is really being asked? Does the asker even know? How do we know the motives and meaning of the teller? Does the teller even know? On a thread such as this do we expect a clear cut problem and solution and then close the thread? I doubt it.

It is in the nature of questions and answers that they are not clear. Analyzing answers is not enough. There are definitions and there is context needed for meaning. A lot of time can be spent looking at meanings. Nevertheless after a certain amount of discussion with other things addressed of interest in the interim, we can hone in on the clarifying the nature of the question and answers.

There are some answers to the original post on this thread which temporarily reach some daylight for some. Those who don't wish to read five hundred odd posts to find them can ask again.

Examples: #144 #152. I'm sure there are many more which try to stay strictly to the original post.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> The exercise is not closed to only Tellus. You may do the exercise as well. I think it would be beneficial for you.


I lost ya. What are you recommending here?


----------



## DavidH

BigApplePi said:


> I lost ya. What are you recommending here?


Post 532.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> Post 532.


Sorry but after that partial lobotomy on Thursday my brain doesn't work so well for the simplest communications. Can you elaborate as to exactly what you are advocating? Seems #532 is my post. I do appreciate everything else you say.


----------



## DavidH

BigApplePi said:


> Sorry but after that partial lobotomy on Thursday my brain doesn't work so well for the simplest communications. Can you elaborate as to exactly what you are advocating? Seems #532 is my post. I do appreciate everything else you say.


http://personalitycafe.com/socionic...atics-te-vs-ti-post35608114.html#post35608114

Post numbers are displayed preceding their respective post, not following their respective post.


----------



## Tellus

FaintStar said:


> @Tellus ,
> Thank you very much for trying to explain. I understand that. Although I believe that I tend to not use rules to solve problems ..I follow rules if I am expected to do that for some work, but I prefer finding creative and new/different solutions. I am not a big fan of rules (except in some social contexts).
> I am sorry...I don't know this socionics stuff..what is Ti+?


I recommend Wikisocion, the16types forum and the School of System Socionics website if you want to learn more about Socionics.



> However your statement - "Ni and Ti are used simultaneously. One is conscious and the other one is unconscious (in my view). Why? Because you need a (mental) image in order to see the logic. And you cannot observe an image without (unconsciously) noticing structural differences between two (or more) objects. If Te and Ne are producing functions, then they create new information based on the previous information (Read more about accepting and producing functions in Socionics)"
> Here, you are discussing Ni and Ti. That was not what my question was about.
> 
> I was asking about using Ti and Te simultaneously, due to your earlier post. Earlier you mentioned that one uses either Ti or Te based on brain regions.
> "It is often a combination of Te and Ti. But they are separate cognitive processes, so you do not use them simultaneously. Te is related to left frontal lobe and Ti is related to angular gyrus (rear left)"


I mentioned 'accepting' and 'producing' functions (in Socionics). That is why you cannot use them simultaneously. 

"Te is related to left frontal lobe and Ti is related to angular gyrus (rear left)" ... I just pointed out that these processes are very different.



> I think multiple brain regions can operate simultaneously. I say "think" because I do not work as a neuroscientist ..however, I have worked on neuroscience problems in AI from a clinical and non-clinical perspective, so I have seen instances when multiple brain regions are fired. This is not surprising as we know brains do that for multi-tasking and things like music, etc.
> So, basically I want to know why can't Ti and Te not work simultaneously. Or if there has been a study showing that it doesn't because of some reasons that I don't know.


Yes, multiple brain regions can operate simultaneously, but you cannot think _consciously _about two completely different things at the same time.


----------



## Tellus

DavidH said:


> Tellus, I will clarify.
> 
> 
> 
> *Socionics Critical Thinking Exercise #1: Theory of Multiple Intelligences*
> 
> 
> *Overview*:
> 
> In Howard Gardner's 1983 book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Gardner proposed a model of intelligence which differentiated intelligence into seven forms of intelligences. The seven intelligences chosen were: Musical-Rythmic and Harmonic, Visual-Spatial, Verbal-Linguistic, Logical-Mathematical, Bodily-Kinesthetic, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal. In 1995, Gardner proposed the addition of an eighth intelligence, Naturalistic, to be included with the original seven. Descriptions of the eight intelligences are as follows:
> 
> Musical-Rythmic and Harmonic: This area has to do with sensitivity to sounds, rhythms, tones, and music. People with a high musical intelligence normally have good pitch and may even have absolute pitch, and are able to sing, play musical instruments, and compose music. They have sensitivity to rhythm, pitch, meter, tone, melody or timbre.
> 
> Visual-Spatial: This area deals with spatial judgment and the ability to visualize with the mind's eye. It is defined by Howard Gardner as a human computational capacity that provides the ability or mental skill to solve spatial problems of navigation, visualization of objects from different angles and space, faces or scenes recognition or to notice fine details.
> 
> Verbal-Linguistic: People with high verbal-linguistic intelligence display a facility with words and languages. They are typically good at reading, writing, telling stories and memorizing words along with dates. This type of intelligence is measured with the Verbal IQ in WAIS-IV.
> 
> Logical-Mathematical: This area has to do with logic, abstractions, reasoning, numbers and critical thinking. This also has to do with having the capacity to understand the underlying principles of some kind of causal system. Logical reasoning is closely linked to fluid intelligence and to general intelligence (g factor).
> 
> Bodily-Kinesthetic: The core elements of the bodily-kinesthetic intelligence are control of one's bodily motions and the capacity to handle objects skilfully. Gardner elaborates to say that this also includes a sense of timing, a clear sense of the goal of a physical action, along with the ability to train responses. People who have high bodily-kinesthetic intelligence should be generally good at physical activities such as sports, dance, acting, and making things.
> 
> Interpersonal: In theory, individuals who have high interpersonal intelligence are characterized by their sensitivity to others' moods, feelings, temperaments, motivations, and their ability to cooperate in order to work as part of a group. According to Gardner in How Are Kids Smart: Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom, "Inter- and Intra- personal intelligence is often misunderstood with being extroverted or liking other people..." Those with high interpersonal intelligence communicate effectively and empathize easily with others, and may be either leaders or followers. They often enjoy discussion and debate. Gardner has equated this with emotional intelligence of Goleman.
> 
> Intrapersonal: This area has to do with introspective and self-reflective capacities. This refers to having a deep understanding of the self; what one's strengths or weaknesses are, what makes one unique, being able to predict one's own reactions or emotions.
> 
> Naturalistic: Ability to recognize flora and fauna, to make other consequential distinctions in the natural world, and to use this ability productively (in hunting, in farming, in biological science). This area has to do with nurturing and relating information to one's natural surroundings. Examples include classifying natural forms such as animal and plant species and rocks and mountain types. This ability was of value in our evolutionary past as hunters, gatherers, and farmers; it continues to be central in such roles as botanist or chef. This sort of ecological receptiveness is deeply rooted in a "sensitive, ethical, and holistic understanding" of the world and its complexities – including the role of humanity within the greater ecosphere.
> 
> 
> *Part 1*:
> 
> Utilizing your knowledge of information elements in Socionics, use the information provided in the Overview to assign the most accurate information element to each of Gardner's eight forms of intelligences. Each information element may only be assigned to a single form of intelligence, and no information element may be used more than once. Each form of intelligence must be assigned an information element or all answers are marked void and the problem is marked incomplete.
> 
> Copy and paste the following, along with your answer behind each form of intelligence, into your reply within spoiler tags:
> 
> 
> 
> Musical-Rythmic and Harmonic:
> Visual-Spatial:
> Verbal-Linguistic:
> Logical-Mathematical:
> Bodily-Kinesthetic:
> Interpersonal:
> Intrapersonal:
> Naturalistic:


I don't think it is possible to assign just one IM element to each form of intelligence. 

What do _you _suggest?


----------



## DavidH

Tellus said:


> I don't think it is possible to assign just one IM element to each form of intelligence.
> 
> What do _you _suggest?


I suggest you complete the exercise.


----------



## BigApplePi

FaintStar said:


> Although, none of this is the Answer to my original question related to how this thread was started. It started off with Te and Ti association with Mathematics.
> 
> And then my 2nd main question - why can't Te and Ti work simultaneously.
> 
> Now it has grown into this creature that has too many appendages and everyone pulling it in many different directions.


I can sympathize with your issue. Recently it was discussed that Te and Ti can alternate rapidly. (I'm skipping what posts those were.) Now I have an embellished view. 

I'm wondering if there is a special part of the brain devoted to focus itself*? This focus is an awareness that says, "I am concentrating or hyper-aware of this perceptive entity." It would say, "I am looking, feeling, hearing, tasting, smelling, intuiting" but never more than one at exactly the same time. Simultaneity would be impossible. A different part of the brain would say, "I am not just looking, for example, but looking with the readiness to make the next move following this looking." These other senses or intuition could and would occur at the same time but they would not have this special focus. These others would lay in the background of the almost conscious.

As an experimental example suppose one is looking through field glasses with both eyes and seeing one object. This would be an example of the brain having a unified focus even though input is from two entirely different eyes. If you wish to know if you are using both eyes, close one eye, then the other and observe the difference. When you use both eyes there is an indivisible unity.

Te and Ti could be like that. No reason why we couldn't extent this to Ti and Te which occur in separate parts of the whole brain. It's called a "gestalt" or unified whole even though it is made up of separate parts.

*I predict neuroscientists should be able to find this.
====================

@*DavidH*. I want to point out that we are very different personalities and this is showing up here. You are a professed ISTP/LSI and I am an INTP/LII. I do not dwell on hard nosed established views (Se observable) but rather use Ne to look at generalized possible views that could help with differing established views. There is a value in each and neither one is to be dismissed.

I also want to point out something else. As a tool for understanding things are never precise. They are always fuzzy. We may push and argue to get them more precise but built-in is that we can't get there.

P.S. That exercise. What do you think its benefits would be?


----------



## DavidH

BigApplePi said:


> I can sympathize with your issue. Recently it was discussed that Te and Ti can alternate rapidly. (I'm skipping what posts those were.) Now I have an embellished view.
> 
> I'm wondering if there is a special part of the brain devoted to focus itself*? This focus is an awareness that says, "I am concentrating or hyper-aware of this perceptive entity." It would say, "I am looking, feeling, hearing, tasting, smelling, intuiting" but never more than one at exactly the same time. Simultaneity would be impossible. A different part of the brain would say, "I am not just looking, for example, but looking with the readiness to make the next move following this looking." These other senses or intuition could and would occur at the same time but they would not have this special focus. These others would lay in the background of the almost conscious.
> 
> As an experimental example suppose one is looking through field glasses with both eyes and seeing one object. This would be an example of the brain having a unified focus even though input is from two entirely different eyes. If you wish to know if you are using both eyes, close one eye, then the other and observe the difference. When you use both eyes there is an indivisible unity.
> 
> Te and Ti could be like that. No reason why we couldn't extent this to Ti and Te which occur in separate parts of the whole brain. It's called a "gestalt" or unified whole even though it is made up of separate parts.
> 
> *I predict neuroscientists should be able to find this.
> ====================
> 
> @*DavidH*. I want to point out that we are very different personalities and this is showing up here. You are a professed ISTP/LSI and I am an INTP/LII. I do not dwell on hard nosed established views (Se observable) but rather use Ne to look at generalized possible views that could help with differing established views. There is a value in each and neither one is to be dismissed.
> 
> I also want to point out something else. As a tool for understanding things are never precise. They are always fuzzy. We may push and argue to get them more precise but built-in is that we can't get there.
> 
> P.S. That exercise. What do you think its benefits would be?


That is inaccurate. I have not listed an MBTI type. I am a typical American male for my age. What slight atypical traits and characteristics that I have are listed as my Socionics type. You are conflating type with being atypical.

It is an exercise in the same format as scholastic courses and tests throughout grade school. The exercise should take between 5 and 15 minutes. My eldest daughter completed it in twelve minutes. My son completed it in six. The benefits of the exercises should be self-evident over time.


