# Can someone explain introverted thinking for me?



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Preferably without using MBTI jargon that I have to decipher.


----------



## DevilishGrin (May 15, 2013)

Think before you speak.
mind is always working, thinking about things that happened earlier.
not noticeably excited about much.
desire to be alone, not have to talk with people constantly.

I am not sure if this is what you are looking for, but these are a few of the things that I relate to.


----------



## Fievel (Jul 9, 2013)

It's that ceaseless nagging voice telling you that 0.9999999999999999 is not the same as 1; for if it was the universe would explode.


----------



## LadyO.W.BernieBro (Sep 4, 2010)

l guess the main difference l experience from Te would be, l mostly put energy into classifying data. A focus on a consistent framework, but less focus on the immediate logic. Making a lot of comparisons.

But l'm not the most logical thinker around and some people apply Ti more rigidly.

l apply it pretty broadly...with something like MBTI, l find myself drawn to breaking down parts of the system (types) into even smaller parts and comparing different kinds of people within the same type.

l thought about that a little more and l think my main goal is always starting out with something very broad and shrinking it down to its smallest components, not sure if that's related to Ne dominance, but the point being that l make the classifications by first starting out with the largest amount of information possible. How much classification can you really do otherwise?

l'm not entirely sure what the Te alternative to this would be. Maybe becoming familiar with the information, and then asking relevant questions rather than just continuing to classify:tongue:


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

The world is in your mind, you are the world


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

. Seeing what conforms with the knowledge you know to be true and what does not.

. Fine tuning definitions

. Precision and nuances of word-choice.

. Being concise

. Noticing and identifying inconsistencies (it's why INTP's are Grammar Nazis) and lapses in logic (why NTPs in general love debate)

. Takes the "Big Picture" into account during the creation of processes

. Understands how factors interact and impact the others, switching out variables in equations, etc.


----------



## DevilishGrin (May 15, 2013)

Fern said:


> . Seeing what conforms with the knowledge you know to be true and what does not.
> 
> . Fine tuning definitions
> 
> ...


Nazi here, you left that door wide open!


----------



## Chaerephon (Apr 28, 2013)

Peguy said:


> It's that ceaseless nagging voice telling you that 0.9999999999999999 is not the same as 1; for if it was the universe would explode.


No they are the same if you mean .9 repeated.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

DevilishGrin said:


> Nazi here, you left that door wide open!


The irony is killing me


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

DevilishGrin said:


> Think before you speak.
> mind is always working, thinking about things that happened earlier.
> not noticeably excited about much.
> desire to be alone, not have to talk with people constantly.
> ...


It this true for all introverted thinkers in general? Or specifically ISTP? (You're introverted thinkers too right?)

I definitely get noticebly excited. I've got a trip in the morning. Cannot sleep for the life of me. I desire to be around people a lot more than I desire to be alone. But I'm still an introverted thinker. I'm not really all that self aware about my thought processes. 

ESTP are extroverts with introverted thinking. I'm trying to figure out how that works.


----------



## DevilishGrin (May 15, 2013)

monemi said:


> It this true for all introverted thinkers in general? Or specifically ISTP? (You're introverted thinkers too right?)I definitely get noticebly excited. I've got a trip in the morning. Cannot sleep for the life of me. I desire to be around people a lot more than I desire to be alone. But I'm still an introverted thinker. I'm not really all that self aware about my thought processes. ESTP are extroverts with introverted thinking. I'm trying to figure out how that works.


Yes, introverted thinking is correct, truthfully I have no idea about all ISTP's, I am the only one I know. I do know that i am way more motivated to do something when there is no one around, I always thought this was some sort of do it the right way thing, but now I am sure it is just not wanting to verbalize instructions to someone else. I require alone time, I get very sharp with people the longer I go without "me" time. I don't like to be around people that hug, invasion of my bubble is not o.k. People that cry freak me out, I try to avoid that situation whenever possible. I refuse to make plans ahead of time, and I cancel all the time to. I am also somewhat germaphobic, I think that is because of the way I process information, I can see the path that the germs have traveled from the grocery store, magazines, doctors office, shoes, doorknobs, etc... I do not really know how much of this is ISTP, and how much of it is me being a weirdo. I suspect it is about equal


----------



## toshiro (Jun 24, 2013)

Ti is concerned with being logically valid.

Te is concerned with being logically sound.

Ti sits in an arm chair and ponders about the nature of things.

Te actually goes outside and observes the nature of it.


----------



## PPM (Apr 7, 2013)

toshiro said:


> Ti sits in an arm chair and ponders about the nature of things.
> 
> Te actually goes outside and observes the nature of it.


Yes, I am definitely an armchair scholer type. One of the biggest reasons I didn't choose Anthropology as my major was because fieldwork is a big part of it.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

toshiro said:


> Ti is concerned with being logically valid.
> 
> Te is concerned with being logically sound.


Backwards, actually


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

So which is it then? Ti sound logic and Te valid logic or the other way around? 

Anyone have good links? 

Trying to break down how I think is hard. I think it goes something like this: 

I do pause to think about things. Usually, when I see a bigger a problem. I lack the patience to research it myself, so I usually crowd source from people who know about the subject. Depending on deadlines, if I have time, I'll look at the solutions available and look for problems with the solutions. Test them. If I don't have much time, I'll go with whichever solution I have the most trust in and improvise as best I can. I prefer more time to make sure I get the right answer, but life doesn't always give you that option. 

I don't to waste time thinking about things I don't think I have the power to change or impact or learn something I can use. I work more effectively in teams, under pressure and with competition. All three of those things or anyone of those things can motivate me. Without anyone of those things, I will goof off and get absolutely nada done. I went into aviation because there was lots of team work and lots of pressure. It the environment pushed me to give my best every day. 

Does this sound average for introverted thinking in an ESTP?


----------



## Tridentus (Dec 14, 2009)

Fern said:


> . Seeing what conforms with the knowledge you know to be true and what does not.
> 
> . Fine tuning definitions
> 
> ...


i can see what you're trying to explain, and i'm not saying you're wrong, but i'm not sure someone reading this would get the right idea with some of these points. you're explaining it from a point of view that you understand, but you need to expand your explanation so others will understand the interpretation rather than take what you've written at face value. for example, i do all of these things, but as part of a different process to an ENTP (well maybe not being concise or grammar nazi )

also, a few of the things you said are strongly related to Ne. ESTPs are always quick to take things at face value and rarely delve into or question their experiences before using them to create/adjust a system, that's why ESTPs are so efficient and quick with their systems but rarely know "why" or "how" like an ENTP who constantly delves into a big-picture "add-on" before systemising things might.

i always think the simplest (but slightly general) way to explain an introverted judgement function is to say that it is the "personal" mode of judgement. introverted feelers are stubborn about their emotions and their morals, and don't care that these are purely subjective to themselves, for an introverted feeler it doesn't make them less valid, whereas it might for an extroverted feeler. in a similar way, introverted thinkers are stubborn about their systems and find it difficult not to be stubborn about them, they must also be systems that _they_ approve of, and again they are stubborn in this way. as a stereotype, this makes them like to be right, and they hate people disagreeing with a particularly valued system of theirs in the same way that an Fi user will feel like someone is attacking them if they feel someone is saying their morals are less valid (if you think about it, that's why ESTPs are often so sure of themselves- not questioning their experiences + confidence in their systems = little room for doubt, both a strength and a weakness). of course, both function users get over this with maturity.

that's not to say Te users don't like to be right or that Fe users don't defend their morals, but both those functions prefer to go with established opinion. that is why as an ENFP, i am stubborn and don't mind being subjective about my morals, whereas i tend to try to make my logical systems more objective and tend to heavily second guess any logical systems i create on my own, preferring to check for consensus (in fact most of my logical theories are usually picked from other people's brains if i'm being totally honest, it's the only way i can be comfortable in having confidence that they are right), but i know what feels right and wrong for me subjectively which makes up for it (a.k.a. i can go with the flow and let my emotions guide me, which a thinker will inevitably be heavily skeptical about, but in some situations actually surpasses anything that their systems can produce for them).


----------



## Randroth (Nov 25, 2010)

The best way I can think of to explain Ti is to compare and contrast it with Te.

Thinking, as a rule, is more concerned with impersonal principles and facts than with personal value judgments, emotions, and concerns, which is Feeling's domain.

Where Ti differs from Te is in the amount it allows subjective vs. objective influence on its decision-making process. Te is a bit like a judge--the law is set out before them, and they must decide in accordance with it. They may introduce some subjective reasoning if they feel it is necessary, but their job is ultimately to rule according to a standard which is ultimately separate from themselves and would be useless if they ignored it whenever they felt like it. 

Ti, on the other hand, I like to compare to an inventor. An inventor may use objective facts like math, science, and logic when they are conceptualizing their idea, but ultimately the idea is subjective, and the fact of whether or not the complete invention will work is subjective, too. It may someday be brought into the realm of the objective when the invention is constructed and tested, but until that point, the inventor's ultimate standard is whether or not it makes sense to them. Someone else can rail on their idea all day, but it won't mean anything because, compared to the inventor, they haven't conceptualized all the countless little factors that must checked and put in their place as they influence one another and contribute to the answer of the overall question: will this machine work, and how can I know without actually testing it? If someone else convinces them that the invention is a bad idea, it will only be because the argument triggered some sort of change in the internal framework that the inventor determined would alter the end result in an unacceptable way.

In short, Ti is about making true-false judgments--not according to an external standard, but according to an internal standard that is developed from the individual's experiences, ideas, and logical determinations.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

Ti - subjective logic
Te - objective logic


----------



## toshiro (Jun 24, 2013)

lycanized said:


> Backwards, actually


I don't think so. Te is synonymous with empiricism. Ti is personal subjective knowledge.

There's a reason Ni/Te is associated with science while Ti/Ne is associated with philosophy.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

toshiro said:


> I don't think so. Te is synonymous with empiricism. Ti is personal subjective knowledge.
> 
> There's a reason Ni/Te is associated with science while Ti/Ne is associated with philosophy.