----------



## Tellus

seriousguy said:


> Yes, but some of us are more "addicted" to the lifestyle of our duals without having them around us anymore, thus have more awareness of super-id, often leading to neurotic tendencies.
> 
> 
> 
> You made the claim in the first place that there IS a correlation. The Burden of Proof lies on you.
> 
> There is nothing in mental disorders that could be mapped to cognitive functions, as they talk about pathological distortion in our mental state. Our "mental" state is shaped by how we see the world, how we react to new changes in environment, etc., and these are biological as well as environmental. Socionists claim that types have distinct way of seeing the world so duals are likely to have little to no "psychological" distance, but they are only partially right, because there are two major factors that shape our understanding of the world: *a)* Once we reach the adulthood, we realize which kinds of conversation we like to do, and which we abhor, and this is related to our cognitive functions order, so for instance, we build dislike for institutions, groups and ideologies that demand a lot of use of our PoLR/weak functions for their functioning, Socionics exaggerate this aspect with "interpersonal" relations model and addition of different Quadras *b)* Our moods and regular personality changes modify our perspective/approach to reality, and these changes are environmental/biological, and could be amplified with certain food, diet, lifestyle, etc., in order to achieve a desired state, people seek religion, philosophy, gurus, etc. so that they can have eternal "happiness" (which is one of common
> 
> 
> 
> Information related to the world and people, whatever our senses perceive and translated into a communicable format (i.e., language). We don't need to "perceive" emotions to feel "emotional" or angry, but some of us (people with strong Fe) understand the dynamics of emotions better and able to manipulate it for different uses effectively than others.
> 
> 
> 
> But "personalities" don't only include information processing only, but desires, motivations, urges, etc. as well. I made this distinction earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it is, as well as desires and _goals_. Not every ILI approach the typology as you do, because they are driven by entirely different desires and goals, and they may criticize you on your methods ("why are you focused too much on little details?") or find your interest pretty useless ("what's the point of talking about accepting/producing, Plutchick...."), so obviously their overall personality would be different having different interests and approach to the world. You assumed that personality is all about information processing, which is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean? You need to explain how Te is related to goals.
> 
> 
> 
> Expectations of what?
> 
> "You'll behave in ways that you think will produce a *desirable outcome*".... our desires are "motivating" us to behave a certain way and not the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong. Some feel angry for anger sake, sure there might have something happened to them in the past that is building anger in them, but they don't need to process a lot of certain kinds of information to get angry. An IEI maybe strategizing about the past conversation, "If only I could say that" and feeling angry about himself, by your logic of "induction", his NiFe is inducing the anger in him. We can use Te (or any function) to think of ways to express the anger and how it could affect us in future ("if I express anger in a professional environment, people will turn against me, it's not effective for what I need to achieve").
> 
> 
> 
> What are the actual dreams when we are sleeping? Dreams are said to be an alternative view of our reality based on unconscious processing daily in us. Jung said Ni Dominants have more access to the unconscious, so likely to understand "collective unconscious" and symbols. IEI and ILI reports seeing a lot of nightmares in childhood, does that mean strong Ni is responsible for more sophisticated dreams (and increase the likelihood of lucid dreaming)?
> 
> 
> 
> You said dreams are usually about people, so NiFe, but feeling excitement/emotional when daydreaming is different from NiFe, because actual "emotions" built-up are not related to cognitive functions. The difference between dreaming of IEI and ILI is not that former feels "emotional" when dreaming, as both would feel emotional, however, IEI is likely to think in terms of people and so talk about it (i.e., information processing -> cognitive functions). I need a convincing reason why daydreams are exclusively Ni and Si, because daydreaming is the consequence of being a fantasy-prone, escapism, etc. and these emotions could be felt by anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> You are using your personality to define different types and personalities. It loses your credibility because people think you are trying to fulfill a personal agenda and not really seeking truth. I understand your desire to feel good about yourself through typology, but when you make strong assertions on a public forums, you are ought to explain your reasoning behind it.
> 
> Your aggression manifest in the form of anticipation (i.e., someone is coming close to you and pretending to "hit" you, so you respond aggressively), but aggression doesn't need to interact with anticipation/anger. And when someone is "feeling" aggression, he/she is not using Se (i.e., a murderer kills your family member, and you want to take revenge and kill the murderer, so you are feeling "violent"), because this is emotion, different from actual information processing (i.e., if you start rehearsing how you are going to use weapons to kill the guy then that would be Se or/and other functions). Many LIEs are not aggressive, at least not direct aggressive (as in how society understands the "aggression" in general) because they are driven by being ethical and morally good at all cost, and by most society's standard, aggression is wrong, so their aggressive tendencies are manifested only indirectly.
> 
> 
> 
> I fail to understand the distinction between "personality types" and "personalities". You are unnecessarily making things complicated and blaming me to not understand you.


Let's agree to disagree on motivation theory, mental disorders etc.

This thread is about mathematics and Ti/Te.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Reflections.
> 
> Not sure what a subtype is. If there are too many subtypes that could become unwieldy. By developed, I mean the breadth and depth of a particular function. Just because an INTP has the potential for fascile use of Ti doesn't mean that Ti has been practiced. We can bet a thirty year old INTP has a greater facility with Ti than a five year old INTP.


There are different kinds of INTP (more extroverted, more dominant etc). That is why we need subtypes. 

First of all, strength (or dimensionality in Socionics) is an innate quality of the functions, so we cannot make them stronger (and knowledge is only indirectly related to strong functions). But you are right, Ti must be "practiced". A five year old INTP hasn't fully developed Ti. 



> Do I want to know about Harold Grant and Model A? Time does not permit such study ... unless their relevancies can be summarized in a few sentences.


Harold Grant's model is INTP: Ti, Ne, Si, Fe

Model A, LII ... Ti and Ni are strongest, Se and Fe are weakest ... functions above the line are mental/conscious.... first function in each block is accepting, and the second function is producing ... TiNe and FeSi are "valued".

Ti Ne ... ego (clockwise)
Se Fi ... super-ego
-----
Si Fe ... super-id (counterclockwise)
Te Ni ... id



> Generally speaking the INTP will be introverted because their main function Ti is introverted. Should Ne take over at any point they will behave extroverted but that is behavior only.


Are you saying that we see the _result_ of Ti processes minus Ne processes? 

The problem still remains, though. What _causes _introverted behavior and extroverted behavior? 

If we are claiming that Ti deals with the internal world and Ne deals with the external world, then we are also claiming that they don't interact with each other. That is problematic.



> Should Ne become dominant that wouldn't be an INTP. It would be ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si. Same with INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se. Should Te be dominant, they would be an extrovert and would be an ENTJ.


Yes, of course.



> Extroverted behavior and extroverted attitude? Suppose I generalize and just take behavior and attitude. Behavior we see from the outside. Attitude? That would seem to be an inner disposition. I don't see much difference as to what we are. We are both our inner attitude and our outer behavior. They merge to make us who we are. Objectivity and subjectivity do not apply.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_(psychology)#Jung.27s_definition



> For a further clue to where I'm coming from I wrote an essay in 2010 on Understanding. Would you like to see it?


Yes


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...





> OP:
> 
> 1) The multiplication table is like a language or facts: *Te*
> 
> 2) 3x=6, and general rules for equations => Therefore x=2 (logical deduction): *Te*
> 
> 3) Notice that the left side of an equation equals the right side, 2x = x + x (incl. estimations): *Ti*
> 
> 4) Visualize any mathematical objects: *Ti*


Ti, Ni or Si visualizes mathematical objects (i.e. spatial sense, object 3D rotation, construction, mental math). But which one is it? My last suggestion was Si and Ni (post 467). 

Here's a good link about Angular Gyrus:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4107834/

*Number Processing*

Early neuroimaging studies have shown strong AG activation during digit subtraction (Roland and Friberg 1985) that has been replicated with high consistency across functional studies with varieties of tasks that manipulated different numerical operations and presentations (for review, see Dehaene and others 1998;Dehaene and others 2003). For instance, the AG has been shown to mediate spatial representations of numbers (Gobel and others 2001) and might be specific to Arabic digit perception even under passive tasks (Price GR and Ansari 2011); however, its specificity for numbers is still debatable. For example, bilateral AG were activated during a conceptual decision on numbers, but this activation was similar to conceptual decisions on object names in the left AG (Cappelletti and others 2010), which argues against a selective role of the left AG for number processing (e.g., Cappelletti and others 2007). In this context, Dehaene and others (2003) argued that the left AG is mainly involved in the verbal coding of numbers because it was strongly activated during small problems of addition and multiplication that require the retrieval of arithmetic facts stored in the verbal memory. For example, by comparing problem solving of small versus large problems over different arithmetic operations, a significant difference was found in the left AG (Grabner and others 2009), which supports its role in arithmetic fact retrieval. Interestingly, the left AG seems also to play a major role during the transfer of facts between arithmetic operations (Ischebeck and others 2009). Although the left AG has dominated the number-processing field, activations in the right AG have not been infrequent. For instance, in a recent meta-analysis, the right AG has been shown to be a highly consistent cluster that is most likely to be involved in visual-spatial attention when calculation problems are being solved (Arsalidou and Taylor 2011).

Dario Nardi:

P3 Tactical Navigator, Identify tangible objects, Use physical and visual cues to move your body, Attend to where you end and the rest of the world begins, Work a problem using rote memorization - This region is the seat of the physical sense of self in the environment. It helps us integrate visual and kinesthetic cues to guide how me move our bodies. The better this region works, the faster we integrate a multitude of visual and kinesthetic inputs in order to act with rapid precision.

P4 Strategic Gamer Weigh numerous pros and cons, Calculate and compare various risks versus their likely rewards, Objectively evaluate many factors at once, Locate and apply leverage (influence) - This region helps us grapple highly complex programs in a comprehensive, strategic way that simultaneously considers numerous risks, uncertainties, rewards and outcomes. Helps us weigh many pros and cons at once to arrive at intuitive solutions. *Associated with skillful math performance. [But this description corresponds to Ni.]*

O1 Visual Engineer Read a chart or diagram, Visually disassemble an object to visualize its components and how it works, Visual how elements of an object will fit together to form a structure, Mentally rotate an object in your mind's eye - People who rely on this region are natural engineers and architects, able to mentally rotate objects, follow charts and diagrams with ease, and project how building element will fit together in their mind's eye. This region can also compensate for or mimic deductive reasoning, by visualizing tree structures or Venn diagrams. *[This is probably Si.]*



































http://pherotruth.com/archive/index.php/thread-11248-3.html


----------



## Eefje

I'd love to answer this, but because I am fairly new to cognitive functions, I can't elaborate on the subject.

But reading this and the answers, I have a little question then: why am I good with maths, especially geometry/analytical maths? My Ti and Te are relatively low in usage (you can see that in my signature) , but I do have a very high Ni (85% whilst Fi was 90%, nearly a tie there)

Sorry for bombing this little question in your thread, but I thought it would be relatable because of the subject


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi

The information and specific references are there. Everything being stated is incorrect. The material being read is miscomprehended. The cases being presented from such are incorrect. The entirety is wrong. The entirety is labeled as wrong. The information is being comprehended backwards. The information is being utilized backwards.

You are asking that I correct a math problem that is incorrect, but the answer presented was a creative writing short story. The entire thing is marked wrong with a note of "this is math class, not English class" added on the side.


----------



## BigApplePi

@*DavidH*. 

It is quite common for personalities of different types not to understand each other. Would you agree with that? If I reply to the statement you just made would you respond to it? I don't wish to say you are right or wrong, correct or incorrect ... just how I personally react to your post. Would that be okay? It may not resolve anything for you or me, but at least it would be a try.

As a side issue, is there anything you yourself would like to see done with this thread?


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi

It is possible to be understood without understanding. Say what you will. What I am referring to is what Socionics refers to as Ti to Se. For an unknown reason, the two of you are not able to utilize Ti to Se, per Socionics, to a reasonable degree. The question is Why. This is casual determinism, which is the nature of Socionics as determined by the ILE. I do not follow Socionics' stance of "from birth," as such is nothing more than eugenics, which is not an acceptable way to view nor treat other human beings. If you wish to be frank, then be frank. 

What the two of you are doing is taking a roughly completed set of building blocks (Ti), which explains the viewpoint (Ne) of other people for the ILE, and, by trial and error, removing one to a several of these blocks and rearranging the configuration of the roughly completed set until it matches with your own feelings of your own selves. This is what Tellus refers to as "accuracy," because the structure (Ti) of the ILE's viewpoint (Ne) is not the same as the other type in question. It is not supposed to be the same. That is the entire premise of Socionics, that the building blocks are different between personality types. As such, no completed set of blocks will be metabolized as "correct" for both the ILE and another type in question. Within Socionics, your own type, the LII will endlessly continue to rearrange the blocks that someone has determined, with no completed set ever being "accurate" to perceived sufficiency. This is why your type in Socionics is labeled as an Emotivist, which interacts with society with emotions not logic, and holographic cognition style. Even when doing these things, this cognition will continue this pattern even in the objective reality of the subsequent modulation of this pattern being part of the preexisting pattern.

What I am offering the two of you, on multiple occasions, is the opportunity to build in a safe environment, so that you may know that building, not rearranging, is an okay thing to do. So I ask the same questions again. Build. It is a right of yours.


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> It is possible to be understood without understanding. Say what you will. What I am referring to is what Socionics refers to as Ti to Se. For an unknown reason, the two of you are not able to utilize Ti to Se, per Socionics, to a reasonable degree. The question is Why. This is casual determinism, which is the nature of Socionics as determined by the ILE. I do not follow Socionics' stance of "from birth," as such is nothing more than eugenics, which is not an acceptable way to view nor treat other human beings. If you wish to be frank, then be frank.
> 
> What the two of you are doing is taking a roughly completed set of building blocks (Ti), which explains the viewpoint (Ne) of other people for the ILE, and, by trial and error, removing one to a several of these blocks and rearranging the configuration of the roughly completed set until it matches with your own feelings of your own selves. This is what Tellus refers to as "accuracy," because the structure (Ti) of the ILE's viewpoint (Ne) is not the same as the other type in question. It is not supposed to be the same. That is the entire premise of Socionics, that the building blocks are different between personality types. As such, no completed set of blocks will be metabolized as "correct" for both the ILE and another type in question. Within Socionics, your own type, the LII will endlessly continue to rearrange the blocks that someone has determined, with no completed set ever being "accurate" to perceived sufficiency. This is why your type in Socionics is labeled as an Emotivist, which interacts with society with emotions not logic, and holographic cognition style. Even when doing these things, this cognition will continue this pattern even in the objective reality of the subsequent modulation of this pattern being part of the preexisting pattern.
> 
> What I am offering the two of you, on multiple occasions, is the opportunity to build in a safe environment, so that you may know that building, not rearranging, is an okay thing to do. So I ask the same questions again. Build. It is a right of yours.


@*DavidH * 
I have to say in reading your message for the first time I hardly understand any of what you are saying. I am a person who is fond of understanding and I certainly don't understand the way you write. I don't seem to have this issue with @*Tellus* even though he has a background in Socionics and I do not. (My motive for being here is to learn something about personalities and if Socionics has something to offer, I will listen. After being here for a while I myself might have something to offer, a perspective on Socionics, but we don't know that yet.) I will show you what I mean about understanding what you are saying by looking at your sentences if you will permit me. 

DavidH: What I am referring to is what Socionics refers to as Ti to Se.
Pi: What is "Ti to Se"? Do you mean all 16 information elements or some sort of process? This is not clear. Why did you even bother to say "Ti to Se" if you were not sure I would know what you would be talking about?

DavidH: This is casual determinism, which is the nature of Socionics as determined by the ILE.
Pi: This sentence doesn't say anything to me. By "ILE" do you mean the personality who looks only at the overall picture and avoids details? Where did you come up with the words, "casual determinism"?

DavidH: I do not follow Socionics' stance of "from birth," as such is nothing more than eugenics, which is not an acceptable way to view nor treat other human beings.
Pi: Can you rephrase that another more direct way?

DavidH: What the two of you are doing is taking a roughly completed set of building blocks (Ti), which explains the viewpoint (Ne) of other people for the ILE, and, by trial and error, removing one to a several of these blocks and rearranging the configuration of the roughly completed set until it matches with your own feelings of your own selves.
Pi: Are you saying Tellus and myself are rearranging these things in a self-interested way and therefore being emotional? Are you saying we are not being objective because there are other ways of looking at things?

DavidH: This is what Tellus refers to as "accuracy," because the structure (Ti) of the ILE's viewpoint (Ne) is not the same as the other type in question. It is not supposed to be the same. That is the entire premise of Socionics, that the building blocks are different between personality types. As such, no completed set of blocks will be metabolized as "correct" for both the ILE and another type in question.
Pi: Are you saying we are all different? If we are all different, what then? Do we avoid attempting classifications or do we classify in some optimum manner?

DavidH: Within Socionics, your own type, the LII will endlessly continue to rearrange the blocks that someone has determined, with no completed set ever being "accurate" to perceived sufficiency. This is why your type in Socionics is labeled as an Emotivist, which interacts with society with emotions not logic, and holographic cognition style.
Pi: Are you talking about me (LII)? If I grant you we are all different, why can't we look for ways we are the same? Do you have a link that says an LII is an Emotivist? 

I would like you to write more precisely and define your words. Perhaps that isn't you and not your style.

Okay. I looked up "Emotivist." I found it under Socionics dicotomies.
Socionics Dichotomies 
These are not necessarily personality types. Some can vary in the same person at different times. Are not there a lot more possible dichotomies if we think of them? Why pick out these?

Does "Emotivist" match up with xxTx in the Myers-Briggs and "Constructivist" match up with xxFx or do I have this wrong?

You have been trying to make a point since you've come here. I'd like to see better what it is.


----------



## DavidH

BigApplePi said:


> @*DavidH *
> I have to say in reading your message for the first time I hardly understand any of what you are saying. I am a person who is fond of understanding and I certainly don't understand the way you write. I don't seem to have this issue with @*Tellus* even though he has a background in Socionics and I do not. (My motive for being here is to learn something about personalities and if Socionics has something to offer, I will listen. After being here for a while I myself might have something to offer, a perspective on Socionics, but we don't know that yet.) I will show you what I mean about understanding what you are saying by looking at your sentences if you will permit me.


This is what I referenced by my first sentence. I understand you perfectly fine. That has no bearing on if you understand me or not. This is the case with the majority of society. You seeing misunderstanding only implies that there is a break in communication. The majority of society understands you.



> DavidH: What I am referring to is what Socionics refers to as Ti to Se.
> Pi: What is "Ti to Se"? Do you mean all 16 information elements or some sort of process? This is not clear. Why did you even bother to say "Ti to Se" if you were not sure I would know what you would be talking about?


Information processing going from Ti to Se. It is the declaration of rules. Your type is listed as having this as one of its two most deficient information processing abilities.

Because that is a rule. I have told you before that the two of you are engaged in endless questioning. My previous paragraph states why the two of you are engaged in endless questioning. It is not appropriate to enter into a conversation requiring knowledge of the subject, begin endless questioning, and interrupt the conversation of others who are being appropriate by both asking and telling a relatively equal amount. It is not my responsibility to teach you Socionics from beginning to end in an atmosphere designed for appropriate and respectful conversation. It is however your responsibility to learn this material on your own by reading the provided Socionics resources to sufficient degree if you wish to continue conversations here. Otherwise, you are being inappropriate and disrespectful to others who have already taken the time and effort to learn the material to sufficient degree to be able to engage in appropriate and respectful conversations. Tellus on the other hand has read the material, but likes the sound of his own voice too much, which is very inappropriate, which is why few people continue to engage in discussions with him.



> DavidH: This is casual determinism, which is the nature of Socionics as determined by the ILE.
> Pi: This sentence doesn't say anything to me. By "ILE" do you mean the personality who looks only at the overall picture and avoids details? Where did you come up with the words, "casual determinism"?


ILE is ENTp. ILE developed Socionics as a logical model of how the ILE perceives people and their relationships, including how the ILE perceives how others perceive others. The ILE avoids the big picture of relationships, which is why the general premise of Socionics assumes that differentiation isn't detrimental to ability to have relationships.
Google "socionics cognition styles."



> DavidH: I do not follow Socionics' stance of "from birth," as such is nothing more than eugenics, which is not an acceptable way to view nor treat other human beings.
> Pi: Can you rephrase that another more direct way?


A premise of Socionics is that personality type exists and is unchangeable from birth. Because it also has differentiation as a premise, the overall premise is "different from others by biology." This places the root premise as socionics attempting to classify genetic disorders.



> DavidH: What the two of you are doing is taking a roughly completed set of building blocks (Ti), which explains the viewpoint (Ne) of other people for the ILE, and, by trial and error, removing one to a several of these blocks and rearranging the configuration of the roughly completed set until it matches with your own feelings of your own selves.
> Pi: Are you saying Tellus and myself are rearranging these things in a self-interested way and therefore being emotional? Are you saying we are not being objective because there are other ways of looking at things?


I'm saying you're both endlessly doing such. The objective reason for such is unknown.



> DavidH: This is what Tellus refers to as "accuracy," because the structure (Ti) of the ILE's viewpoint (Ne) is not the same as the other type in question. It is not supposed to be the same. That is the entire premise of Socionics, that the building blocks are different between personality types. As such, no completed set of blocks will be metabolized as "correct" for both the ILE and another type in question.
> Pi: Are you saying we are all different? If we are all different, what then? Do we avoid attempting classifications or do we classify in some optimum manner?


What you are describing is the purpose of my questions.

To classify and organize is an expression of the self. By not doing such, and only rearranging the classification and organizations of others, a person removes the ability to have another person judge the individual for the expression of the self of the original classification and organization. The subsequent rearranging is done until the original perceived rejection of the expression of the self is negated by presenting a classification and organization that is acceptable to the person who would have rejected the expression of the self.

This is described within Socionics.

This is also objectively the effects of emotional abuse by a parent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.



> DavidH: Within Socionics, your own type, the LII will endlessly continue to rearrange the blocks that someone has determined, with no completed set ever being "accurate" to perceived sufficiency. This is why your type in Socionics is labeled as an Emotivist, which interacts with society with emotions not logic, and holographic cognition style.
> Pi: Are you talking about me (LII)? If I grant you we are all different, why can't we look for ways we are the same? Do you have a link that says an LII is an Emotivist?


There are many dichotomies. Some of which will be shared between various types.



> I would like you to write more precisely and define your words. Perhaps that isn't you and not your style.


I have already covered this matter in a previous paragraph. This is equivalent to asking me to enable rude behavior. The polite course of action is to educate yourself, rather than expect others to interrupt polite conversation to answer excessive questions that you already have the available resources provided for. Again, that is not an appropriate way to engage in conversation.



> Okay. I looked up "Emotivist." I found it under Socionics dicotomies.
> Socionics Dichotomies
> These are not necessarily personality types. Some can vary in the same person at different times. Are not there a lot more possible dichotomies if we think of them? Why pick out these?


They are properties of the personality types overall. The dichotomies use mathematics to determine the number of dichotomies. The remainder of possible numbers are arranged into groups of these dichotomies.



> Does "Emotivist" match up with xxTx in the Myers-Briggs and "Constructivist" match up with xxFx or do I have this wrong?


The correlation between systems on this matrix is too low to consider of sufficient significance to assign as a reasonable "match up."



> You have been trying to make a point since you've come here. I'd like to see better what it is.


I have been making the point. You receiving the point is a different matter.

I have spent a significant amount of time answering your questions. I will now ask two questions, with only two letters necessary as a response for each.

The physical act of your body moving is best classified as which information element? The physical act of you speaking is best classified as which information element?

To ask many questions, have them answered, have that individual ask a few questions, and then not answer is considered rude, disrespectful, and inappropriate by society. Individuals who display such patterns will not continue to have other individuals converse with them. When individuals refuse to stop such behaviors, those individuals will eventually be left alone as no one will remain who wishes to converse with them. Such is not because the individual is more logical than other individuals. Such is not because the individual is more intuitive than other individuals. Such is because the individual's behavior is rude, disrespectful, and inappropriate.

I have asked you two questions in exchange for the numerous questions which you have asked me in the course of this thread. Please answer them.


----------



## Tellus

DavidH said:


> That is ridiculous. It is you who is equating what you miscomprehend as what is written. You miscomprehend what others write, then you treat that miscomprehended information as fact in your subsequent attempts to argue.
> Most of your posts are incoherent and circular. You simply ignore any attempts to bring you back to logical discourse and continue to present the same nonsense. You then proceed to misuse words, misquote references as reinforcing your arguments when they typically disprove them, miscomprehend everything you read on the subject, and then label yourself logical and looking at objective facts. You simply continue to speak in the same manner as Gulenko.
> You're miscomprehending again.
> Incoherent.
> This thread is an illogical and circular mess with no purpose other than serving someone who likes the sound of their own voice.
> The reason is that someone wanted the system to be different. Same as you. Same as Gulenko. It's a feeling and desire of a different system.
> If you want your thread to have any value or worth outside of hearing your own self speak, try to present some logical structure.
> That your thread is not objective nor logical and you repeatedly refuse to make it otherwise. You. Right now. Can make the distinction I questioned in what was quoted.


bla bla bla


----------



## Tellus

This is probably Ti+ (LSI) vs. Ti- (LII, ILI)... if he is serious.


----------



## Xen23

I'd guess Ti prefers sciences (physics/chemistry/engineering/computer science) to pure maths such as calculus (I'd say we really like geometry, series and trig however). My brother (INTx) has the same preference. He did his MSc in AI and works as a software engineer. 
I have some kind of mental rapport with equations that can be related to real or conceptual things and/or diagrams. Perhaps it's also my Ne that relates to these, since sometimes I can intuit answers almost spontaneously just by getting a 'feel' for the qualities and variables of the vectors involved; right answer first, checking how I got it second xD
Being Ne-Ti, I guess abstract theory is what I enjoy most. Weird thing is, in exams, I always score best on the most challenging and convoluted questions (and lose points for omitting trivial facts/nomenclature errors) 

Actually, thinking about it, this Penrose diagram explaining the theory of the information loss paradox in a black hole might hi-light Ti's mathematical content and format preference:






​
Those are my thoughts on the matter anyway







​_

-Btw this is an MBTI question, I do believe it's in the wrong forum!_


----------



## BigApplePi

DavidH said:


> This is what I referenced by my first sentence. I understand you perfectly fine. That has no bearing on if you understand me or not. This is the case with the majority of society. You seeing misunderstanding only implies that there is a break in communication. The majority of society understands you.


A "break in communication." It looks like communication could be better. We have different intentions I'd say.





> Information processing going from Ti to Se. It is the declaration of rules. Your type is listed as having this as one of its two most deficient information processing abilities.


"Deficient" is not a word I would use. I see Se as being too specific to be of value for general theory, but I will use Se to check things out, but prefer Ne as a tool for discovery while Se is a tool for verification.





> Because that is a rule. I have told you before that the two of you are engaged in endless questioning. My previous paragraph states why the two of you are engaged in endless questioning. It is not appropriate to enter into a conversation requiring knowledge of the subject, begin endless questioning, and interrupt the conversation of others who are being appropriate by both asking and telling a relatively equal amount. It is not my responsibility to teach you Socionics from beginning to end in an atmosphere designed for appropriate and respectful conversation. It is however your responsibility to learn this material on your own by reading the provided Socionics resources to sufficient degree if you wish to continue conversations here. Otherwise, you are being inappropriate and disrespectful to others who have already taken the time and effort to learn the material to sufficient degree to be able to engage in appropriate and respectful conversations. Tellus on the other hand has read the material, but likes the sound of his own voice too much, which is very inappropriate, which is why few people continue to engage in discussions with him.


I see much of this differently. You have not been here since the beginning while I have been here early on. I assume @*Tellus* and I have gotten to know how we talk to each other better than as at the start. I try to listen to what he has to say and answer his questions as a matter of refinement. Did you see what I said about Ti versus Te in my last post to him? #581. I'm surprised you haven't evaluated that, especially the paragraph beginning with "The last book ...". 
* *




The last book I read on mathematics is "Prime Obsession" which is about the Riemann conjecture which remains to be the greatest unsolved problem in math. There is some Fe but that wouldn't be the point. This book goes after approaches to show a certain part of something called the zeta function have a value of one-half. Certainly people who have made these approaches were doing Ti. However they had to go into all the preceding ideas many of which are presented in the book. Reading it causes one to think mathematics, but it is all Te. That is, the math is about ideas presented by others and one is expected to follow along reading techniques and proofs already accomplished. I call this Te because the reader is taking in what originates outside his own mind. Naturally I'd say one has to think to oneself to interpret this rather complex thinking and that would be Ti. Mostly it is reading the math others have already come up with which is Te to the reader. After more than half-way through the book I got the impression they were skipping details and I could no longer follow what was being said except in outline. This meant no more Ti for me, not even Te. Just observations. If I have a point here, it is that reading this book produces both Ti and Te thinking.


 He has not responded as yet but I assume he will be interested. 