I think it was just because I have my own way of using words, now that I think about it


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> It seems to me that my Ti serves my Se. My Se is constantly seeking experiences and my Ti has to work nearly as much as my Se to keep up. Most things, I don't analyze unless it strikes my interest. If it strikes my interest, I'll gorge on it for awhile until I'm satisfied that I have a substantial understanding and/or experience. Most things, I pause to think, but it's quick. I seem to have answers IRL faster than other people. And this is where I wondered if my Ti is off because INTP's talk about taking so long to think about things. I'm sure I'm analyzing things. It's just I don't always go that deep and almost like a calculation without any intuitive leaps.


dominant Ti is often different from aux Ti.

my Ti can take both ways, that is I can be inside my mind and have Ti without much Se leading it and I can be on the move doing stuff in the Se attitude with Ti assisting and sometimes even Te, I think. it's a pretty different manifestation of Ti for sure. it's then just delving inside for only 1-2 secs here or there or not even that, staying unconscious then perhaps.

I still think there's Ti though because of what I said about my own understanding and framework to approach things e.g. to solve a problem. that's not always there though, then I will just totally improvise. (debatable if I have any Ti going on in *some* of those cases.)




> Interesting. This is goes back to the root of the question. Am I only using Ti when I sit quietly and analyze something. Or is my Ti working when I'm multi-tasking and dealing with stressful situations? If my Ti isn't assisting me most of the time, I've got one hell of a fantastic Se or Perception.


re-read what I said, I said it can be quick on the move  _"That analysis *can be quick/on the move *or slow/detailed depending on whatever."_


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

monemi said:


> It seems to me that my Ti serves my Se. My Se is constantly seeking experiences and my Ti has to work nearly as much as my Se to keep up. Most things, I don't analyze unless it strikes my interest. If it strikes my interest, I'll gorge on it for awhile until I'm satisfied that I have a substantial understanding and/or experience. Most things, I pause to think, but it's quick. I seem to have answers IRL faster than other people. And this is where I wondered if my Ti is off because INTP's talk about taking so long to think about things. I'm sure I'm analyzing things. It's just I don't always go that deep and almost like a calculation without any intuitive leaps.


Ya, I would also say 



monemi said:


> I fucking love compliments.


I enjoy reading your posts, you are a smart quick thinker and all round a very cool person. Can I haz a panda???


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

monemi said:


> Most things, I pause to think, but it's quick. I seem to have answers IRL faster than other people. And this is where I wondered if my Ti is off because INTP's talk about taking so long to think about things. I'm sure I'm analyzing things. It's just I don't always go that deep and almost like a calculation without any intuitive leaps.


This is because you have Ni instead of Ne. Ni is a convergent perception process, and therefore when you are thinking to yourself, you will reach a conclusion faster. And even faster if you aren't interested, not taking in much Se information. Ni only expands with more Se information - which is why when you are interested in something you ENGORGE the information about it - you need all that basis of information to be able to form more a more accurate Ni framework from it.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Sorry, chiming in with a question, do you think he's xSTP?
> 
> I kind of do that eureka thingie myself. Love it but it's not something I can control consciously.


Originally I deduced ENTJ, but ESTP was my second guess. My brother in law is an ESTP, an airplane mechanic, and he can display a pretty damn strong Ni when he starts talking about something like cars or instrumental music, so the two can really seem quite alike, especially later in life (he is 46).


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Revenant said:


> Ya, I would also say
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy reading your posts, you are a smart quick thinker and all round a very cool person. Can I haz a panda???












Excellent bribing material!


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> This is because you have Ni instead of Ne. Ni is a convergent perception process, and therefore when you are thinking to yourself, you will reach a conclusion faster. And even faster if you aren't interested, not taking in much Se information. Ni only expands with more Se information - which is why when you are interested in something you ENGORGE the information about it - you need all that basis of information to be able to form more a more accurate Ni framework from it.


hm that makes sense... though I don't think any of my Ni is really conscious by default. I just deal with the concrete data itself but sometimes I can feel there's a "background" to all of it. sorry hard to explain  then there's the eurekas sometimes  but even the result of those moments can be just a vague feeling of having it "right".

Ti in contrast with that "background" and eureka moments can get pretty conscious and I can consciously control the process.




Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Originally I deduced ENTJ, but ESTP was my second guess. My brother in law is an ESTP, an airplane mechanic, and he can display a pretty damn strong Ni when he starts talking about something like cars or instrumental music, so the two can really seem quite alike, especially later in life (he is 46).


umm, how do you mean that, does he talk about those two very different topics in the same manner or what? EDIT: nvm I think I understand. you meant ESTP and ENTJ look alike a lot. maybe. I can also seem an ENTJ...


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Originally I deduced ENTJ, but ESTP was my second guess. My brother in law is an ESTP, an airplane mechanic, and he can display a pretty damn strong Ni when he starts talking about something like cars or instrumental music, so the two can really seem quite alike, especially later in life (he is 46).


Ha! My background is aviation too! (I've worked with the mechanics, engineers and corporate clients as a communicator and exec assistant) ISTP's and ESTP's galore! And holy fucking shit mother of christ is there a lot of excessive swearing! :laughing: I'm from southeast London and spent half my childhood in a pub and there's enough swearing to make me pause. I can see where developing Ni would help the mechanics. So many times, seemingly unrelated problems (ACAS and LNAV) turn out to have a connected root cause after changing parts repeatedly and getting nowhere. Systematically checking it all step by step, could take months and cause new problems.


----------



## Snow (Oct 19, 2010)

Food for thought, thanks to a friend for linking this to me:

Dominant-Inferior Function Dynamics: Healthy vs. Unhealthy - Personality Junkie


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

The OP was rather specific in her request for information. I have read quite a few of her posts. Did I complement her? Perhaps if she appreciates the things I said. She may not.

You two are digging deep into minutia. You are thinking to be thinking with no regards to anyone else's needs or desires. This is not developed Fe behavior, but kudos for MEMORIZING all the silly mbti minutia. You are big on looking back on past experiences. Every third word is Me or My.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Se takes in the experiences. Ti processes it. So your Ti is any time you "think", or pause even a tiny bit.
ESTP's are KNOWN for having the quickest reflexes. Their brains are wired to deal with the environment. Excellent fighter pilots, race car drivers, etc. 

You use you Ti a LOT to filter anything. 
I do not have any Se to speak of, so my understanding of the Se is non existent. Sorry. 

I spent the evening with a good friend who is ESTP. I had forgotten how diplomatic she is, and how attuned she is to people's emotions and facial expressions. 
I help her with her office politics. She has not a clue what is going on at her office. She describes situations, and people, and I describe what is going on and make suggestions. She follows the suggestions sometimes, in a VERY diplomatic way, and is surprised when they work.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> The OP was rather specific in her request for information. I have read quite a few of her posts. Did I complement her? Perhaps if she appreciates the things I said. She may not.
> 
> You two are digging deep into minutia. You are thinking to be thinking with no regards to anyone else's needs or desires. This is not developed Fe behavior, but kudos for MEMORIZING all the silly mbti minutia. You are big on looking back on past experiences. Every third word is Me or My.


I assume "you two" refers to me too.

I did read OP and I did start my answer to that using a simple sum-up for my answer to it. So you're wrong about lacking regards for anyone else. I bet you didn't even read that post of mine. 

Then I delved into some things just because I wanted to. Not gonna apologize about using words like "me" and "my".

Btw I was not talking about past experiences. I talked about how my mind works. I like trying to see inside my mind.  Or other people's minds.  Has nothing to do with past experiences or memorizing MBTI.

I never said I had great Fe, I keep complaining about Fe, no news there. I'm even willing to consider ISTP over ESTP. I never complain about Ni. 

No kudos to you for generalizing in such a crappy way. Your conclusions are really fuckin' off.




drmiller100 said:


> Se takes in the experiences. Ti processes it. So your Ti is any time you "think", or pause even a tiny bit.
> ESTP's are KNOWN for having the quickest reflexes. Their brains are wired to deal with the environment. Excellent fighter pilots, race car drivers, etc.


Yes yes I do think it's Ti when I look inwards of 1-2 secs here or there. I wouldn't know how much of the reflex stuff is Se and how much of it is Ti. *shrug*




> You use you Ti a LOT to filter anything.
> I do not have any Se to speak of, so my understanding of the Se is non existent. Sorry.


That's okay if you don't have Se to speak of. Though I still don't understand the idea of how Ti is used to directly filter sensory input itself... makes no sense... if you're willing to elaborate, thanks for that.




> I spent the evening with a good friend who is ESTP. I had forgotten how diplomatic she is, and how attuned she is to people's emotions and facial expressions.
> I help her with her office politics. She has not a clue what is going on at her office. She describes situations, and people, and I describe what is going on and make suggestions. She follows the suggestions sometimes, in a VERY diplomatic way, and is surprised when they work.


Maybe she's some SF actually? Okay I'm not big on typing people so nevermind. Just a thought. How was this note on the ESTP friend relevant here anyway?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

If you are Se primary, your secondary can only be Ti or Fi.
So, either logic or how you feel about things are the choices.

If you are Ti, you filter for function, and look at things, and use logic.
If you are Fi, you filter based on how you feel about stuff, and how it makes you feel. 

F users tend to be much more emotional than T users.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> *If you are Se primary, your secondary can only be Ti or Fi.*
> So, either logic or how you feel about things are the choices.


I'd agree with the bolded. Eh on the rest.



drmiller100 said:


> If you are Ti, you filter for function, and look at things, and use logic.
> If you are Fi, you filter based on how you feel about stuff, and how it makes you feel.


Ti. Subjective filter for objective data. Logic-based understanding, but personal judgement.
_[Red is a nice color. I think red products are better designed visually.]_

Fi. Subjective filter for subjective data. Value-based understanding, with personal judgement. 
_[Red is a nice color. It fits me because it feels exciting and strong.]_

...do you see the difference in mindset despite the similar conclusion? One sees the object, but weighs it with the subjective. The other sees the qualities of the subject in the object, and completely disregards the objective for the subjective.



drmiller100 said:


> F users tend to be much more emotional than T users.