At the start I looked at Socionics and we discussed it but not exhaustively. The issue has been to parse Ti and Te and that has seemed to be of value. The way I see it is any and all theories are appropriate to address this question. If Socionics has something to say. Fine. If Myers-Briggs has something to say, fine. I have my own take on understanding this Ti and Te and if anyone here wants to listen they will respond appropriately and can provide their own view on this.

As for my novice status for Socionics, you are the only one in months to react to that. Doesn't anyone and I mean anyone have the right to post here? Any reader, including you, is free to ignore what I say and move on to talk with others. My view is if someone is ignorant of something, to help them out ... as long as they are on topic. If they are off topic, I usually ignore them. If *Tellus* objected to what I have to say, he would say so. I see him (so far) as being the person most invested in this thread and I respect that. 

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I see you as making many personal judgments. Did you know every time someone makes a judgment there is an alternative explanation? One doesn't have to know any personality theory to say that. You are free to make such judgments if you wish. I am talking to you because I wanted to see where you were at. It's quite possible this conversation is way too personal to be on topic. I don't mind being off topic for a while, but I don't wish to continue it indefinitely.

Maybe it is your personality to make personal statements about others. *I would rather hear what you have to say about Ti and Te in mathematics*. That is the topic of this thread.

Now to your specifics. What is wrong with "endless lengthy questioning" if it arrives sooner or later at enlightenment? Detailed questioning (the emotion is curiosity) is a wonderful tool scientists use to make discoveries. Conformity to existing systems is more for applying action in immediately practical ways. A person has to decide which way they want to go. I prefer the former. You seem to like the latter.





> ILE is ENTp. ILE developed Socionics as a logical model of how the ILE perceives people and their relationships, including how the ILE perceives how others perceive others. The ILE avoids the big picture of relationships, which is why the general premise of Socionics assumes that differentiation isn't detrimental to ability to have relationships.
> Google "socionics cognition styles."


Did you mean "cognitive" not cognition? Without a link there are too many responses. 





> A premise of Socionics is that personality type exists and is unchangeable from birth. Because it also has differentiation as a premise, the overall premise is "different from others by biology." This places the root premise as socionics attempting to classify genetic disorders.


You've said more than one thing here. I would add to Socionics or any other fixed theory that personality gets *developed* over time as one matures. That makes what we see variable and not always easy to judge from a beginning such as birth or youth.





> I'm saying you're both endlessly doing such. The objective reason for such is unknown.


It's unknown to YOU. You have advised me (paraphrasing) to know more about Socionics before I speak. How is saying what you just said helpful? Are you an LSI? You have been talking to and about an ILI and an LII.





> To classify and organize is an expression of the self. By not doing such, and only rearranging the classification and organizations of others, a person removes the ability to have another person judge the individual for the expression of the self of the original classification and organization. The subsequent rearranging is done until the original perceived rejection of the expression of the self is negated by presenting a classification and organization that is acceptable to the person who would have rejected the expression of the self.


I'm curious. Why don't you talk directly to *Tellus* about this? I will talk to him in my own way. I try to avoid commenting on how others talk to each other. I will make an exception though. My reaction to #597 is I don't find that helpful. It's too close to name calling. People are complex and making open judgments on them in public many would find rude. As an alternative I would look into myself and ask what is it I want to know. Maybe I could have said this in better way, but that's the best I can do for now.





> This is described within Socionics.


Fine.





> This is also objectively the effects of emotional abuse by a parent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.


How is this helpful? Are you speaking as a professional when you say this?





> I have spent a significant amount of time answering your questions. I will now ask two questions, with only two letters necessary as a response for each.


 Okay, but I don't warm to being restricted to specific answers to questions I find ambiguous. What LII would?





> The physical act of your body moving is best classified as which information element? The physical act of you speaking is best classified as which information element?


You are probably looking for Se and Fe but the latter could be Te. You didn't define "best" when you asked the question. There are other things you didn't define, but I believe you care more about results here. I could be wrong, but my intuition says you care more about restricting answers to your categories than in finding things out by asking more open questions.





> To ask many questions, have them answered, have that individual ask a few questions, and then not answer is considered rude, disrespectful, and inappropriate by society. Individuals who display such patterns will not continue to have other individuals converse with them. When individuals refuse to stop such behaviors, those individuals will eventually be left alone as no one will remain who wishes to converse with them. Such is not because the individual is more logical than other individuals. Such is not because the individual is more intuitive than other individuals. Such is because the individual's behavior is rude, disrespectful, and inappropriate.


You say that with such certainty. I would ask myself if there are alternative possibilities. You have said many things in that paragraph concerning rudeness. I see rudeness as ... how shall I put it? ... as a subjective interpretation and a feeling reaction rather than an objective event. I can see this as a topic for a new thread though I'm not sure where it might be placed.





> I have asked you two questions in exchange for the numerous questions which you have asked me in the course of this thread. Please answer them.


Se and Fe or Te. I won't ask the question but I'm wondering if you have teaching propensities or are trying to arrive at a judgment.


----------



## DavidH

@BigApplePi

That is not an appropriate response nor a mature response.

You are permanently ignored.


----------



## DavidH

@Tellus

The responses you have provided are immature, illogical, disrespectful, and self-servicing.

You are permanently ignored.


----------



## Tellus

Xen23 said:


> I'd guess Ti prefers sciences (physics/chemistry/engineering/computer science) to pure maths such as calculus (I'd say we really like geometry, series and trig however). My brother (INTx) has the same preference. He did his MSc in AI and works as a software engineer.
> I have some kind of mental rapport with equations that can be related to real or conceptual things and/or diagrams. Perhaps it's also my Ne that relates to these, since sometimes I can intuit answers almost spontaneously just by getting a 'feel' for the qualities and variables of the vectors involved; right answer first, checking how I got it second xD
> Being Ne-Ti, I guess abstract theory is what I enjoy most. Weird thing is, in exams, I always score best on the most challenging and convoluted questions (and lose points for omitting trivial facts/nomenclature errors)


Can you describe the difference between your NeTi and your brother's TiNe (in math)?







​


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Here is the way I see it. Whether mathematical thinking is presented in a book or is transacted in a person's mind, if that thinking is observed or taken from known collective prior thought, it is Te.


So you have discarded "outside his own mind". Whether it is the inner world or the outer world is irrelevant, right? (see previous example; "...recite facts from memory").The main point is that the book represents the "collective prior thought", right?



> That is, the thinking is from prior sources having some distance from current thought. For example if the thinking is to match up a current pattern with what is presented in an externally known theorem, that is Te thinking. If the thinking doesn't reference externally known thought, but instead is thinking with judgments original with the thinker, that is Ti thinking. The distinction between the two may stand out more in complex mathematical thought where the thinker puzzles about something so far unknown (Ti) but uses references to the known.


OK, that is more or less Jung's point of view.



> That takes us to the specific x + 3 = 12 example which presumably doesn't require complex mathematical thought. How to solve this may depend entirely on the thinker. A young but able child may puzzle about this, try various possibilities for x (like 4, then 11), fail in getting the right answer try again. Can't we call this Ti thinking? It is Ti thinking because it uses internal techniques.


Can we use 'personal' (vs. 'collective') or 'subjective' (vs. 'objective') instead of 'internal' (vs. 'external')?

Yes, it is possible to solve this equation in different ways.



> On the other hand if the same child knows the rule that one can subtract 3 = 3 from both sides of the equation to get the answer, they are thinking but they are using prior known collective thinking. That is Te because the thinking uses outside thought. Conclusion: it's not the problem that determines the type of thinking. It's what goes on in the mind of the individual solver. So far I find this a clear way to distinguish Ti from Te thinking. I'd like to know if you concur or do we need broader examples?


This is a good example. 

Are you claiming that Ti always corresponds to (1) new methods/new ways of thinking, (2) personal methods/personal ways of thinking ... and/or (3) trial and error? If you are claiming it is (2), then it can change from Ti to Te as soon as the personal thinking of many mathematicians becomes the "collective thought". Correct?



> I'm okay with thinking as looking for patterns and matching them up either originally or with known patterns. Words and symbols are allowed though. They are "hooks" which permit the functioning of memory to solidify those patterns. Words and symbols (as in all situations) are not the things themselves but play the role of making connections.


OK. 

You don't need words/language in order to solve 'x + 3 = 12'. You instantly see that 9 works. But you can use words/language (i.e. that "inner voice"): "I first subtract 3 on the left side, then I subtract 3 on the rights side..." This is more obvious in complex equations where you need step-by-step calculations.



> How far in stepping back through the analysis do you want to go? Ultimately what we are and think comes from the external world. But the intermediate steps say the human being has a brain that can store intermediate steps called "memory." Humans have an advantage over the other animals in that they have a good system of intermediate storage of images, patterns, symbols and words which we can call an "internal world." We can divide this internal world into Si, Ni, Ti and Fi.


Yes, but those inner images represent the outer world. They do not exist independent of the outer world.

Hmm ... You still think in terms of 'internal' and 'external'. Again, this is not Jung's viewpoint (see previous posts).



> I lost you here. What is point 3?


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...orks-please-only-people-pure-logic-enter.html



> I can't tell if Nx & Sx are off topic. It depends on how much T & F depend on them.


Let's skip this for now.



> I forget how somebody else phrased something related. They suggested the more deeply we go the more accurate we have to be. Said another way, the more deeply we go the more likely we will encounter an unprepared situation.


I agree with you.



> Can't tell if off-topic. I see dimensionality = independent variable.


Can you explain this a bit further?



> Most or all of these functions are operating. Some are more conscious than others. Just how they operate is something we have the option of continuing discussing.


Yes



> Five moves ahead? I can't do that but a chess master I assume can. I could also guess they think in patterns and from experience. They do not think individual moves the way amateurs do. Perhaps they think, "This chess pattern is like when X played Y in the game of April 1932." That may be too general to be Si or Se. So it could be Ne taken from a game played outside the current game in some general not exact way. (I'm guessing.)


If it is a FACT that the chess elite consists exclusively of ENTJs and INTJs, then it makes sense to assume that Ni and Te are the most important functions in chess. And if we know that Ni is about scenario thinking, then it makes sense to assume that Ni is more important than Ne in chess. Do you agree with me?

They think in patterns/experience as well as individual moves (i.e. calculations).



> It's like when away you return to you home. You instantly recognize it as your home. That is Ne.


No, that is Si in my view.



> Pi: However the introvert's overall energy source is inward, that doesn't prohibit objectivity especially if there is a great deal of Ne collected as input together with some Se. Einstein was said to be an introvert.
> Tellus: Good, you also think Jung is wrong about this. Right?
> What did Jung say again? In the Einstein case his overall energy may have been inner, but he was aware objectivity was needed to prove his (inner) theories. He knew Ne and got others to do the necessary objective Se work. Once the Se work worked out correctly, his theories became a lot more objective.


Einstein was most likely INTJ. His most obvious talent was scenario thinking/visualizations.

Btw, I think 95-99% of all theoretical physicists and mathematical physicists are INTJ.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> So you have discarded "outside his own mind". Whether it is the inner world or the outer world is irrelevant, right? (see previous example; "...recite facts from memory").The main point is that the book represents the "collective prior thought", right?


I hope to return to this.





> OK, that is more or less Jung's point of view.


Good enough.





> Can we use 'personal' (vs. 'collective') or 'subjective' (vs. 'objective') instead of 'internal' (vs. 'external')?


I hope to get back to this.




> Yes, it is possible to solve this equation in different ways.


Okay.




> This is a good example.


Okay.





> Are you claiming that Ti always corresponds to (1) new methods/new ways of thinking, (2) personal methods/personal ways of thinking ... and/or (3) trial and error? If you are claiming it is (2), then it can change from Ti to Te as soon as the personal thinking of many mathematicians becomes the "collective thought". Correct?


I would put it differently. The source of Ti is directly inside the person's brain. It could be a repeat of earlier inside thinking or duplicate something outside. IOWs Ti thinking need not be new or original. Ti stays Ti until it is externalized. If Ti thinking is written down or "put out there" even to oneself, it becomes Te because it is sent to the outside to be thought of as an external phenomenon.





> You don't need words/language in order to solve 'x + 3 = 12'. You instantly see that 9 works. But you can use words/language (i.e. that "inner voice"): "I first subtract 3 on the left side, then I subtract 3 on the rights side..." This is more obvious in complex equations where you need step-by-step calculations.


I suppose the more complex, the more language is leaned upon. One cannot see this solution instantly without experience. I'm not sure if Si or Ne is used. I'd have to think more on that.

The more steps involved in thinking, the more one goes back to review the steps. Language or symbols are invaluable with this, a gift given to humans. Intuition has no steps and is not thinking. It is immediate perception.



Pi: How far in stepping back through the analysis do you want to go? Ultimately what we are and think comes from the external world. But the intermediate steps say the human being has a brain that can store intermediate steps called "memory." Humans have an advantage over the other animals in that they have a good system of intermediate storage of images, patterns, symbols and words which we can call an "internal world." We can divide this internal world into Si, Ni, Ti and Fi.
Tellus: Yes, but those inner images represent the outer world. They do not exist independent of the outer world.
Pi: Are you saying intermediate storage (memory) has something to do with the outer world? I wonder if we could say memory not only has the characteristics of an inner and independent world (example = dreams), but is a* map* of things in the outer world. This makes for two different perspectives. (1) an inner independent world and (2) a world to match up with the outer world. 

Later: images may originate from the outside world but can be separated later. A unicorn when first imagined has components from the outside world and was imagined inside. Once the unicorn became known it became part of the outside. Is this okay? I like this division of inside versus world outside world because one can observe it (Se or Ne) more clearly than more abstract concepts. One can also look at brain maps as clues to how cognitive functions operate. Would Socionics shed any light on this? I haven't checked.





> Hmm ... You still think in terms of 'internal' and 'external'. Again, this is not Jung's viewpoint (see previous posts).


How does Jung put it? Have I defined internal and external adequately yet? If not, there may be no clear dividing line or I could define them better. So far I like these terms but you may have mentioned alternatives above.


I went back to prior posts a little:
Pi: Can't tell if off-topic. I see dimensionality = independent variable.
Tellus: Can you explain this a bit further?
Pi: We'd have to be on-topic for this, but in general one dimension is independent of another. When one lists different characteristics of something they are not separate if they are related in some way to each other. 

I think of length. There is no width in length. Problems: (1) How does one explain them crossing? (2) A long line has no width, but that is conceptual. In the real world, it has width even in one's mind. This may be off-topic here, but may come into play later.





> If it is a FACT that the chess elite consists exclusively of ENTJs and INTJs, then it makes sense to assume that Ni and Te are the most important functions in chess. And if we know that Ni is about scenario thinking, then it makes sense to assume that Ni is more important than Ne in chess. Do you agree with me?


I am hard put to form an opinion on this and can only speculate. Perhaps the "J" player is a better player than an "N" player because in chess one has to be aggressive enough to wish to win. Put another way, an N player might look at too many choices while a J player will pick a risky but above average winning choice. Is that good enough an answer?

Pi: It's like when away you return to you[r] home. You instantly recognize it as your home. That is Ne.
Tellus: No, that is Si in my view.
Pi: I may have missed the Si as that seems correct. Yet picture a row of houses. In the middle is your home. Si specifically identifies it as your home but only in contrast to the surrounding houses. If all the houses were to look alike you cannot tell which is your home. (There are real places like this.) This means both cognitive functions may be present. Yet it could be only one is present if the other is unconscious. Consciousness/ unconsciousness is an independent variable occupying an often forgotten separate *dimension* when it comes to cognitive functions! This could be related to "signs of cognitive functions in Socionics" but I haven't checked that.





> Einstein was most likely INTJ. His most obvious talent was scenario thinking/visualizations.
> Btw, I think 95-99% of all theoretical physicists and mathematical physicists are INTJ.


This could be important and relevant to the Ti/Te of this thread. How do we know this is not biased? 

Theory: an INTP (Pi) tends to project and see INTPs in others. An INTJ (Tellus) tends to project and see INTJs in others. 

Every place (but one) I've seen Einstein evaluated they say he is INTP. (That doesn't mean they are correct though.) How do we not know Einstein's visualizations were not Ne? To me Ni in the INTJ is a primary commitment. Was Einstein speculating about the outside world or thinking about it as certain? When Einstein said, "God does not play dice", was that about the outside world or his own inside world or was it a thinking error or omission? Who knows? The Google of "Einstein personality type" might be interesting:
https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+personality+type&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

I forgot something else. I've been using INTX and thinking of the MBTI, not Socionics. When you say, "INTX" do you mean INTj and INTp because in Socionics they have different meanings? I had forgotten about those differences. Same applies to Ti and Te. Are they the same or different in Socionics or does it matter in this discussion as I am making my own interpretations of Ti and Te?

Here is another thought I have about INTPs and INTJs but it is theory. INTPs roughly like to explore; INTJs roughly like to firm up about the outside world. Agreed? Firming up the outside world is categorized as action/judgment. Speculation is uncommitted observation. Action differs from uncommitted observation in that action is non-fuzzy. Speculation is fuzzy. Those are different perspectives.

Why say this? Because categorizing functions as either firmly Te or Ti is clear action. Action can be pleasing to the outside world as a value. Looking at Ti and Te as having no clear boundary, but as a scaled variable instead is fuzzy and is pleasing to either world as speculation.


----------



## deviants

I mean...yeah I guess, sure.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


It could be useful to include Ti+ vs. Ti- in this discussion. SSS claims that ILI has Ti+ and LII has Ti-. Viktor Gulenko also sees Ti+ in ILI (currently in Model G, and previously in Model A... see links).

Te is about logical planning (and logical reasoning... in my view), so it is related to business/economy. My (ILI) Te is obviously 'minus', since I am much more focused on what _not _to buy, than what to actually buy.

Do you recognize Viktor Gulenko's description of Ti? Do you focus on what some logical relationships are _not_, e.g. "is this equation really accurate?", "this side is _not _longer than the other one" etc? 


The «quality» feature of the sign | School of System Socionics

Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko

Socionics - the16types.info - Defining Specialized Logical Functions by V. Gulenkonctions of Logic by V. Gulenko

Right/Process/Evolutionary logic: straight and absolute, has no reverse feedback. This type of logic as if delineates contours of forms on some background that is then discarded as insignificant. It is characterized by absence of context and is categorical, explicit in judgements.

Left/Result/Involutionary logic: inversive, derived from straight logic using the operation of subtraction. It is reflexive and considers not the upfront side as much as the back side of the coin. It underlines the background, contextual dependencies of judgements.

Right logic (process): ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII

Left logic (result): ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> I would put it differently. The source of Ti is directly inside the person's brain. It could be a repeat of earlier inside thinking or duplicate something outside. IOWs Ti thinking need not be new or original. Ti stays Ti until it is externalized. If Ti thinking is written down or "put out there" even to oneself, it becomes Te because it is sent to the outside to be thought of as an external phenomenon.


But this still implies that the same kind of thinking can be both Te and Ti, since everything could potentially be written down. That cannot be right.

Is it Te when I read your (written down) Ti thinking? Don't I need my own Ti thinking in order to understand your Ti thinking?

...or Jung: Te corresponds to "collective standpoint". So LIE and LSE just repeat someone else's thoughts, right?



> I suppose the more complex, the more language is leaned upon. One cannot see this solution instantly without experience. I'm not sure if Si or Ne is used. I'd have to think more on that.


Yes, you have processed 9+3=12 before, in your childhood. It is processed instantly now, because it is a fact. 



> Intuition has no steps and is not thinking. It is immediate perception.


I somewhat disagree with you here. 



> Pi: How far in stepping back through the analysis do you want to go? Ultimately what we are and think comes from the external world. But the intermediate steps say the human being has a brain that can store intermediate steps called "memory." Humans have an advantage over the other animals in that they have a good system of intermediate storage of images, patterns, symbols and words which we can call an "internal world." We can divide this internal world into Si, Ni, Ti and Fi.
> Tellus: Yes, but those inner images represent the outer world. They do not exist independent of the outer world.
> Pi: Are you saying intermediate storage (memory) has something to do with the outer world? I wonder if we could say memory not only has the characteristics of an inner and independent world (example = dreams), but is a map of things in the outer world. This makes for two different perspectives. (1) an inner independent world and (2) a world to match up with the outer world.


Yes, we don't have any memories without personal experiences in the outer world. 

I like "a map of things in the outer world". But those memories are still not independent of the outer world. What do you mean by (2)?



> Later: images may originate from the outside world but can be separated later. A unicorn when first imagined has components from the outside world and was imagined inside. Once the unicorn became known it became part of the outside. Is this okay?


A unicorn is a combination (Ni, fantasy) of a horse and a horn, which are objects from the outside world. But you will never see a real unicorn in the outside world. The concept, though, exists both in the inside world and the outside world.



> I like this division of inside versus world outside world because one can observe it (Se or Ne) more clearly than more abstract concepts. One can also look at brain maps as clues to how cognitive functions operate. Would Socionics shed any light on this? I haven't checked.


The question is whether it is accurate or not. Are all aspects of your dominant function derived from the inside world? 



> How does Jung put it? Have I defined internal and external adequately yet? If not, there may be no clear dividing line or I could define them better. So far I like these terms but you may have mentioned alternatives above.


Defining internal vs. external is not a problem. 

Jung:

"In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation."

*"Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions,* but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus."



> I went back to prior posts a little:
> Pi: Can't tell if off-topic. I see dimensionality = independent variable.
> Tellus: Can you explain this a bit further?
> Pi: We'd have to be on-topic for this, but in general one dimension is independent of another. When one lists different characteristics of something they are not separate if they are related in some way to each other.
> 
> I think of length. There is no width in length. Problems: (1) How does one explain them crossing? (2) A long line has no width, but that is conceptual. In the real world, it has width even in one's mind. This may be off-topic here, but may come into play later.


This is not related to dimensionality in Socionics, right?



> I am hard put to form an opinion on this and can only speculate. Perhaps the "J" player is a better player than an "N" player because in chess one has to be aggressive enough to wish to win. Put another way, an N player might look at too many choices while a J player will pick a risky but above average winning choice. Is that good enough an answer?


"N"? Do you mean "P" (vs. "J")?



> Pi: It's like when away you return to you[r] home. You instantly recognize it as your home. That is Ne.
> Tellus: No, that is Si in my view.
> Pi: I may have missed the Si as that seems correct. Yet picture a row of houses. In the middle is your home. Si specifically identifies it as your home but only in contrast to the surrounding houses. If all the houses were to look alike you cannot tell which is your home.


Yes



> (There are real places like this.) This means both cognitive functions may be present. Yet it could be only one is present if the other is unconscious. Consciousness/ unconsciousness is an independent variable occupying an often forgotten separate dimension when it comes to cognitive functions! This could be related to "signs of cognitive functions in Socionics" but I haven't checked that.


I think Ni is more relevant than Ne in this example. Both Si and Ni are about pattern recognition. Ni considers new patterns.



> This could be important and relevant to the Ti/Te of this thread. How do we know this is not biased?
> Theory: an INTP (Pi) tends to project and see INTPs in others. An INTJ (Tellus) tends to project and see INTJs in others.


I used to think he was INTP / LII for many years. I only recently realized that he was INTJ / ILI. I have explained why in this thread (which may be a bit provocative):

http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/928626-einstein-ile-lii-ili.html 

Btw, many people think Richard Feynman is ILE (because he smiles a lot?), so they think Einstein could also be ILE. Well, Feynman is ILI according to me... a more extroverted one, like myself. He is actually quite similar to IEE, which corresponds with Model D.



> Every place (but one) I've seen Einstein evaluated they say he is INTP. (That doesn't mean they are correct though.) How do we not know Einstein's visualizations were not Ne?


Because thought experiments, scenario thinking (MBTI typologist Roger Pearman confirms this is Ni) and visualizations are strongly related to IEI and ILI. This is definitely my dominant cognitive process. 

Ne sees the alternative route, and is strongly related to IQ. This is obviously a strong and conscious process in LII. I (ILI) want to come to conclusions and you (LII) see alternatives. "What about this, what about that etc."



> To me Ni in the INTJ is a primary commitment. Was Einstein speculating about the outside world or thinking about it as certain? When Einstein said, "God does not play dice", was that about the outside world or his own inside world or was it a thinking error or omission? Who knows? The Google of "Einstein personality type" might be interesting:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=einstein+personality+type&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


Again, everything is ultimately about the outside world.



> I forgot something else. I've been using INTX and thinking of the MBTI, not Socionics. When you say, "INTX" do you mean INTj and INTp because in Socionics they have different meanings? I had forgotten about those differences. Same applies to Ti and Te. Are they the same or different in Socionics or does it matter in this discussion as I am making my own interpretations of Ti and Te?



Ti in Socionics corresponds to Ti in MBTT (i.e. Myers-Briggs type theory). The descriptions are only slightly different. So INTP in MBTI is INTj in Socionics, and ENTJ in MBTI is ENTj in Socionics.




> Here is another thought I have about INTPs and INTJs but it is theory. INTPs roughly like to explore; INTJs roughly like to firm up about the outside world. Agreed? Firming up the outside world is categorized as action/judgment. Speculation is uncommitted observation. Action differs from uncommitted observation in that action is non-fuzzy. Speculation is fuzzy. Those are different perspectives.


This is Te vs. Ne... see above; conclusions vs. alternatives.



> Why say this? Because categorizing functions as either firmly Te or Ti is clear action. Action can be pleasing to the outside world as a value. Looking at Ti and Te as having no clear boundary, but as a scaled variable instead is fuzzy and is pleasing to either world as speculation.


Can you explain this part a bit further?


----------



## VagrantFarce




----------



## Lastrevio

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding here.

While Te is responsible for gathering data, Ti seeks to limit data. For example, here are some facts:
Chickens have two legs.
Turkeys have two legs.
Hummingbirds have two legs.

Te is responsible for gathering facts like this. However, the human mind has only so much capacity to remember facts; Ti is what reduces the mental load by joining facts together into a framework or into a reduced set of facts. In the above case, Ti might form the conclusion "Birds have two legs." I have no idea whether in fact this is true or not, but it doesn't matter: Ti is an introverted element and thus does not refer to the outside world in determining what kind of simplifications to make in reducing facts, it only considers whether facts are consistent with each other. If, however, Ti created a rule like "Birds have two legs" and Te found a bird that had five legs, this would activate Ti to reconsider its beliefs. If Te gathers data which Ti has evaluated as inconsistent with known facts and rules, then this results in conflict between Te and Ti. (This conflict is sometimes referred to as cognitive dissonance.)

Te is more goldfishy in nature. So, it really doesn't generalize, it just observes facts. For example:
Te: A bird had two legs!
Ti: Hm, all birds must have two legs.
Te: A bird had five legs!
Ti: But you said birds have two legs!
Te: No I said the first one had two legs, and it did. The second had five.
Ti: Fine. Then birds must have either two or five legs.


----------



## Tellus

Lastrevio said:


> While Te is responsible for gathering data...


What do you mean by "gathering data"? That sounds like a perceiving function.