....No.

My INFP friend always had the cooler head between us. I was the one getting into fights, while he would be the one with a fist in my shirt, dragging me away from trouble. T and F does not decide the level of your emotional maturity. Your environment and your upbringing would be the greater factor in this regard.

F and T is not about being emotional or emotionless. It is about the focus- the direction and source from which a person makes a judgement. Do you place more priority on the object or the subject? Are you focused on what you can objectively know, or are you focused on what you subjectively understand?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> Se takes in the experiences. Ti processes it. So your Ti is any time you "think", or pause even a tiny bit.
> ESTP's are KNOWN for having the quickest reflexes. Their brains are wired to deal with the environment. Excellent fighter pilots, race car drivers, etc.
> 
> You use you Ti a LOT to filter anything.
> ...


I think all types have wide variants on how much they use each function. For instance, I think some ESTP's use Se more than others even though we all use Se primarily. Some use Ti to analyze things to death more and others, I think, use it more in a hit and run style. Engage Ti quickly and move onto the next sensory objective. Other's are more diplomatic and probably use their Fe more than others. As an example, if you watch interviews of sports players, many are ESTP's (obviously, not nearly all), but they are all very different in their interviews. 

It was probably the Se that noticed the lady wearing sunglasses with the insulated water bottle that smelled like scotch at the kindergarten drop off this morning. What do you think? Hair of the dog that bit her? Se is just plain old fun IMO. 

I don't mind their tangents. Interesting to read more perspectives.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

monemi said:


> I
> It was probably the Se that noticed the lady wearing sunglasses with the insulated water bottle that smelled like scotch at the kindergarten drop off this morning. What do you think? Hair of the dog that bit her? Se is just plain old fun IMO.


i know you enjoy the tangents. but I just like to argue, and nothing gives me free reign faster than someone who uses lots of words to prove they are smarter than I. 

I dated an ESFJ for a while. she noticed SO much about the world around us, and would point some of it out. Once it was pointed out, I could dig into opportunities and explain the phenomena. 

I don't notice nearly as much about the world around me, but I can "predict" future consequences better than she could.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

soppixo said:


> Ti. Subjective filter for objective data. Logic-based understanding, but personal judgement.
> _[Red is a nice color. I think red products are better designed visually.]_
> 
> Fi. Subjective filter for subjective data. Value-based understanding, with personal judgement.
> _[Red is a nice color. It fits me because it feels exciting and strong.]_


I'm really not nitpicking but I can do both examples.  Could you elaborate on what you think Fi is?




monemi said:


> I think all types have wide variants on how much they use each function.


I totally agree 




> For instance, I think some ESTP's use Se more than others even though we all use Se primarily. Some use Ti to analyze things to death more and others, I think, use it more in a hit and run style. Engage Ti quickly and move onto the next sensory objective. Other's are more diplomatic and probably use their Fe more than others. As an example, if you watch interviews of sports players, many are ESTP's (obviously, not nearly all), but they are all very different in their interviews.


Yeah. I kind of switch between the first two modes. The diplomatic mode can sometimes happen too but have to be in the mood for it or something.




> I don't mind their tangents. Interesting to read more perspectives.


+1 




drmiller100 said:


> i know you enjoy the tangents. but I just like to argue, and nothing gives me free reign faster than someone who uses lots of words to prove they are smarter than I.


I don't think amount of words are relevant to proving smartness. Sometimes a concise summary is great, and then sometimes a long explanation will be great. And neither version has anything to do with proving intellectual abilities.

Did you get upset over @_Frenetic Tranquility_ questioning your type or what? Just because this is getting really boring.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Did you get upset over @_Frenetic Tranquility_ questioning your type or what? Just because this is getting really boring.


Is it time for me to heat some popcorn? Damn you guys enjoy arguing! It's fantastic! Baiting each other all the way.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> i know you enjoy the tangents. but I just like to argue, and nothing gives me free reign faster than someone who uses lots of words to prove they are smarter than I.
> 
> I dated an ESFJ for a while. she noticed SO much about the world around us, and would point some of it out. Once it was pointed out, I could dig into opportunities and explain the phenomena.
> 
> I don't notice nearly as much about the world around me, but I can "predict" future consequences better than she could.


I don't know about you, but I never write a single word that is without a purpose - a very distinct purpose from "showing smartypantness". If I can be succinct, I will be, but often times more words are necessary to convey the full nuance of a situation, especially if it involves many intuitive leaps.

It's funny, because when I read the majority of your posts, I see alot of fluff, consistently. In fact, you say alot of things that are completely non-sequitor to the overarching purpose of the post. And I definitely mean non-sequitor, not just making intuitive leaps.

_Frankly, all I see is you talking about how intuitive and insightful you are, and very few actual examples of you doing either._

You claim that you enjoy arguments, but where exactly are your stances? I see you dodge points, and talk about random things, while not specifically addressing anything at all. Where is all the Ne/Ti you are supposed to have?

But I am an equal opportunist, and believe it or not I have absolutely nothing against you at all, despite the fact that I looooooovvveeeee teasing at you to see your reactions (although it's getting a little old, almost like fishing in a barrel).

Buuuuut, I would thoroughly enjoy seeing some insight out of you, if it's really there. Can you please dazzle us, pretttttyyyy please, with sugar and spice and all that other stuff? Dazzle with anything. If you are such a mathematician, maybe you can throw in some differential equations and some infinite sequences to prove your points?  I would *LOVE* to see this happen! Seriously. I might even give you a like!   Hell I might even create a second account just to give you a second like! What to call this account hmmm.....DrMillerAKAmyHERO! Yes that would work.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> Is it time for me to heat some popcorn? Damn you guys enjoy arguing! It's fantastic! Baiting each other all the way.


ehh lol. 

I wasn't baiting btw. but I see there's going to be a few more funny posts regardless. ;P


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> I'm really not nitpicking but I can do both examples.  Could you elaborate on what you think Fi is?


:| Sure everyone can do both. But what do you prefer? Which sentence jives more with you? I'd always describe my opinions and my ideas with the former, while my ISFP friend never fails to make statements along the lines of the latter.

For me, I prefer using an iPhone because I own a mac (Samsungs don't sync well with a mac), and Apple products have always had a long life for me- a matter of efficiency and measurable, objective criteria. While my ISFP friend prefers the iPhone because she likes its shape, the flatness of it and the "handsomeness" it exudes, she personally hates the iOs and doesn't use a mac at all- thus her criteria is subjective, a matter of how it looks and what feeling it gives her rather than whether its actually useful to her.

I wouldn't really think you prefer Ti too much. This level of unawareness in regards to differentiating your preference generally means that you notice things but rarely ever sit down and dissect it to its nth quality. You're only using Ji enough to do the job, but you don't really do it to the point of complete clarity and personal understanding. You rely more on outer opinions and outer answers to make sense of things rather than using self reflection and self analysis- which is both the strength and weakness of Ti-doms, our unwillingness to open up and seek a second opinion.

Generally, the best way to differentiate between Ti and Fi is to see it in action. You should look amongst the people you know as well, see if you have any Fi-dom friends to interact with / analyze (or best case, you have an ISTP friend and an ISFP friend who know each other). Then you'd probably understand the finer nuances of the differences between Ti and Fi. I wouldn't really go for an ESFP because the Se-dom thing gets in the way. My ESFP friend tends to use Fi just enough to get his way / get an answer out of me rather than actually positing a strong Fi-position of his own. Plus his opinion is easier to sway if I appeal to Te as compared to my ISFP friend who would hold on to her silly opinions come hell or high water.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

soppixo said:


> :| Sure everyone can do both. But what do you prefer? Which sentence jives more with you? I'd always describe my opinions and my ideas with the former, while my ISFP friend never fails to make statements along the lines of the latter.


It might just be the example itself wasn't the best one to try and illustrate the difference between Ti and Fi. At least it didn't make a lot of sense to me, not yet anyway. 

I mean the second one that was meant to illustrate Fi just sounded very sensory. To me anyway. It's possible I misinterpret the statement of "red feels exciting and strong". I thought of a pretty bright cool red when I read that example sentence.

And I guess the one for Ti was just a sort of constructed sentence because this way of saying "red products are better designed visually" feels very contrived to me. I mean, I will instantly ask in my mind reading that, "why/how are they better designed visually?" Didn't make a lot of sense to me, at this point anyway.

I'm truly sorry if I sound like nitpicking. The goal isn't nitpicking, I just like to see examples that are really spot-on to illustrate the concept well.




> For me, I prefer using an iPhone because I own a mac (Samsungs don't sync well with a mac), and Apple products have always had a long life for me- a matter of efficiency and measurable, objective criteria. While my ISFP friend prefers the iPhone because she likes its shape, the flatness of it and the "handsomeness" it exudes, she personally hates the iOs and doesn't use a mac at all- thus her criteria is subjective, a matter of how it looks and what feeling it gives her rather than whether its actually useful to her.


OK that example seems better actually.  I'm still wondering though, why's the ISFP criteria so sensory again? But yeah, it's more subjective than your criteria.

Okay hey let me analyse how I pick a phone to use. I go for certain functionality I require and I go for an OS that I'm able to control on a low level and one that has programs fulfilling certain required functionality. I don't need eye catching shit in the OS or in the programs I use. The phone itself doesn't have to look great either. Though I certainly don't have anything against a nice shiny look. Suppose that's pretty much a T preference eh?

However, just to complicate things here, I have the opposite example too in my life  One day I ordered a device for someone online. (I did this because people didn't know how to buy stuff from abroad and the device was only available in Japan.) Sooo, the thing arrived (had it shipped to my address so I could test it before delivering it) and I instantly fell in love with its looks. Haha. Such a nice shiny white and elegant chassis/body. I went and bought one for myself and yes used it too, after getting warmed up to the linux OS on it. (Naw, not android, this was a long time ago.) Actually I enjoyed tinkering a bit with the OS, it wasn't so bad and it could fulfill the required functionality pretty well. But you see I bought it before I could know for sure if it would fulfill my needs. Based on its looks, just like your ISFP friend chose her iphone.  I dunno, I attribute this to Se though. I don't understand where the Fi would be in that... What do you think? Let me know your explanation for this. 