----------



## Tellus

Tellus said:


> It could be useful to include Ti+ vs. Ti- in this discussion. SSS claims that ILI has Ti+ and LII has Ti-. Viktor Gulenko also sees Ti+ in ILI (currently in Model G, and previously in Model A... see links).
> 
> Te is about logical planning (and logical reasoning... in my view), so it is related to business/economy. My (ILI) Te is obviously 'minus', since I am much more focused on what _not _to buy, than what to actually buy.
> 
> Do you recognize Viktor Gulenko's description of Ti? Do you focus on what some logical relationships are _not_, e.g. "is this equation really accurate?", "this side is _not _longer than the other one" etc?
> 
> 
> The «quality» feature of the sign | School of System Socionics
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Defining Specialized Logical Functions by V. Gulenkonctions of Logic by V. Gulenko
> 
> Right/Process/Evolutionary logic: straight and absolute, has no reverse feedback. This type of logic as if delineates contours of forms on some background that is then discarded as insignificant. It is characterized by absence of context and is categorical, explicit in judgements.
> 
> Left/Result/Involutionary logic: inversive, derived from straight logic using the operation of subtraction. It is reflexive and considers not the upfront side as much as the back side of the coin. It underlines the background, contextual dependencies of judgements.
> 
> Right logic (process): ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII
> 
> Left logic (result): ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI


Positivist and negativist - Wikisocion

"Positivism-Negativism is often mistaken for optimism-pessimism, where Positivism has become synonymous with optimism, and Negativism - with pessimism. By extension, those who fall into Eneagram's positive outlook triad (these are types 2,7,9) are sometimes mistaken for Positivist types due to these triad's innate preference for dealing with problems by adopting a "positive attitude", for as much as possible, and reframing disappointments in some more uplifting way; while the often mistrustful attitude and propensity to mentally dwell on problems and threats of enneagram type 6 can be mistaken for Negativism. *It is important to note that there is no direct relation between Positivist-Negativist Reinin dichotomy and optimism-pessimism. The name of this dichotomy should not be interpreted literally. Positivists do not have an inherently positive outlook on life, and Negativists - a negative one.* The Positivist-Negativist dichotomy describes certain kinds aspects of cognitive perception and mental operations rather than person's outlook, attitudes, and prevalent emotional state. Optimism-pessimism is a quality that arises from personal experiences; socionics factors do not influence and condition this phenomenon in itself.
A distinguishing trait of Positivist and Negativist types is the preference for comparison (Positivists) or contrast (Negativists). Positivist types are more inclined to spot similarities and draw analogies ("they are so alike", "y is just like x" etc.), while Negativist are inclined to instead look at contrasts or alternatives ("they are nothing alike!"). Figuratively speaking, if Positivists are shown the front side then they will be looking at the front side, while Negativists will try to look at its inverse. If this inverse is not readily apparent, they will start searching for it. Thus Negativists do not seek to present a "negative" or "pessimistic" view of things, but simply the inverse or the alternative one. It is precisely due to such mental preference that a Negativist type such as ILI voices pessimistic predictions upon hearing optimistic forecasts. From a Negativist's point of view, he or she is not being a downer, but rather restoring the balance by pointing out the opposite. Since Negativist types are inclined to look for the inverse, if they are presented with pessimistic information they start searching for its alternatives, for what is absent and not there, such as a more optimistic interpretation. If the same ILI is told that everything is bleak, he or she will proceed to look for evidence that the situation is really not as bleak as it could have been. This distinguishes socionics trait of Negativism from manifestations of personal traits such as pessimism, depression, or propensity to "catastrophize".

*Example: LII, negativist: "This is very much how I process information. I compare of what something logically cannot be, so then I know what something can be. I always seem to look for what's not there in general in order to arrive at what's there."

*Thus, Positivists, in contrast to Negativists that see and investigate alternatives to anything, at times make an impression of being too "one-track" minded, too oriented at "one way", "one method", "one opinion", stubbornly enforcing a singular opinion, viewpoint, or interpretation, or feeling exasperated when that single track has failed them due to weak ability to see anything alternative. This shows more strongly for C-D types than V-S types, due to V-S propensity to loop back and try to correct the initial mistake, wrong attitude, or opinion.
Another point of confusion: Criticalness and Positivist-Negativist trait. Under this misinterpretation, Positivist types are depicted as always accepting, never critical of anything. This, of course, does not hold up to the scrutiny of the statements of Positivist types. Positivist types can and do critically treat information albeit with some delay (especially information relayed on their ego block functions), but the manner in which they voice their criticisms differs from Negativist types. Positivist types are more inclined to voice affirmative statements that use irony or aburdism to highlight the incorrectness of some argument and demonstrate their own disbelief (Example: Highlighting parts of a type's description that doesn't fit them, and then exclaiming with irony "Yes, I see how that applies to me!") 
Criticisms of Negativist types, in contrast, are usually directly negating, eliminating, or invalidating statements. Negativist types as if "cut off", or bar some information (or people) that they've found to be dubious. 
In general, Positivists are initially more open and accepting of new information (and people), but later may reject it after a more critical consideration; while Negativists have larger initial barrier to "entry" of new information (and people), but have greater difficulty getting rid of something that they have already accepted."

ILI is negativist and a process type. But that applies to the whole type. Gulenko suggests that it applies to a particular function, Ti (L), as well. The problem is that we don't know what causes negativism and positivism.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> But this still implies that the same kind of thinking can be both Te and Ti, since everything could potentially be written down. That cannot be right.
> 
> Is it Te when I read your (written down) Ti thinking? Don't I need my own Ti thinking in order to understand your Ti thinking?
> 
> ...or Jung: Te corresponds to "collective standpoint". So LIE and LSE just repeat someone else's thoughts, right?


I'll try saying it this way: Thinking is thinking, but the immediate source of Ti thinking is more inside one while the immediate source of Te thinking is more outside one. A pillow is a pillow but the softness can be felt from either inside or outside. One outside the pillow can feel the softness better from the outside but one has to get inside to feel the softness from the inside. Writing down or speaking Ti thoughts is just a way to getting those thoughts outside. The observer of those thoughts can meet them with Te observations. They can also bring their own Ti reflections to the Te situation. Once thoughts are outside they are now subject to the Jung collective encounter.

Do you want me to comment on LIE and LSE because that shouldn't contradict the above?





> Yes, you have processed 9+3=12 before, in your childhood. It is processed instantly now, because it is a fact.


If we are processing this instantly, that is an Si memory observation or an Se trust observation only so no thinking is involved. Note that memory says it is a fact. Memory can be defective.

Pi: [pure] Intuition has no steps and is not thinking. It is immediate perception.
Tellus: I somewhat disagree with you here.
Pi: I assume usually such intuition in adult life is accompanied by thinking or feeling but not necessarily either. Recognition of a face or brand name of an automobile or instant like or dislike of a political face is direct intuition. It's too complex for sensation yet happens instantly. Does that fix any disagreement?



Pi: I wonder if we could say memory not only has the characteristics of an inner and independent world (example = dreams), but is a map of things in the outer world. This makes for two different perspectives. (1) an inner independent world and (2) a world to match up with the outer world.
Tellus: Yes, we don't have any memories without personal experiences in the outer world.
I like "a map of things in the outer world". But those memories are still not independent of the outer world. What do you mean by (2)?
Pi: By (2) I mean the inner world Xi can be brought to the outer world Xe as a map. This map has correspondences with the external outer world. This is not very clear. An example is dreams. A dream about a monster creates an inner world. It stays in this inner world until one tells the story of the monster. The story now exists in the outer world. We can now map the inner world experience to the outer world story if we wish for comparison. We might think, "interpretation of dreams" here.





> A unicorn is a combination (Ni, fantasy) of a horse and a horn, which are objects from the outside world. But you will never see a real unicorn in the outside world. The concept, though, exists both in the inside world and the outside world.


You said, "Ni, fantasy." I'm having a little trouble with Ni because I'm INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. As an INTP I don't regard a unicorn as something made up ... a fantasy. I regard it as part of my inner world and a real part of it thereof. What this means is I disregard Ni, it not being conscious in me. As you say, the concept can go to the outside world. This is a matter of perspective. I treat the unicorn as real because I'm not interested in the unreality of the flesh and blood animal. You, an INTJ, being more serious, can't forget it is a concept. This makes how we regard a unicorn a matter of perspective and doesn't change as long as we have different INTx interests.





> The question is whether it is accurate or not. Are all aspects of your dominant function derived from the inside world?


Can you rephrase this question? Are you talking about Ti or any function? Won't the dominant function be expected to be more dominantly visible in brain scans? Are you asking about nature and nurture?




> saw Defining internal vs. external is not a problem.
> 
> Jung:
> 
> "In the section alluded to I mentioned, inter alia, that the introvert interposes a subjective view between the perception of the object and his own action, which prevents the action from assuming a character that corresponds with the objective situation."
> 
> "Introverted consciousness doubtless views the external conditions, but it selects the subjective determinants as the decisive ones. The type is guided, therefore, by that factor of perception and cognition which represents the receiving subjective disposition to the sense stimulus."


Not a bad presentation.




> This is not related to dimensionality in Socionics, right?


Ideally one's choices of variables are independent and we can call them dimensions. I assume Socionics wants those choices to be independent to a degree, but I'll bet they can be critiqued for that characteristic.

Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions by Irina Eglit
Note coordinate 4 is not independent of other coordinates.





> "N"? Do you mean "P" (vs. "J")?


I meant "P." I've made that mistake before. 





> I think Ni is more relevant than Ne in this example. Both Si and Ni are about pattern recognition. Ni considers new patterns.


We could discuss this. Not sure if this is helpful for this thread. If you think it is, we could continue.




> I used to think he was INTP / LII for many years. I only recently realized that he was INTJ / ILI. I have explained why in this thread (which may be a bit provocative):
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/928626-einstein-ile-lii-ili.html
> 
> Btw, many people think Richard Feynman is ILE (because he smiles a lot?), so they think Einstein could also be ILE. Well, Feynman is ILI according to me... a more extroverted one, like myself. He is actually quite similar to IEE, which corresponds with Model D.


I see the personality of these people as different from the * process* of judging that personality. I see this judging process as an xNTJ thing. Arguments (circumstantial evidence) can be presented for adjacent personality types but nothing is certain. I look at these types and am persuaded first one way the then the other and conclude now I can't be sure. What a personality is depends on "what the definition of *is* is." 




> Because thought experiments, scenario thinking (MBTI typologist Roger Pearman confirms this is Ni) and visualizations are strongly related to IEI and ILI. This is definitely my dominant cognitive process.


Do we have any idea of how these thought experiments were arrived at? There could have been originally a whole lot of Ne done before a thought experiment is presented as proving something. We could say a story of a thought experiment is a firmed up Ni/Te, true. But this says nothing about what the personality was doing to come up with the thought experiment story.
I replied here: Einstein - ILE, LII or ILI?




> Ne sees the alternative route, ... . This is obviously a strong and conscious process in LII. I (ILI) want to come to conclusions and you (LII) see alternatives. "What about this, what about that etc."


Agreed. That doesn't mean an INTP will refuse forever to come to conclusions or at least work with conclusions even if they are held temporarily.





> Ti in Socionics corresponds to Ti in MBTT (i.e. Myers-Briggs type theory). The descriptions are only slightly different. So INTP in MBTI is INTj in Socionics, and ENTJ in MBTI is ENTj in Socionics.


Okay for now.


Pi: Categorizing functions as either firmly Te or Ti is clear action. Action can be pleasing to the outside world as a value. Looking at Ti and Te as having no clear boundary, but as a scaled variable instead is fuzzy and is pleasing to either world as speculation.
Tellus: Can you explain this part a bit further?
Pi: Making a choice between Ti and Te is action because it is a choice. People like to firm things up if they want to use the choice. It avoids being "wishy-washy." Speculation is different. Speculation is free not to make a choice if there is suspicion Ti and Te are blurred. How they could be blurred motivates working on the speculation. Not everyone wants this. 

This can be generalized to all kinds of actions. Actions move directionally; speculation oscillates. Action allowing feedback is a compromise.
=====================================
=====================================





Tellus said:


> It could be useful to include Ti+ vs. Ti- in this discussion. SSS claims that ILI has Ti+ and LII has Ti-. Viktor Gulenko also sees Ti+ in ILI (currently in Model G, and previously in Model A... see links).
> 
> Te is about logical planning (and logical reasoning... in my view), so it is related to business/economy. My (ILI) Te is obviously 'minus', since I am much more focused on what _not _to buy, than what to actually buy.
> 
> Do you recognize Viktor Gulenko's description of Ti? Do you focus on what some logical relationships are _not_, e.g. "is this equation really accurate?", "this side is _not _longer than the other one" etc?
> 
> 
> The «quality» feature of the sign | School of System Socionics
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - Defining Specialized Logical Functions by V. Gulenkonctions of Logic by V. Gulenko
> 
> 
> Right logic (process): ILE, SEI, EIE, LSI, SEE, ILI, LSE, EII
> 
> Left logic (result): ESE, LII, SLE, IEI, LIE, ESI, IEE, SLI


 So far I don't recognize any of this or would rephrase it if I had the chance. I ask the question: what is its purpose? I see these traits as not being modular within a cognitive function. I propose they mostly are ill-fitting and they vary over time. It's like calling a person "proud." Are people always proud? Never proud? Proud 37 percent Alternately proud and shamed? What? If a trait is 80 percent, what if another type is 65 percent and still another type 90 percent? Then the 80 percent characteristics no longer belongs to one type.

I think of dealing with correlations. Where are traits like flexibility? Versatility? Development? Individuation? Are they there?



> Right/Process/Evolutionary logic: straight and absolute, has no reverse feedback. This type of logic as if delineates contours of forms on some background that is then discarded as insignificant. It is characterized by absence of context and is categorical, explicit in judgements.


Rephrase. Reverse feedback can be traumatic. Replace "insignificant" by low probability estimate. Context is always present. Context is ignored or unconscious. Explicit judgments are high probability judgment in the unstated context.



> Left/Result/Involutionary logic: inversive, derived from straight logic using the operation of subtraction. It is reflexive and considers not the upfront side as much as the back side of the coin. It underlines the background, contextual dependencies of judgements.


Critique. There is no backside without a defined frontside even if not overtly acknowledged. The background is considered without regard to value or probability of the context.


----------



## Mr Oops

How true math works?

You need to abstract it.

If you think in one apple + one apple = two apples.
That's Te 
When you think in Ti:
All added objects together equals number of all objects in the given the system.

You need both.


----------



## Tellus

Mr Oops said:


> How true math works?
> 
> You need to abstract it.
> 
> If you think in one apple + one apple = two apples.
> That's Te
> When you think in Ti:
> All added objects together equals number of all objects in the given the system.
> 
> You need both.


'x' is abstract, right?

Is 'x + x = 2x' Te or Ti in your view?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> I'll try saying it this way: Thinking is thinking, but the immediate source of Ti thinking is more inside one while the immediate source of Te thinking is more outside one. A pillow is a pillow but the softness can be felt from either inside or outside. One outside the pillow can feel the softness better from the outside but one has to get inside to feel the softness from the inside. Writing down or speaking Ti thoughts is just a way to getting those thoughts outside. The observer of those thoughts can meet them with Te observations. They can also bring their own Ti reflections to the Te situation. Once thoughts are outside they are now subject to the Jung collective encounter.


Do you see the difference between your view and Jung's view?



> If we are processing this instantly, that is an Si memory observation


Yes



> or an Se trust observation only so no thinking is involved. Note that memory says it is a fact. Memory can be defective.


What do you mean by "Se trust observation"? 

Se and Si are also 'thinking'.



> Pi: [pure] Intuition has no steps and is not thinking. It is immediate perception.
> Tellus: I somewhat disagree with you here.
> Pi: I assume usually such intuition in adult life is accompanied by thinking or feeling but not necessarily either. Recognition of a face or brand name of an automobile or instant like or dislike of a political face is direct intuition. It's too complex for sensation yet happens instantly. Does that fix any disagreement?


Well, that instant like or dislike is still 'thinking' (i.e. cognitive processes).



> Pi: I wonder if we could say memory not only has the characteristics of an inner and independent world (example = dreams), but is a map of things in the outer world. This makes for two different perspectives. (1) an inner independent world and (2) a world to match up with the outer world.
> Tellus: Yes, we don't have any memories without personal experiences in the outer world.
> I like "a map of things in the outer world". But those memories are still not independent of the outer world. What do you mean by (2)?
> Pi: By (2) I mean the inner world Xi can be brought to the outer world Xe as a map. This map has correspondences with the external outer world. This is not very clear. An example is dreams. A dream about a monster creates an inner world. It stays in this inner world until one tells the story of the monster. The story now exists in the outer world. We can now map the inner world experience to the outer world story if we wish for comparison. We might think, "interpretation of dreams" here.


OK



> You said, "Ni, fantasy." I'm having a little trouble with Ni because I'm INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. As an INTP I don't regard a unicorn as something made up ... a fantasy. I regard it as part of my inner world and a real part of it thereof. What this means is I disregard Ni, it not being conscious in me. As you say, the concept can go to the outside world. This is a matter of perspective. I treat the unicorn as real because I'm not interested in the unreality of the flesh and blood animal. You, an INTJ, being more serious, can't forget it is a concept. This makes how we regard a unicorn a matter of perspective and doesn't change as long as we have different INTx interests.


It doesn't matter if we call it 'fantasy' or not. My point is that every object in your inner world corresponds to an object or some objects in outer world.



> Can you rephrase this question? Are you talking about Ti or any function? Won't the dominant function be expected to be more dominantly visible in brain scans? Are you asking about nature and nurture?


Let's assume you have one big screw and one small screw in front of you. Then I ask you: "Which one is bigger?" Your Te or your Ti will compare these two screws and make a judgement. You and Jung (or is this a subjective judgement according to him?) say it must be Te. Aushra ('external statics of fields'), SSS and I say it must be Ti. All of us cannot be right.

We already know things about the types which contradict your inside/outside interpretation of introverted/extroverted functions. For example, LSI mechanics are working with concrete objects in the outside world.



> Ideally one's choices of variables are independent and we can call them dimensions. I assume Socionics wants those choices to be independent to a degree, but I'll bet they can be critiqued for that characteristic.
> Socionics - the16types.info - Dimensionality of Functions by Irina Eglit
> Note coordinate 4 is not independent of other coordinates.


2D builds on 1D, 3D builds on 2D etc. So they are dependent on each other.



> I meant "P." I've made that mistake before.


If J vs. P was the deciding factor then other J types would also be good at/like chess, right?



> I see the personality of these people as different from the process of judging that personality. I see this judging process as an xNTJ thing. Arguments (circumstantial evidence) can be presented for adjacent personality types but nothing is certain. I look at these types and am persuaded first one way the then the other and conclude now I can't be sure. What a personality is depends on "what the definition of is is."


We are talking about his best-fit type. It's an estimation, of course, but the more one reads etc. about MBTI and Socionics the better one gets at typing. Also, Si and Ni are about pattern recognition so I think SEI, SLI, IEI and ILI (and perhaps IEE and ILE... see model D) have an advantage here.



> Do we have any idea of how these thought experiments were arrived at? There could have been originally a whole lot of Ne done before a thought experiment is presented as proving something. We could say a story of a thought experiment is a firmed up Ni/Te, true. But this says nothing about what the personality was doing to come up with the thought experiment story.


Yes, other functions can be involved before and after the thought experiment.



> Agreed. That doesn't mean an INTP will refuse forever to come to conclusions or at least work with conclusions even if they are held temporarily.


Right. And I will see alternatives at some point. All types use all functions.

But if Ti is about both 1) logical reasoning/conclusions (contrary to my view) and 2) structure (big-small, long-short etc.), then we should _clearly_ notice 1) in LII since Ti is your dominant function. Do you agree with me?



> Pi: Categorizing functions as either firmly Te or Ti is clear action. Action can be pleasing to the outside world as a value. Looking at Ti and Te as having no clear boundary, but as a scaled variable instead is fuzzy and is pleasing to either world as speculation.
> Tellus: Can you explain this part a bit further?
> Pi: Making a choice between Ti and Te is action because it is a choice. People like to firm things up if they want to use the choice. It avoids being "wishy-washy." Speculation is different. Speculation is free not to make a choice if there is suspicion Ti and Te are blurred. How they could be blurred motivates working on the speculation. Not everyone wants this.
> This can be generalized to all kinds of actions. Actions move directionally; speculation oscillates. Action allowing feedback is a compromise.


OK



> So far I don't recognize any of this or would rephrase it if I had the chance. I ask the question: what is its purpose? I see these traits as not being modular within a cognitive function. I propose they mostly are ill-fitting and they vary over time. It's like calling a person "proud." Are people always proud? Never proud? Proud 37 percent Alternately proud and shamed? What? If a trait is 80 percent, what if another type is 65 percent and still another type 90 percent? Then the 80 percent characteristics no longer belongs to one type.
> I think of dealing with correlations. Where are traits like flexibility? Versatility? Development? Individuation? Are they there?
> Rephrase. Reverse feedback can be traumatic. Replace "insignificant" by low probability estimate. Context is always present. Context is ignored or unconscious. Explicit judgments are high probability judgment in the unstated context.
> Critique. There is no backside without a defined frontside even if not overtly acknowledged. The background is considered without regard to value or probability of the context.


I am trying to figure out ILI's Ti (L). Is it Ti+ or Ti-? But my Ti is a vital function, so it is much harder for me to see the processes clearly. If you (LII) describe your thinking in math, then maybe I will recognize it.

For example, x*x > 16 _does not_ imply x > 4. 

I presume this is LII's thinking. Do you recognize it?

LII, negativist: "This is very much how I process information. I compare of what something logically cannot be, so then I know what something can be. I always seem to look for what's not there in general in order to arrive at what's there."


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


There are two aspects of Ti+ vs. Ti- we should consider. One is related to Positivist/Negativist and the other one is related to Process/Result (see links above). 

Ti-

1) Minimizing the negative (see LII example above).

2) Focusing on the general view (instead of the specifics). I think 'systematization' could be a distinctive feature of Ti-. Both LII and SLI (files and folders etc.), who have Ti- according to SSS, are systematizing objects. 

Judges, who must see the whole system, are usually LSE, SLI or LII (Ti-)... while prosecutors, who focus on the hair-splitting details of the law, are usually ILI (Ti+).


----------



## Tellus

Here's a suggestion. 'Plus' is related to _analysis_ and 'minus' is related to _synthesis_.


----------



## Tellus




----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> * *


Am thinking about a solution to this undefined issue. It has to do with hierarchy. When a whole is analyzed, there is no such thing as looking at its parts without the presence of a still higher level of looking at the whole making that whole a part of the higher level. One must realize analysis done without considering this higher level is done in an arbitrary manner. "Arbitrary" is another way of saying random. Analysis is not a random action.

Let's say we wish to analyze a room. The method is not straightforward, but determined by the nature of the wish. A room can be analyzed so:
1. NEWS
2. Colors
3. Content sizes
4. Changes over time
5. Aesthetics 
6. Light and dark
==========================

Reflecting of Te and Ti. 

I propose Tellus by posting on diverse themes is showing more LII (Ne). Pi, by observing more intuition (Ni) within myself and looking at external logic am becoming more ILI.

I am growing more certain Te and Ti are not separate functions but always appear together. They are like the particle/ wave duality of quantum theory in that looking at one causes the other to disappear elude perception. The reason for this is because of parts and wholes but I have not worked this out.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> ...


This is completely off topic, but I thought you might be interested in the "mathematics of Socionics". 

Socionics - the16types.info - The Mathematics of Socionics by thehotelambush

Reinin dichotomies - Wikisocion


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> This is completely off topic, but I thought you might be interested in the "mathematics of Socionics".
> 
> Socionics - the16types.info - The Mathematics of Socionics by thehotelambush
> 
> Reinin dichotomies - Wikisocion


When I read the top line, I'm immediately reminded of the issue of "Is this off topic or on topic?" It looks off topic, but if the topic is Te versus Ti, what you have posted addresses the issue of categorization which couldn't be more on topic.

The question of categorization is an important one and always has an element of randomness within it even though there is no such thing as randomness (God does not play dice). When we categorize, how are we to determine its value for value is what gets us to choose one categorization over another. Take the most natural categorization of language. We describe the world using language and language is highly able to do so over the non-language speaking other animals. Yet there are hundreds of languages and those who understand only one cannot speak to those who understand only one which differs. That speaks to how we decided to categorize.

The language of Socionics differs from the language of Myers-Briggs and the way each of us understand those also differs. Yet they are so alike that we deceive each other when we speak to each other. This can be summarized by what I thought was a marvelously succinct take on this theme: #616.

===================================


When I see the references to Reinin dichotomies I am immediately drawn to the possible arbitrariness of those categories. Are they arbitrary and if not what kind of thinking would decide? Here is a list:

*Reinin dichotomies* 
 Carefree and farsightedYielding and obstinateStatic and dynamicDemocratic and aristocraticTactical and strategicConstructivist and emotivistPositivist and negativistJudicious and decisiveMerry and seriousProcess and resultAsking and declaring

What are we to make of these? What makes them valuable? Are any dichotomies missing? If only there were some more fundamental tools upon which they were founded ... . Science is at its best when things are simplified and my aim is to look for simplification. Then build from there. (For some reason I cannot bring myself to make a new thread.)

I look for fundamental concepts like:

(1) Short-term & long-term meaning time interval
(2) Intensity of value (importance = the force which we bring), as in F = feeling
(3) Direction or aim, as in T = thinking
(4) Hierarchical categorization: part or whole, as in S = sensation and N = intuition

Are these fundamental enough and are they clear enough?

Carefree and farsighted and Merry and serious. Can these be lumped together? Carefree and merry refer to how we treat the present. Merry has a hedonistic feeling aspect. Farsighted = long-term. Serious brings reins to emotion thinking about value.

Yielding and obstinate and Static and dynamic. I associate yielding with dynamic and obstinate with static. Is that enough for now?

Democratic and aristocratic Aristocratic concentrates power in a unified whole. Democratic diffuses power into many parts. See how simple that is! Or is it?

Tactical and strategic That sounds like short-term versus long-term. Is that over-simplified? Maybe not. Sounds like Process and result.



I haven't time to cover the rest. Can the rest be treated the same way using (1) through (4)? 

Later: 
Asking and declaring
This corresponds to open and closed. Open and closed is a combination of thinking and feeling, but how?

xxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

BigApplePi said:


> I propose Tellus by posting on diverse themes is showing more LII (Ne). Pi, by observing more intuition (Ni) within myself and looking at external logic am becoming more ILI.
> 
> *I am growing more certain Te and Ti are not separate functions but always appear together.* They are like the particle/ wave duality of quantum theory in that looking at one causes the other to disappear elude perception. The reason for this is because of parts and wholes but I have not worked this out.


Socionics claims something similar. An ILI has Ti in the Demonstrative position, meaning it is always active and always performing despite Te being preferred. If it weren't, could ILI actually come to an internal understanding of information?

An LII has Demonstrative Ni, which leads to manifestations of Ni insight from the unconscious despite preferring Ne. This means they can shift perspectives and leap contexts with ease in service of their Ti.

This statement you make about yourself, thus, could be indicative of either an ILI or an LII typing.

If you ever decide you wish to have assistance with finding your Socionics type, do a questionnaire in the What's my Socionics Type subforum and tag me.