> I wouldn't really think you prefer Ti too much. This level of unawareness in regards to differentiating your preference generally means that you notice things but rarely ever sit down and dissect it to its nth quality. You're only using Ji enough to do the job, but you don't really do it to the point of complete clarity and personal understanding. You rely more on outer opinions and outer answers to make sense of things rather than using self reflection and self analysis- which is both the strength and weakness of Ti-doms, our unwillingness to open up and seek a second opinion.


Wait wait.  You jumped to this conclusion from this one single case of me not understanding the first Ti/Fi example you gave? That's not really a conclusion based on much data so you might want to stay open for a little longer before placing a final judgement here. 

As for self-analysis, huh, by default it's analysis of data that I do, not myself. I mean data from the world, to understand it then to do something with it. 

My own self I just introspect, meaning I just watch for some interesting things going on, I notice them sometimes and wonder what that is. Sometimes I will be able to connect some theory with it (I like cognitive science) but that's not really about a final conclusion. More often it's just an observation where I think to myself oh this should be researched to figure out what it means, to explain it etc. I don't really manage to explain it scientifically because that obviously requires designing serious experiments and then executing them bleh. So I just have some thoughts on it is all.

Btw it's true I look at explanations made by others. But they have to make sense to *me*.

It's also true that I don't analyse everything I run into. Just some things but I do intensely analyse those things. And I can be pretty stubborn in accepting other opinions. :/




> Generally, the best way to differentiate between Ti and Fi is to see it in action. You should look amongst the people you know as well, see if you have any Fi-dom friends to interact with / analyze (or best case, you have an ISTP friend and an ISFP friend who know each other). Then you'd probably understand the finer nuances of the differences between Ti and Fi. I wouldn't really go for an ESFP because the Se-dom thing gets in the way. My ESFP friend tends to use Fi just enough to get his way / get an answer out of me rather than actually positing a strong Fi-position of his own. Plus his opinion is easier to sway if I appeal to Te as compared to my ISFP friend who would hold on to her silly opinions come hell or high water.


Eh, I was just curious about the example you gave as to how it explains Ti vs Fi. I suspect that in my life I might be running into a lot of Ti/Fi clashes but I am not sure. Yes I sound so sure of this business here don't I. What I know is this, there's some reason for the clashes and I'm curious about how existing different worldviews may relate to that.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

When I pick a phone, I make sure it isn't just touch screen. I want buttons. Whenever I need a new computer, phone, iPod or whatever, my ISFJ husband shakes his head. I've never looked at something computer like and thought "ooh shiny". Now, when we've bought cars, I have a tendency to get intense. Engine size, horsepower, torque, transmission, fuel consumption, handling etc... Just like I do with planes and bikes, I'll compare cars, analyze and obsess until I'm sure. Drives my husband nuts because he's just not into cars or engines in general or that sort of thing. Engines are beautiful.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> It might just be the example itself wasn't the best one to try and illustrate the difference between Ti and Fi. At least it didn't make a lot of sense to me, not yet anyway.


Probably. But its just an example to illustrate what I meant by an objective subject vs subjective subject. In the end, it isn't really meant to relate to anyone particularly but to show the differences in opinion between Ti and Fi via the usage of similar premises.

_What I meant by..._
...*objective subject* strives for objectivity from a subjective perspective. The subject is the source, the object the focus.
...*subjective subject* strives for subjectivity from a subjective perspective. The subject is both the source and the focus.



itsme45 said:


> II mean the second one that was meant to illustrate Fi just sounded very sensory. To me anyway. It's possible I misinterpret the statement of "red feels exciting and strong". I thought of a pretty bright cool red when I read that example sentence.


I should probably have mentioned that I was talking from the viewpoint of an ISFP since her Fi usage is most distinct and comparable to mine. Yeah, our perceiving function does affect our usage of our judging function. An INTP using Ti would probably feel more alien to me than an ISFP using Fi.



itsme45 said:


> And I guess the one for Ti was just a sort of constructed sentence because this way of saying "red products are better designed visually" feels very contrived to me. I mean, I will instantly ask in my mind reading that, "why/how are they better designed visually?" Didn't make a lot of sense to me, at this point anyway.


:| Alright. Well which statement can be better measured in objective terms? For better design, one can look at performance specs, quality of product, variety of design, ease of use etc- everything that is measurable and in a sense, "objective" regardless of personal opinion. For exciting and strong, everyone has a personal idea of what represents those qualities, red isn't necessarily the only or best choice here- and it is a more a matter of opinion / culture than truly measurable data.



itsme45 said:


> I'm truly sorry if I sound like nitpicking. The goal isn't nitpicking, I just like to see examples that are really spot-on to illustrate the concept well.


I'm afraid that is something that you would have to find for yourself. My examples make sense to me, but I know that it wouldn't necessarily jive with everyone else. I've trawled through the net looking for answers as well, but really the best answer I've found was through reading Jung's Psychological Types and then coming to my own conclusion through my own experiences.



itsme45 said:


> OK that example seems better actually.  I'm still wondering though, why's the ISFP criteria so sensory again? But yeah, it's more subjective than your criteria.


Because I'm using an ISFP as a model.



itsme45 said:


> Okay hey let me analyse how I pick a phone to use. I go for certain functionality I require and I go for an OS that I'm able to control on a low level and one that has programs fulfilling certain required functionality. I don't need eye catching shit in the OS or in the programs I use. The phone itself doesn't have to look great either. Though I certainly don't have anything against a nice shiny look. Suppose that's pretty much a T preference eh?


Yeah. Sounds T.



itsme45 said:


> However, just to complicate things here, I have the opposite example too in my life  One day I ordered a device for someone online. (I did this because people didn't know how to buy stuff from abroad and the device was only available in Japan.) Sooo, the thing arrived (had it shipped to my address so I could test it before delivering it) and I instantly fell in love with its looks. Haha. Such a nice shiny white and elegant chassis/body. I went and bought one for myself and yes used it too, after getting warmed up to the linux OS on it. (Naw, not android, this was a long time ago.) Actually I enjoyed tinkering a bit with the OS, it wasn't so bad and it could fulfill the required functionality pretty well. But you see I bought it before I could know for sure if it would fulfill my needs. Based on its looks, just like your ISFP friend chose her iphone.  I dunno, I attribute this to Se though. I don't understand where the Fi would be in that... What do you think? Let me know your explanation for this.


Not that it doesn't happen to me, but the thing is that I make most of my decisions in life using the former example of decision making than the latter. If you'd like to analyze why exactly this conflicting behavior manifests you need to first analyze your knee-jerk attraction, do you like it because it looks good or because it feels good to you?

Looking good is an impersonal attraction, you can admire its beauty but you don't see yourself in it. Its attractiveness is a quality separate from your person- you can depersonalize yourself and weigh it for its own merits. Feeling good is a personal attraction, you admire it because it is beautiful and makes you feel beautiful. Its attractiveness adds to your feeling of good will, it becomes a personal part of your identity and adds to your sense of self.

...I really don't know how else to convey my understanding beyond going back to the basics. Because examples can hit or miss depending on viewpoints.

Ti - Sees the subject as separate from the object. It views the object with a subjective viewpoint. The object still exists in its own capacity for Ti, but its qualities are understood subjectively.
Fi - Sees the subject as related to the object. It views the subject with a subjective viewpoint. The object has been absorbed into the identity of the subject, its qualities are only understood in relation to the subject.



itsme45 said:


> Wait wait.  You jumped to this conclusion from this one single case of me not understanding the first Ti/Fi example you gave? That's not really a conclusion based on much data so you might want to stay open for a little longer before placing a final judgement here.


No. From the entire thread. There have been exacting answers but you're always looking for an even more exact answer that fits your understanding of life and reality exactly. A Ti-dom would have long given up on the outside world in terms of providing those exacting answers and instead would have turned inwards in disappointment saying: "No one knows better than me after all..."

Judgements can always be revised. But I'm just stating things because I notice the differences. Whether or not it pans out depends on what information I perceive.



itsme45 said:


> As for self-analysis, huh, by default it's analysis of data that I do, not myself. I mean data from the world, to understand it then to do something with it.


Huh........I analyze myself compulsively. I have a bad habit of second-guessing myself and losing faith in my answers because I pick myself apart till I have no leg to stand on. Helps me firm up my belief by breaking down my convictions and attacking them till I can believe in them.



itsme45 said:


> My own self I just introspect, meaning I just watch for some interesting things going on, I notice them sometimes and wonder what that is. Sometimes I will be able to connect some theory with it (I like cognitive science) but that's not really about a final conclusion. More often it's just an observation where I think to myself oh this should be researched to figure out what it means, to explain it etc. I don't really manage to explain it scientifically because that obviously requires designing serious experiments and then executing them bleh. So I just have some thoughts on it is all.


Bleh experiments. But yeah, I can relate to your usage of introspection. I generally use Typing and Function to better understand the motivations and psychological makeup of a person, so I can better relate or communicate with them. I shift my communication styles and considerations based on the type I talk to, helps me be more understanding of them.

And yeah it fills another compulsive need of mine to understand, classify, observe and analyze. One reason why I really got into horoscopes and zodiacs at one point of my life because it was a fairly simply but flexible classification system that allowed me to divy up the people in my life and dissect them to the nth degree- basically I use these systems as tools, like a scalpel or a laser to cut open the people around me and peer into their insides.



itsme45 said:


> Btw it's true I look at explanations made by others. But they have to make sense to *me*.