Also, I advise against taking the + and - elements too seriously. @Tellus does, but I believe that studying these elements is best reserved for those who are A) already well versed in Socionics theory and B) go into it understanding that it is complex enough it could warp your understanding of the original model. These elements come from the poorly understood Positivist/Negativist dichotomy and were used primarily in the formation of alternate models called Model B and Model G, and also used by Tellus in his Model...what was it again, Model D? I don't remember. Anyway, the elements will likely confuse the issue since I don't see them being explained very well in this thread. :/


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart

BigApplePi said:


> When I see the references to Reinin dichotomies I am immediately drawn to the possible arbitrariness of those categories. Are they arbitrary and if not what kind of thinking would decide? Here is a list:
> 
> *Reinin dichotomies*
>  Carefree and farsightedYielding and obstinateStatic and dynamicDemocratic and aristocraticTactical and strategicConstructivist and emotivistPositivist and negativistJudicious and decisiveMerry and seriousProcess and resultAsking and declaring


Reinins are mathematically derived. For example, Merry types are those types which value Fe and Ti. Each dichotomy is derived from a combination of traits. The traits that belong in the derived categories are quasi-educated guesses, based on the combinations that formed them and on type observations of people they assumed belonged to those type. Have you seen the original Reinin study results? Oh, and note that the 4 MBTI dichotomies are also considered to be part of the Reinin 15-dichotomy model.

Socionics - the16types.info - Reinin Dichotomies: Research Results

Some various articles on Reinins
MBTI dichotomies as viewed in Socionics: Socionics - the16types.info - The 4 Jungian Dichotomies
The math of Reinins: Socionics - the16types.info - The Mathematical Basis of Reinin Dichotomies
Probably one of the most useful and valid Reinins: Socionics - the16types.info - Reinin Dichotomy - Merry | Serious
(the other useful one is Decisive/Judicious)

This is an important bit between Merry and Serious (Merry is Subjectivist, Serious is Objectivist, just different names for the same thing):

" The Subjectivist, in contrast to the Objectivist, is not inclined to derive "objectively accurate" rules and regularities, generalizing for this purpose his own experiences and experiences of others. Instead, the Subjectivist assumes that other people have different criteria and their own views on any situation, therefore he determines whether his or someone else's actions were correct or incorrect by comparing them with his "subjective" view—he evaluates them in accordance to his personal concepts, "his system", his intentions, and so on. Subjectivist are inclined to propose (or impose) not the "correct way" or another way to do things, but an entire conceptual framework on the subject i.e. t*hey do not say "Do this differently" but rather "Look at it in another way". They do not think, in contrast to Objectivists, that in every situation there exists only one "objectively correct/true" way of doing something—in their opinion, there are many different ways of looking at and approaching a given situation.* When they feel something was done incorrectly, they will likely ask: "What are you doing?" (In contrast to Objectivists who are likely to ask "Who does it this way?"). When they speak of optimality, they mean optimality within the framework of their idea or concept, within the framework of their subjective approach (from which point of view is it most optimal and in comparison to what). _Therefore they strive to contrast other people's views to their own and to explain their position (to verify concepts): "If this is what is meant, we do this, if something else is meant, we do it differently._""

Note how @Tellus behaves much more like the Objectivist, here. He simply states things as he feels they are. The effort to contrast views and clarify which person believes what is done much more so by you, Pi. You are doing what I italicized throughout this thread. You focus on concept verification and viewpoint on the issues. Tellus focuses on what something actually is in an objective sense (rather than what you are actually saying), on finding the correct view. For example, when speaking of classical Socionics and SSS, he frequently interjects his statements with "this group thinks this and I disagree. SSS and I think this instead". It's about who thinks what, rather than what is thought. That's why he asks "if you agree with [insert group]" instead of saying "is this what you think?" Such a small difference, and yet what it says about inner mindset and viewpoint is such a revelation.


----------



## Tellus

Gene Bellinger et al.

Data, Information, Knowledge, & Wisdom

"According to Russell Ackoff, a systems theorist and professor of organizational change, the content of the human mind can be classified into five categories: 

*Data*: symbols

*Information*: data that are processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions

*Knowledge*: application of data and information; answers "how" questions

*Understanding*: appreciation of "why"

*Wisdom*: evaluated understanding. ..."

I think Information and Knowledge are connected ('plus'?), and Understanding and Wisdom are connected ('minus'?).


----------



## Lastrevio

Tellus said:


> What do you mean by "gathering data"? That sounds like a perceiving function.


Classifying facts gathered by perceiving functions.


----------



## Tellus

Lastrevio said:


> There seems to be a slight misunderstanding here.
> While Te is responsible for gathering data, Ti seeks to limit data. For example, here are some facts:
> Chickens have two legs.
> Turkeys have two legs.
> Hummingbirds have two legs.
> Te is responsible for gathering facts like this. However, the human mind has only so much capacity to remember facts; Ti is what reduces the mental load by joining facts together into a framework or into a reduced set of facts. In the above case, Ti might form the conclusion "Birds have two legs." I have no idea whether in fact this is true or not, but it doesn't matter: Ti is an introverted element and thus does not refer to the outside world in determining what kind of simplifications to make in reducing facts, it only considers whether facts are consistent with each other. If, however, Ti created a rule like "Birds have two legs" and Te found a bird that had five legs, this would activate Ti to reconsider its beliefs. If Te gathers data which Ti has evaluated as inconsistent with known facts and rules, then this results in conflict between Te and Ti. (This conflict is sometimes referred to as cognitive dissonance.)
> Te is more goldfishy in nature. So, it really doesn't generalize, it just observes facts. For example:
> Te: A bird had two legs!
> Ti: Hm, all birds must have two legs.
> Te: A bird had five legs!
> Ti: But you said birds have two legs!
> Te: No I said the first one had two legs, and it did. The second had five.
> Ti: Fine. Then birds must have either two or five legs.
> 
> I: What do you mean by "gathering data"? That sounds like a perceiving function.
> 
> You: Classifying facts gathered by perceiving functions.


Okay, so what is a 'fact' according to you? Can you define it? 

Socionists claim that Te itself is about facts.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Am thinking about a solution to this undefined issue. It has to do with hierarchy. When a whole is analyzed, there is no such thing as looking at its parts without the presence of a still higher level of looking at the whole making that whole a part of the higher level. One must realize analysis done without considering this higher level is done in an arbitrary manner. "Arbitrary" is another way of saying random. Analysis is not a random action.





BigApplePi said:


> Let's say we wish to analyze a room. The method is not straightforward, but determined by the nature of the wish. A room can be analyzed so:
> 1. NEWS
> 2. Colors
> 3. Content sizes
> 4. Changes over time
> 5. Aesthetics
> 6. Light and dark


Can you explain this a bit further?

---------

"Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it."

"In general, the noun synthesis refers to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new; alternately, it refers to the creating of something by artificial means."

The question is whether +/- can be directly linked to analysis and synthesis or not. 




> I propose Tellus by posting on diverse themes is showing more LII (Ne). Pi, by observing more intuition (Ni) within myself and looking at external logic am becoming more ILI.


Well, that is my (ILI's) Ne. As I said, all types use all functions. 



> I am growing more certain Te and Ti are not separate functions but always appear together. They are like the particle/ wave duality of quantum theory in that looking at one causes the other to disappear elude perception. The reason for this is because of parts and wholes but I have not worked this out.


I think they are separate functions, but they often appear together.


----------



## Tellus

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Note how @*Tellus* behaves much more like the Objectivist, here. He simply states things as he feels they are. The effort to contrast views and clarify which person believes what is done much more so by you, Pi. You are doing what I italicized throughout this thread. You focus on concept verification and viewpoint on the issues. Tellus focuses on what something actually is in an objective sense (rather than what you are actually saying), on finding the correct view. For example, when speaking of classical Socionics and SSS, he frequently interjects his statements with "this group thinks this and I disagree. SSS and I think this instead". It's about who thinks what, rather than what is thought. That's why he asks "if you agree with [insert group]" instead of saying "is this what you think?" Such a small difference, and yet what it says about inner mindset and viewpoint is such a revelation.


This is an accurate observation and it is certainly due to Te. But I don't think it is related to "objective truths", since Jung's (and Aushra's) subjective introverted functions and objective extroverted functions are inaccurate. This behavior is all about my conclusions and other people's conclusions. I have to keep track of other people's conclusions in order to make sense of our discussion, which in turn is a new conclusion.


----------



## BigApplePi

Tellus said:


> Can you explain this a bit further?
> 
> ---------
> 
> "Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts in order to gain a better understanding of it."
> 
> "In general, the noun synthesis refers to a combination of two or more entities that together form something new; alternately, it refers to the creating of something by artificial means."
> 
> The question is whether +/- can be directly linked to analysis and synthesis or not.


Can you provide a definition of +/- which you would like addressed? I lost a possible link.

What I'm saying for analysis is that the way we decide to analyze does not necessarily lie in the entity to be analyzed. The method lies in the observer of the entity. This is a little surprising as when we are presented with analysis we often believe it to be a natural process inherent within the entity. It is not.


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> Can you provide a definition of +/- which you would like addressed? I lost a possible link.
> 
> What I'm saying for analysis is that the way we decide to analyze does not necessarily lie in the entity to be analyzed. The method lies in the observer of the entity. This is a little surprising as when we are presented with analysis we often believe it to be a natural process inherent within the entity. It is not.


Signs of functions | School of System Socionics

But all of those methods are fundamentally different from synthesis, right?


----------



## Tellus

BigApplePi said:


> @Tellus. I am only at a tentative stage with this so here is what I have so far: I am undecided whether to accept my own version of this or to go with what may be dug out of these links:
> 
> A. Signs of functions | School of System Socionics
> B. Socionics - the16types.info - plus/minus by Victor Gulenko
> C. Socionics - the16types.info - Signs of Functions (+/-)
> D. The «quality» feature of the sign | School of System Socionics
> Are the above what you have in mind or should I add or subtract from them?


Yes, I am referring to those definitions and descriptions of 'plus' and 'minus'.



> Comments:
> A. This is the first link I saw and I favored it because it was simple and general. That would help with definitions or so I thought. I know the last message covered this, but I'm trying again. I saw an ambiguity with regard to their meaning of "area" in conjunction with "competence." They pointedly said plus meant competence but failed to define what the competence was. Did it mean competence in using a function regardless of where the function was used? This means quality. Or did it mean competence whether or not the function was used locally or globally? This means geometry. Do you buy this difference? I'm not sure I'm getting this across.


SSS:

"The «quality» feature of a «plus» signed function is a «positive», the competence in the positive area of the features, with the incompetence in the negative area.

The «quality» feature of a «minus» signed function is a «negative», the competence in the negative and positive areas."

This is clear enough, right?

You are asking about 'competence' when a function is used locally and globally, right? But we don't have to consider 'competence' here, since X+ only processes local/detailed information and X- only processes global/general information.



> B. Victor Gulenko covers a great many function concepts. He certainly has an awareness far greater than mine. This shows promise but I have a few questions:
> 1. What defines this "quadra values", alpha, beta, gamma, delta?


They are defined by the "valued" functions. LII's "valued" functions in Model A are Ti, Ne, Si and Fe. I am skeptical of "valued" functions and "quadra values".



> 2. "-Fe = minimization or avoidance of negative emotions, prevention of quarrels, scandals, and other situations causing emotional instability, which is valued as more important than creation of positive emotional effect." Who says this is a minus? Is that a decision by the author? Same Q for the other fifteen.


Definition of 'minus' = minimizing the negative aspects of a function. This corresponds well with ESE. +/- has been defined by Gulenko and Yermak.



> 3. The variable I introduced in my previous message covers local versus global in this sense: What if a person was -Fe at home with their family and we call that "local" while they are +Fe when attending a political rally or some other social function and we call that "global"? Do we now say that personality is both Fe plus and minus?


It does not refer to geography. It means this:

"If we represent the «scale» feature metaphorically, work of a «plus» function may be compared to a corkscrew, which constantly plunges into some area; the deeper the narrower the space, but the details are more precise. «Minus» is, on the contrary, —widening, unwinding the coil, covering more space with less details."



> Later: I guess I won't be satisfied until I can come up with a definition of plus and minus for cognitive functions which can be universally applied. Try this:
> Plus cognitive function = A cognitive function which when applied aims toward maximizing the beneficial affects of means and ends together with the well-being of the self and others.
> Minus cognitive function = A cognitive function which when applied neglects to aim toward this maximal affect.


Why can't you accept SSS's definitions of +/-?

As I have already mentioned before, if you come up with a new definition of +/- then it must still correspond with our observations of the types.


----------



## Felipe

Te - logistic

Ti - logical structure

Ti - these are the rules, this is the formula, fine tune the formula for better results. Method > result

Te - apply deductions reagardless of formula, find the quickest, easiest route. Result > method

something like that


----------



## DavidH




----------



## X10E8

Rabid Seahorse said:


> Ti is better for geometry and physics that require holistic thinking and visualizing. It puts everything into a framework. Te is better at algebra, chemistry, statistical math that's more analytic and procedural.


Yeah I was thinking Ti is better than Te.


----------



## BigApplePi

X10E8 said:


> Yeah I was thinking Ti is better than Te.


Where is this Ti/ Te in the stack? Is it primary, auxiliary, tertiary or last?

ISTP = *Ti* Se Ni Fe
ESFJ = Fe Si Ne* Ti*
ENTJ =* Te* Ni Se Fi
ISFP = Fi Se Ni *Te*


----------



## X10E8

BigApplePi said:


> Where is this Ti/ Te in the stack? Is it primary, auxiliary, tertiary or last?
> 
> ISTP = *Ti* Se Ni Fe
> ESFJ = Fe Si Ne* Ti*
> ENTJ =* Te* Ni Se Fi
> ISFP = Fi Se Ni *Te*


Depends on which types function stack you are referring to. For ISTP it's 1st. ESFJ it's last and pretty weak.


----------