:\ Tough luck. Most explanations I find, hold water until you go closer, then you notice the enormous leak at the bottom. One reason why I post is to better understand the ideas I hold and nothing does it better than actually having to write it down and talk about it. Though I don't really seek the opinions of others in terms of "Explain ABC to me" rather I seek them by trawling the net for a general idea of what ABC means, and then diving in depth into the meaning of A, B and C and synthesizing my own opinion of what it could be. Because honestly, no one can write answers that fully satisfy me, not even myself. But at least I know what I'm looking for.



itsme45 said:


> It's also true that I don't analyse everything I run into. Just some things but I do intensely analyse those things. And I can be pretty stubborn in accepting other opinions. :/


...I don't think its physically possible to analyze everything. But just that....your analysis seems to rely more on outside circumstances than inside reflection. You need to relate to it through the fixed position that you stand on, rather than shifting your perspective and viewpoint to see where that opinion might possibly have come from before deciding if its applicable or non-applicable to you.

I can see where you're coming from when you criticize my judgement of you, and the vagueness of my answers. The gap of understanding lies with my lack of elaboration and explanation- I posit an opinion then expect you to understand me. But to me that mode of subjective thinking is so natural that I expect others to be able to understand it for what it is- and when they don't I become frustrated and annoyed because that means that I have to explain myself, and that requires the questioning of my Ti system which is annoying because I have to check and verify that it wasn't formed on falsehoods or flaws. The moment I discover an error, an entire branch of knowledge has to be scrapped and reformed from the base which is both time consuming and draining.



itsme45 said:


> Eh, I was just curious about the example you gave as to how it explains Ti vs Fi. I suspect that in my life I might be running into a lot of Ti/Fi clashes but I am not sure. Yes I sound so sure of this business here don't I. What I know is this, there's some reason for the clashes and I'm curious about how existing different worldviews may relate to that.


Personal experience. Seriously, go and find an ISFP or an INFP in your life though the Ne kinda scrambles up the Fi. There is nothing like real life when it comes to differentiating functions. For all the blahblahblah we may type online, its still a 1D representation and much of the finer characteristics of each function can't be accurately conveyed or described.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Holy crap you STPs are writing so much, you must all be INTPs!!!!


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> When I pick a phone, I make sure it isn't just touch screen. I want buttons. Whenever I need a new computer, phone, iPod or whatever, my ISFJ husband shakes his head. I've never looked at something computer like and thought "ooh shiny". Now, when we've bought cars, I have a tendency to get intense. Engine size, horsepower, torque, transmission, fuel consumption, handling etc... Just like I do with planes and bikes, I'll compare cars, analyze and obsess until I'm sure. Drives my husband nuts because he's just not into cars or engines in general or that sort of thing. Engines are beautiful.


Heh, we're a bit similar there.  I don't just want buttons but a full hardware keyboard. That used to be more the hype a couple years back, it's harder to find such phones now...

Computers and phones are slightly different to me though. I never cared about how my PC looked. I don't care very much about how my phone looks either but I will at least notice its design since they started making more aesthetic designs.




soppixo said:


> Probably. But its just an example to illustrate what I meant by an objective subject vs subjective subject. In the end, it isn't really meant to relate to anyone particularly but to show the differences in opinion between Ti and Fi via the usage of similar premises.


I know it was just an example. I didn't say it needed to relate to a specific person. Just needs to illustrate the point *well*.




> I should probably have mentioned that I was talking from the viewpoint of an ISFP since her Fi usage is most distinct and comparable to mine. Yeah, our perceiving function does affect our usage of our judging function. An INTP using Ti would probably feel more alien to me than an ISFP using Fi.


That to me sounds weird. After all, the dominant function should be more defining than the auxiliary.

For me though, INTP and ESFP can be both good to talk to. Just in a very different way, obviously. As long as they are stereotypical enough I mean... 




> Alright. Well which statement can be better measured in objective terms? For better design, one can look at performance specs, quality of product, variety of design, ease of use etc- everything that is measurable and in a sense, "objective" regardless of personal opinion. For exciting and strong, everyone has a personal idea of what represents those qualities, red isn't necessarily the only or best choice here- and it is a more a matter of opinion / culture than truly measurable data.


I'm pretty sure there are actually studies on how colours _in general _affect mood. This is measurable data just as much as e.g. ease of use.




> I'm afraid that is something that you would have to find for yourself. My examples make sense to me, but I know that it wouldn't necessarily jive with everyone else. I've trawled through the net looking for answers as well, but really the best answer I've found was through reading Jung's Psychological Types and then coming to my own conclusion through my own experiences.


Yeah sure. I've already read Jung on Ti. I related to a lot in that Ti stuff to the point that it felt surreal. Tbh I related a lot more than to his description of Se.  Actually the definition of Se was okay, just the type description was crap and sure that doesn't matter so much. I did however relate to repressed Ni in the way he describes it but then I did also relate to Fe in the same way so whatever. 

Fi however is pretty alien seeming to me and that's what I actually asked you about in my first post to you.




> Because I'm using an ISFP as a model.


Alright I just don't see the Fi in the example, only the Se. My problem, I know. 
(Though your later writings about my example of picking a shiny device does help a bit.)




> Not that it doesn't happen to me, but the thing is that I make most of my decisions in life using the former example of decision making than the latter. If you'd like to analyze why exactly this conflicting behavior manifests you need to first analyze your knee-jerk attraction, do you like it because it looks good or because it feels good to you?
> 
> Looking good is an impersonal attraction, you can admire its beauty but you don't see yourself in it. Its attractiveness is a quality separate from your person- you can depersonalize yourself and weigh it for its own merits. Feeling good is a personal attraction, you admire it because it is beautiful and makes you feel beautiful. Its attractiveness adds to your feeling of good will, it becomes a personal part of your identity and adds to your sense of self.
> 
> ...I really don't know how else to convey my understanding beyond going back to the basics. Because examples can hit or miss depending on viewpoints.


Don't worry, I think you are actually good at explaining things. That original post was pretty short with just a quick example after all. 

So, which one is it for me... Your explanation was really good here in making the distinction between two approaches. And there's been some new things there too.  I mean, I don't even begin to understand the idea of seeing myself in the beauty of some object. How is that supposed to make me feel beautiful LOL weird idea. It sounds even more weird that someone would connect the concept of "good will" to a nice looking shiny object. That just doesn't make sense to me. :S Maybe it does to Fi types though? Me, I simply like the aesthetic quality of a beautiful object on its own, no more. No personalized sense of identity.

So did you mean that's just Se then if it's a depersonalized approach to the attractive object? (Note, Jung might also say Fe... who knows.  )




> Ti - Sees the subject as separate from the object. It views the object with a subjective viewpoint. The object still exists in its own capacity for Ti, but its qualities are understood subjectively.
> Fi - Sees the subject as related to the object. It views the subject with a subjective viewpoint. The object has been absorbed into the identity of the subject, its qualities are only understood in relation to the subject.


Hmm okay but this sort of summary is full of concepts that are not quite explained. Of course I know what Jung's definition of "subjective" and "objective" is, I just mean that in general such a summary has that kind of problem if the aim is to explain something thoroughly. I don't have a problem with summaries otherwise. 

A definition here is new to me though, how do you mean the object still exists "in its own capacity" for Ti? Doesn't that go against introversion? If it doesn't, then I might actually be an introvert in this sense... I always went for extravert due to my stance of viewing the object and not just myself as a subject.

And I will admit I don't truly understand the part about Fi being doubly subjective in this way. I understand on a theoretical level to an extent, eh I suppose I would have to be xxFP to "get it" more. 




> No. From the entire thread. There have been exacting answers but you're always looking for an even more exact answer that fits your understanding of life and reality exactly. A Ti-dom would have long given up on the outside world in terms of providing those exacting answers and instead would have turned inwards in disappointment saying: "No one knows better than me after all..."
> 
> Judgements can always be revised. But I'm just stating things because I notice the differences. Whether or not it pans out depends on what information I perceive.


Well me looking in the world, that could be extraversion, dunno. That idea I can accept no problem. What I took issue with was not this but the idea that I have nearly as much Fi as Ti because neither is really preferred that much over the other. I disagree there. So far the most likely option for me has been that if I'm not Ti-dom then I have a differentiated aux Ti. Honestly I like the latter option more. Somehow the idea of being an introvert and having inferior Fe sounds too terrible to me  But that doesn't mean anything :/

Not even sure how the above that you wrote has anything to do with that conclusion of yours. Do you just mean it sounded Te > Ti for you?

I also disagree that I expect someone to hand me an exact answer on my questions. Nope, I'm not capable of taking an answer "as is" in terms of that. I get data and theories from other people and then I will analyse them for myself. Questioning them is part of that process. An ENFP acquaintance once noted about me - very correctly - that my way of processing things is to "go against" them first and then build it all for myself. He initially didn't like my "going against" but he was ok after seeing that I was actually considering things, just doing so in my own way.

I hope that helps you understand why I disagree with your judgment.




> Huh........I analyze myself compulsively. I have a bad habit of second-guessing myself and losing faith in my answers because I pick myself apart till I have no leg to stand on. Helps me firm up my belief by breaking down my convictions and attacking them till I can believe in them.


That doesn't sound too reassuring yea. :O
I can and will sometimes reanalyse my own answers or thoughts but it doesn't feel too bad to me 




> Bleh experiments. But yeah, I can relate to your usage of introspection. I generally use Typing and Function to better understand the motivations and psychological makeup of a person, so I can better relate or communicate with them. I shift my communication styles and considerations based on the type I talk to, helps me be more understanding of them.


I would be wary of changing communication style just because you know what four letters a person decided to identify with. Or, if you tried to type them yourself, that still has the unacceptable catch that you may not know them well enough to look inside their minds deep enough for that. If you do actually look "inside" a bit, meaning they assist you in doing so then great. Then I can see it as actually useful.
That's my opinion on this. *shrug*




> And yeah it fills another compulsive need of mine to understand, classify, observe and analyze. One reason why I really got into horoscopes and zodiacs at one point of my life because it was a fairly simply but flexible classification system that allowed me to divy up the people in my life and dissect them to the nth degree- basically I use these systems as tools, like a scalpel or a laser to cut open the people around me and peer into their insides.


Ok that's something I don't relate to so easily. My view of the mind by default is different so I use categories in a different way, relating to the brain on a general level instead of different people. Sure, MBTI is something I can use for analysing differences between people but it's kind of a newer approach for me than that other view I mentioned above.




> Tough luck. Most explanations I find, hold water until you go closer, then you notice the enormous leak at the bottom.


My sentiments exactly. 




> One reason why I post is to better understand the ideas I hold and nothing does it better than actually having to write it down and talk about it. Though I don't really seek the opinions of others in terms of "Explain ABC to me" rather I seek them by trawling the net for a general idea of what ABC means, and then diving in depth into the meaning of A, B and C and synthesizing my own opinion of what it could be. Because honestly, no one can write answers that fully satisfy me, not even myself. But at least I know what I'm looking for.


Yeah that's my approach too. I might be asking questions more often than you do, though. Unless I have a really really thorough material (book or something) in front of me. Then I will ask the questions to myself and will be able to answer them. With MBTI, having such ready access to such material is not really an option heh.




> ...I don't think its physically possible to analyze everything. But just that....your analysis seems to rely more on outside circumstances than inside reflection. You need to relate to it through the fixed position that you stand on, rather than shifting your perspective and viewpoint to see where that opinion might possibly have come from before deciding if its applicable or non-applicable to you.


What do you mean by "fixed position"?

Why do you think I don't ever shift perspective? That though might be some N thing where I'm weak.




> I can see where you're coming from when you criticize my judgement of you


Or not (yet). 




> The gap of understanding lies with my lack of elaboration and explanation- I posit an opinion then expect you to understand me. But to me that mode of subjective thinking is so natural that I expect others to be able to understand it for what it is- and when they don't I become frustrated and annoyed because that means that I have to explain myself, and that requires the questioning of my Ti system which is annoying because I have to check and verify that it wasn't formed on falsehoods or flaws. The moment I discover an error, an entire branch of knowledge has to be scrapped and reformed from the base which is both time consuming and draining.


Hmm I understand you there no worries. I guess for some reason I don't mind explaining, I'm actually too f***ing patient about it  (even when I sound heated/annoyed to others.) That I suppose is something that's hard to relate to MBTI functions, dunno.




> Personal experience. Seriously, go and find an ISFP or an INFP in your life though the Ne kinda scrambles up the Fi. There is nothing like real life when it comes to differentiating functions. For all the blahblahblah we may type online, its still a 1D representation and much of the finer characteristics of each function can't be accurately conveyed or described.


I don't think it's enough to just find some IxFP for that. Maybe if it's 100 of them in 100 different contexts. 

Seriously though, it could be sufficient if I took one real life situation that's a really good sample and analyse that one very closely. In such a thorough way that other people wouldn't understand why I bother so much. lol. But yes, that could work. Until then, I'm just asking people about Fi, that can help a bit too.

Just a quick note, Ne shouldn't scramble up Fi more than Se does... or why do you think it would do that?


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> That to me sounds weird. After all, the dominant function should be more defining than the auxiliary.


Judging functions are always influenced and informed by perceiving functions. Before a person makes a judgement they need to take stock of a situation, and different perceiving functions prioritize different things in terms of attention and importance- thereby they affect the judgement produced because they feed it different perspectives of data.



itsme45 said:


> For me though, INTP and ESFP can be both good to talk to. Just in a very different way, obviously. As long as they are stereotypical enough I mean...


I guess. Though I'm talking more from personal experience, since the ESFPs in my life tend to be less focused and clear about Fi. Still haven't met an INTP yet. But my INFP best friend's usage of Fi feels more obscure and not as easy to grasp as my ISFP friend.



itsme45 said:


> I'm pretty sure there are actually studies on how colours _in general _affect mood. This is measurable data just as much as e.g. ease of use.


Sure. But then again culture also plays a big role. White is used for weddings, and are seen as holy and pure in Western cultures. While White represents death, despair and regrets for the Eastern culture. It is subject to more exceptions and "...if you look at it in this context" clauses than ease of use, which can be adapted and measured across cultural and social boundaries.



itsme45 said:


> Yeah sure. I've already read Jung on Ti. I related to a lot in that Ti stuff to the point that it felt surreal. Tbh I related a lot more than to his description of Se.  Actually the definition of Se was okay, just the type description was crap and sure that doesn't matter so much. I did however relate to repressed Ni in the way he describes it but then I did also relate to Fe in the same way so whatever.
> 
> Fi however is pretty alien seeming to me and that's what I actually asked you about in my first post to you.


I don't just mean the section on functions. But the entire book........since his premise is also important in understanding what he means by the subject and the object. He spends the first few hundred pages differentiating between them with the use of literary figures, contemporaries and etc before building the I, E, T, F, S, N stuff on top of that premise.

Besides, I didn't read Jung looking for a concise description of the functions (well I did, but I gave up on it because Jung is anything but concise lol), rather I read it to better understand what sort of system he was creating and on what basis it was created upon. I wanted to grasp the basics so I could build an understanding of it from his progression rather than going to the end theory and attempting to puzzle it out from the back end instead. Besides Jung is (supposedly) an INFJ, so I wouldn't be surprised that the Se description doesn't sit well with you since it comes from the opposite end.



itsme45 said:


> Alright I just don't see the Fi in the example, only the Se. My problem, I know.
> (Though your later writings about my example of picking a shiny device does help a bit.)
> 
> Don't worry, I think you are actually good at explaining things. That original post was pretty short with just a quick example after all.


Nah. Its no one's problem. Simply a matter of perspective and differing life experience. Can't exactly blame you for having a different life than mine lol.

Oh....thanks. 



itsme45 said:


> So, which one is it for me... Your explanation was really good here in making the distinction between two approaches. And there's been some new things there too.  I mean, I don't even begin to understand the idea of seeing myself in the beauty of some object. How is that supposed to make me feel beautiful LOL weird idea. It sounds even more weird that someone would connect the concept of "good will" to a nice looking shiny object. That just doesn't make sense to me. :S Maybe it does to Fi types though? Me, I simply like the aesthetic quality of a beautiful object on its own, no more. No personalized sense of identity.


I boggle at it sometimes. But hanging out with lots of SFPs have desensitized me to their attachment to aesthetics. They do it because they feel good doing it, simple as that to them. Doesn't matter that its foolish in the long run, or basically a waste of time and resources. Just as long it holds some meaning to them still, that they can see it, admire it, and then feel good through that appreciation, that is all that matters. 

Like how an ESFP friend of mine loves women's shoes- they're basically useless to him since he is a big buff guy who identifies as a man, but he admires their cut, loves the style and wishes he could wear them anyway. He gets pissed off at me because I can't be bothered with dressing up and I refuse to model for him anyway- thereby not allowing him to fully engage in his appreciation of the Fi-ner stuff in life.



itsme45 said:


> So did you mean that's just Se then if it's a depersonalized approach to the attractive object? (Note, Jung might also say Fe... who knows.  )


All extroverted functions depersonalize. Thinking strives for depersonalization. But because Introverted Thinking is personal, it can only strive for it, but not necessarily achieve it.



itsme45 said:


> Hmm okay but this sort of summary is full of concepts that are not quite explained. Of course I know what Jung's definition of "subjective" and "objective" is, I just mean that in general such a summary has that kind of problem if the aim is to explain something thoroughly. I don't have a problem with summaries otherwise.
> 
> A definition here is new to me though, how do you mean the object still exists "in its own capacity" for Ti? Doesn't that go against introversion? If it doesn't, then I might actually be an introvert in this sense... I always went for extravert due to my stance of viewing the object and not just myself as a subject.
> 
> And I will admit I don't truly understand the part about Fi being doubly subjective in this way. I understand on a theoretical level to an extent, eh I suppose I would have to be xxFP to "get it" more.


Uh....The object exists in its own capacity, because Ti strives for objectivity. It does not want to project itself onto the object. It does not want to reflect its own biases and preconceived ideas onto the object. It simply wants to be able to weigh and measure the object as objectively as it is possible with its subjective focus. ...it is hard to explain such concepts.

Like say, someone asks me if I like a piece of art. Subjectively, I would say that it doesn't appeal to me, the style and visuals are unappealing. But objectively, I can see it as a work worthy of compliment for its well-formed design, being executed on firm rules of aesthetics and having a solid concept. Like....just because I don't like it, doesn't make it bad nor would it be good, just because I like it. My personal feelings are separate from the inherent qualities of the object. Even though they color my opinion, I'm able to depersonalize and see my judgement as separate from the good or bad about the object.

Fi-users find it harder to do that. Because good and bad are so personal to them. A more extreme example...My ESFP friend has a habit of doing assholish things to others. Like he feels justified in bartering an uneven exchange just because he doesn't like a person. He would shortchange a bus driver and then argue when he is caught simply because he felt like he wasn't getting his money's worth despite riding the bus all the way to his destination. Being Ti, I simply can't see things like that. Even if I were mistreated, I have no right to shortchange a service I have throughly made use of. The terms of exchange are clear so if I used it, I should pay for it regardless of my own personal misgivings.



itsme45 said:


> Well me looking in the world, that could be extraversion, dunno. That idea I can accept no problem. What I took issue with was not this but the idea that I have nearly as much Fi as Ti because neither is really preferred that much over the other. I disagree there. So far the most likely option for me has been that if I'm not Ti-dom then I have a differentiated aux Ti. Honestly I like the latter option more. Somehow the idea of being an introvert and having inferior Fe sounds too terrible to me  But that doesn't mean anything :/
> 
> Not even sure how the above that you wrote has anything to do with that conclusion of yours. Do you just mean it sounded Te > Ti for you?


I'm positing the latter option. Where your aux-Ti functions at a lower level of priority than dom-Ti users. Thereby resulting in a different reaction. Not that you sound Te. Tbh, Te is the Judging function that I have the most trouble with understanding. I understand Fe-users better than Te-users.



itsme45 said:


> I also disagree that I expect someone to hand me an exact answer on my questions. Nope, I'm not capable of taking an answer "as is" in terms of that. I get data and theories from other people and then I will analyse them for myself. Questioning them is part of that process. An ENFP acquaintance once noted about me - very correctly - that my way of processing things is to "go against" them first and then build it all for myself. He initially didn't like my "going against" but he was ok after seeing that I was actually considering things, just doing so in my own way.
> 
> I hope that helps you understand why I disagree with your judgment.


Ah its fine. I think my beef with your replies lies in my natural disinclination to want to explain myself. I tend to formulate theories by listening to them, and then weeding it out internally rather than externally. My dad used to get annoyed at me because I'd seem to be listening to him, but I'd go out and do whatever I decided on anyway.



itsme45 said:


> I would be wary of changing communication style just because you know what four letters a person decided to identify with. Or, if you tried to type them yourself, that still has the unacceptable catch that you may not know them well enough to look inside their minds deep enough for that. If you do actually look "inside" a bit, meaning they assist you in doing so then great. Then I can see it as actually useful.
> That's my opinion on this. *shrug*


Nah, I don't really fix them into boxes or change myself drastically to fit them. I try to maintain an open mind to any errors in my judgement. But generally I only type those I know very well. I use typing mainly to decide if I'm going to approach with a T-voice or a F-voice. Some react better when I prioritize Fe in communications, some react well when I prioritize Ti in communications. That is mainly how I "shift" communication styles. Typing is too draining otherwise. I don't really want to know every little bit about how their minds work, only enough for me to smoothly interact with them / relate to them or to receive insights about the human psyche.



itsme45 said:


> Ok that's something I don't relate to so easily. My view of the mind by default is different so I use categories in a different way, relating to the brain on a general level instead of different people. Sure, MBTI is something I can use for analysing differences between people but it's kind of a newer approach for me than that other view I mentioned above.


Even the best tools are useless if they don't do the job. I had a need to understand because I couldn't relate, and this system helps me do that, so it works in that capacity for me.



itsme45 said:


> Yeah that's my approach too. I might be asking questions more often than you do, though. Unless I have a really really thorough material (book or something) in front of me. Then I will ask the questions to myself and will be able to answer them. With MBTI, having such ready access to such material is not really an option heh.


I don't ask questions because its a hassle. To me, if I can answer it or find some clue / direction through google, why would I bother asking others? Though this slipshod method does lead to problems if I'm not discerning enough with my information and my understanding, I find that it is adequate enough to work for me at a hobby / partial interest level.



itsme45 said:


> What do you mean by "fixed position"?
> 
> Why do you think I don't ever shift perspective? That though might be some N thing where I'm weak.
> 
> Or not (yet).


The need to pursue a line of questioning to the end. I generally ask questions to gauge the direction of the conversation- from there I'd formulate their most probable perspective, and attempt to pinpoint what they'd focus on. After that I only ask further questions to clarify minor details- fine tune the perspective. If I can see where they're coming from, and where they're heading towards I would stop the questioning at that point and just produce a judgement. If I can see the trajectory, I'd rather skip to the end than to progress step by step painstakingly despite the higher clarity and accuracy.

Possibly related to Ni. But I prefer not to spell every last alphabet out if I can help it. Someone with a more fluid grasp on perspective can help fill in the blanks without needing me to go into detail. So I probably made the judgement from that. A little to hastily, perhaps.



itsme45 said:


> Hmm I understand you there no worries. I guess for some reason I don't mind explaining, I'm actually too f***ing patient about it  (even when I sound heated/annoyed to others.) That I suppose is something that's hard to relate to MBTI functions, dunno.


lol. For all that I may whine about being too lazy to elaborate, I like explaining things because they crystallize my understanding of concepts. Though....it just takes effort to do so and isn't really all that enjoyable. bleh. So I posit and hope that whoever views it would get what I'm saying without needing me to talk more about it.



itsme45 said:


> I don't think it's enough to just find some IxFP for that. Maybe if it's 100 of them in 100 different contexts.
> 
> Seriously though, it could be sufficient if I took one real life situation that's a really good sample and analyse that one very closely. In such a thorough way that other people wouldn't understand why I bother so much. lol. But yes, that could work. Until then, I'm just asking people about Fi, that can help a bit too.
> 
> Just a quick note, Ne shouldn't scramble up Fi more than Se does... or why do you think it would do that?


Hahaha... or just one really disturbed IxFP.

Probably. The main thing is interacting with someone who prefers Fi, and who lives and breathes through Fi-goggles.

Personal experience. Se translates easier to me since I understand what they're looking at. I spent at least a year just lost in communication with my INFP bestie, trying to understand the Ne-perspective and while we still aren't really on the same page in that regards, but it was a fulfilling friendship that I learnt a lot from. On the other hand I had an almost instantaneous understanding between my ISFP friend and me- though our friendship is lacking in some aspects.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

soppixo said:


> Sure. But then again culture also plays a big role. White is used for weddings, and are seen as holy and pure in Western cultures. While White represents death, despair and regrets for the Eastern culture. It is subject to more exceptions and "...if you look at it in this context" clauses than ease of use, which can be adapted and measured across cultural and social boundaries.


Oh not important but I'll mention for clarification that I was only talking about moods, not concepts in terms of the effects of colours. What counts as "ease of use" can be rather subjective too.





> I don't just mean the section on functions. But the entire book........since his premise is also important in understanding what he means by the subject and the object. He spends the first few hundred pages differentiating between them with the use of literary figures, contemporaries and etc before building the I, E, T, F, S, N stuff on top of that premise.
> 
> Besides, I didn't read Jung looking for a concise description of the functions (well I did, but I gave up on it because Jung is anything but concise lol), rather I read it to better understand what sort of system he was creating and on what basis it was created upon. I wanted to grasp the basics so I could build an understanding of it from his progression rather than going to the end theory and attempting to puzzle it out from the back end instead. Besides Jung is (supposedly) an INFJ, so I wouldn't be surprised that the Se description doesn't sit well with you since it comes from the opposite end.


Do you have an ebook of the entire book? (If you do, do PM me please!  ) Because I could only find that chapter X thing.  it does talk about more than just functions though. And I found all of it interesting.

I dunno about Jung's type, there's way too much speculation going on about that. The Se stuff just... seems so simple. And yes I feel some sort of negative judgment being there (by Jung) about the description 




> All extroverted functions depersonalize. Thinking strives for depersonalization. But because Introverted Thinking is personal, it can only strive for it, but not necessarily achieve it.
> 
> Uh....The object exists in its own capacity, because Ti strives for objectivity. It does not want to project itself onto the object. It does not want to reflect its own biases and preconceived ideas onto the object. It simply wants to be able to weigh and measure the object as objectively as it is possible with its subjective focus. ...it is hard to explain such concepts.


Ok that totally makes sense. Just as I said the Fi thing is harder to "get" haha. Understandably...




> Like say, someone asks me if I like a piece of art. Subjectively, I would say that it doesn't appeal to me, the style and visuals are unappealing. But objectively, I can see it as a work worthy of compliment for its well-formed design, being executed on firm rules of aesthetics and having a solid concept. Like....just because I don't like it, doesn't make it bad nor would it be good, just because I like it. My personal feelings are separate from the inherent qualities of the object. Even though they color my opinion, I'm able to depersonalize and see my judgement as separate from the good or bad about the object.


Interesting. If I got that question asked, I'd just answer "yes" or "no". I interpret the question as me personally liking to look at it or not. But it's hard to analyse why. Maybe appealing to Ni 

The question of "is this art good or bad" doesn't really compute for me  I can't really decide that myself about art can I? It's all about subjective impressions for me and who am I to judge the piece of art objectively when someone else may have a different subjective impression.

(Of course there's the question of what's even considered as art then. In that sense I may be able to judge based on certain principles)




> Fi-users find it harder to do that. Because good and bad are so personal to them. A more extreme example...My ESFP friend has a habit of doing assholish things to others. Like he feels justified in bartering an uneven exchange just because he doesn't like a person. He would shortchange a bus driver and then argue when he is caught simply because he felt like he wasn't getting his money's worth despite riding the bus all the way to his destination. Being Ti, I simply can't see things like that. Even if I were mistreated, I have no right to shortchange a service I have throughly made use of. The terms of exchange are clear so if I used it, I should pay for it regardless of my own personal misgivings.


Hmm yeah... I may think it's too expensive for whatever reasons, none of them including "don't like the bus driver because he mistreated me". 




> I'm positing the latter option. Where your aux-Ti functions at a lower level of priority than dom-Ti users. Thereby resulting in a different reaction. Not that you sound Te. Tbh, Te is the Judging function that I have the most trouble with understanding. I understand Fe-users better than Te-users.


Yes this is quite possible... though I'm not totally convinced  Eh, I get Te to some extent but not Fi 




> Nah, I don't really fix them into boxes or change myself drastically to fit them. I try to maintain an open mind to any errors in my judgement. But generally I only type those I know very well. I use typing mainly to decide if I'm going to approach with a T-voice or a F-voice. Some react better when I prioritize Fe in communications, some react well when I prioritize Ti in communications. That is mainly how I "shift" communication styles. Typing is too draining otherwise. I don't really want to know every little bit about how their minds work, only enough for me to smoothly interact with them / relate to them or to receive insights about the human psyche.


I like that idea about it helping with communications but it doesn't really want to work out in practice*. I'm thinking pinpointing a whole specific type might just overcomplicate things. I agree typing is pretty draining if the type is not obvious right away 

*: for me, obviously. I find that certain general principles might work better for communication than MBTI...




> The need to pursue a line of questioning to the end. I generally ask questions to gauge the direction of the conversation- from there I'd formulate their most probable perspective, and attempt to pinpoint what they'd focus on. After that I only ask further questions to clarify minor details- fine tune the perspective. If I can see where they're coming from, and where they're heading towards I would stop the questioning at that point and just produce a judgement. If I can see the trajectory, I'd rather skip to the end than to progress step by step painstakingly despite the higher clarity and accuracy.


We're pretty different there. I mean, I don't try to predict much like that unless it's blatantly obvious. That's because I just don't like speculation -.-

You're right, I like to get an answer to my questions, in terms of that I do pursue it to the end. Doesn't exclude perspective shifting midway though.




> Personal experience. Se translates easier to me since I understand what they're looking at. I spent at least a year just lost in communication with my INFP bestie, trying to understand the Ne-perspective and while we still aren't really on the same page in that regards, but it was a fulfilling friendship that I learnt a lot from. On the other hand I had an almost instantaneous understanding between my ISFP friend and me- though our friendship is lacking in some aspects.


Oh yeah it might just be the issue of not having *both* Ne *and* Fi.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> but can't Te also be precise?


Te is precise. Te is very precise actually, but it's another kind of precision entirely. With Te, it's more about understanding the exact qualities of another object exactly as they are (it might be biased with Se from my end also). For example, a kilo weights exactly a kilo, so you can see especially in more anal Te types like the dominant ones, when dealing with say, weight, the exact weight is 4.5982 kilos or somesuch. If pushing Te logic to the absolute extreme, rounding up/down and so on, simply makes it too imprecise and in the long run this imprecision is going to reduce your well, precision and thus, efficiency and accuracy with other things that this exact measurement pertains to. 

As a creative user, I'm less concerned about such precision because I find it quite irrelevant since this precision is only there to help me explain an idea or a concept I've formulated. Even here, the Te precision is there to exemplify but not as concrete absolutes.

In this sense it's probably very easy to mistake Te for sensing, because Te deals with the very concrete reality of the actual properties of an object in an impersonal, logically defined, sense. I try to provide an example how Te differs from Se, but I might probably fail somewhat, but imagine I am describing my computer. Te logic would describe its exact properties:

My computer is an AMD quadcore running at 3.1 Ghz 
4 GB RAM
Nvidia Geforce 460 GTX OC 

and so on.

Se would be more describing how it's experienced: 
My computer case is grey, the harddrive is slow and bottlenecks the system and so on. 

I'm curious how SeTi types would say Se differs to how I experience Se, since Se for me is definitely tinted with Fi. I was tempted to add that the my slow harddrive is a cause of great frustration but then it just moves more into Fi-land of describing how what you are experiencing is good/bad.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

soppixo said:


> I gave up on it because Jung is anything but concise lol


lol, yes, indeed. I don't understand how that man saw himself as a Ti type based on this, because Jung even states several times that he dislikes defining concepts too much and he several times indirectly mock those whose thinking is based on definitions only. He clearly sees definitions as somewhat missing the point and depth of what things are - so Ni of him. I agree that he's an INFJ/IEI. I utterly fail to see how a Ti dominant would consciously choose to shy away from creating definitions within a system they themselves created. Isn't that where the fun lies for the Ti type?

And eh, since there is a slight discussion regarding Fi, like with the example of the phone, the way I would base my decision would be like this:

Does the phone fulfill the functions I demand it to fulfill? (Te)
Does the phone fulfill the aesthetic requirements I have on the phone? (SeFi)

If both of these apply, chances are that I will actually like the phone. I don't think I could buy a phone that I think looks ugly but in all other regards function well. I might in fact settle for somewhat less in prestanda if I can get something that looks better but operates the same way. 

But similarly, I doubt I would ever buy a phone who just looks great but has no real depth to it in terms of function and design. In a sense it makes sense that it actually all kind of feeds Ni if you look at it this way, because it must all fit one conceptual idea that I have of what a good phone is, and these are just my axioms to fulfill that requirement. 

As for Fi itself, I guess for me, it manifests the easiest in some kind of like/dislike and it's important I feel that I formulated this like/dislike independently of other people and their opinions. It's my opinion, not someone else's. Similar to @soppixo, I also experience frustration when people don't seem to just inherently grasp and understand what I am saying no matter how much it feels I am elaborating. The emotional rage I feel is something I'd very much attribute to Fi in that I start making judgements about these people's character: they are stupid, uneducated, don't understand and so on. In other words one could say what I'm really trying to express is a sense that they are "bad" people for not being able to automatically grasp my mind content and I experience this occurs often, extremely often.

On a curious sidenote, I've been thinking for some time how other non-ILIs actually experience ILI cognition. Does it seem warped, weird, mystical, conceptual on a level that just seems out of touch with reality and so on to you? I find my cognition perfectly normal obviously, since I live in it, but what do other people think more than the fact I seem to come across as quite dry in text?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> In this sense it's probably very easy to mistake Te for sensing, because Te deals with the very concrete reality of the actual properties of an object in an impersonal, logically defined, sense. I try to provide an example how Te differs from Se, but I might probably fail somewhat, but imagine I am describing my computer. Te logic would describe its exact properties


Thanks that example works for me 




> I'm curious how SeTi types would say Se differs to how I experience Se, since Se for me is definitely tinted with Fi. I was tempted to add that the my slow harddrive is a cause of great frustration but then it just moves more into Fi-land of describing how what you are experiencing is good/bad.


I didn't see anything Fi specific in your example but then of course "slow harddrive" could be interpreted differently for you... it can of course cause frustration too to me but I don't really go beyond that. Not even sure how it can go beyond for Fi types. Would you describe more of your own thought process about this slow harddrive example?




ephemereality said:


> lol, yes, indeed. I don't understand how that man saw himself as a Ti type based on this, because Jung even states several times that he dislikes defining concepts too much and he several times indirectly mock those whose thinking is based on definitions only. He clearly sees definitions as somewhat missing the point and depth of what things are - so Ni of him. I agree that he's an INFJ/IEI. I utterly fail to see how a Ti dominant would consciously choose to shy away from creating definitions within a system they themselves created. Isn't that where the fun lies for the Ti type?


Hmm it might again be my own perception of things with me explicitly looking for definitions in his book but I did see definitions. Though yes he's a bit vague but that comes with talking about really abstract topics. It's not like you can take and experience a function directly tangibly, for example.




> And eh, since there is a slight discussion regarding Fi, like with the example of the phone, the way I would base my decision would be like this:
> 
> Does the phone fulfill the functions I demand it to fulfill? (Te)
> Does the phone fulfill the aesthetic requirements I have on the phone? (SeFi)
> ...


prestanda = ? (didn't find that word anywhere  )

Actually, my decision process is quite similar for many things (phone being an exception, I don't mind so much if it doesn't look that beautiful) but I suppose that doesn't mean I use Te and Se/Fi to do so.




> But similarly, I doubt I would ever buy a phone who just looks great but has no real depth to it in terms of function and design. In a sense it makes sense that it actually all kind of feeds Ni if you look at it this way, because it must all fit one conceptual idea that I have of what a good phone is, and these are just my axioms to fulfill that requirement.


For me depth of function in a phone is to do with how well I can control it on a low level. If I must relate it to a function then it's kind of Ti. Perhaps Ni-tinted Ti 




> On a curious sidenote, I've been thinking for some time how other non-ILIs actually experience ILI cognition. Does it seem warped, weird, mystical, conceptual on a level that just seems out of touch with reality and so on to you? I find my cognition perfectly normal obviously, since I live in it, but what do other people think more than the fact I seem to come across as quite dry in text?


Perhaps if you wrote more about your imagination...  (I recall you had some excerpt posted somewhere from your writings)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I didn't see anything Fi specific in your example but then of course "slow harddrive" could be interpreted differently for you... it can of course cause frustration too to me but I don't really go beyond that. Not even sure how it can go beyond for Fi types. Would you describe more of your own thought process about this slow harddrive example?


Yeah, because I stopped my thought-process when I realized that I was about to go on a long rant about how much I think my computer sucks in this regard. That's what I mean, I think it sucks and everything I was about to write then was to inform how much it sucks in various ways. It's that perception that it sucks, it's a bad computer, that makes it Fi-informed if that makes sense. It's my personal experience/impression of it. Slow in contrast is without value judgement but it's a bad computer because it is slow is a value judgement with Se impressions backing it up to support it.


> Hmm it might again be my own perception of things with me explicitly looking for definitions in his book but I did see definitions. Though yes he's a bit vague but that comes with talking about really abstract topics. It's not like you can take and experience a function directly tangibly, for example.


In the Tavistock lectures I think he says a couple of times that he often has to define things because the scientific community requires operational definitions but he himself shies away from defining too much. There are definitions there, but yes, he is vague and he often avoids trying to define more than what seems to be absolutely necessary for him to do so. I don't remember which lecture, but one attendant even asked Jung a question where he wanted Jung to define a concept further so he could understand, but Jung purposefully avoided answering it. 


> prestanda = ? (didn't find that word anywhere  )


Yeah sorry, it's probably a Swedish word only. I am using both a Swedish and English spellcheck and I was hoping that it was an imported word so maybe you would understand anyway because I couldn't think of the English equivalent at the time. But system specs, pretty much, the power of the system. 



> Actually, my decision process is quite similar for many things (phone being an exception, I don't mind so much if it doesn't look that beautiful) but I suppose that doesn't mean I use Te and Se/Fi to do so.


I think my decision process is pretty much always like this once I have decided that I will do something. I feel that my decisions have to be very Fi-informed. If I haven't formulated some kind of Fi-value, I often just become very inert and I tend to do nothing at all. 


> For me depth of function in a phone is to do with how well I can control it on a low level. If I must relate it to a function then it's kind of Ti. Perhaps Ni-tinted Ti


Yes, I am not concerned about control at all. I think the only thing I care about when it comes to control is how easy and well-designed the interface is, but then again it boils down to Te functions. Of course, I also tend to think that a good interface is one that is easy to use and looks good.


> Perhaps if you wrote more about your imagination...  (I recall you had some excerpt posted somewhere from your writings)


My imagination? What do you mean? I honestly don't think I imagine things the way I see others imagining things as in, daydreaming and such.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Do you have an ebook of the entire book? (If you do, do PM me please!  ) Because I could only find that chapter X thing.  it does talk about more than just functions though. And I found all of it interesting.


I bought it  couldn't find a full version online. I've read somewhere that Jung self-identified as INFJ in one of his books. Not 100% sure about his type, but he certainly doesn't seem to favor Se.



ephemereality said:


> Isn't that where the fun lies for the Ti type?


lol you know us so well 

...Which is also why I found the terms "Objective" / "Subjective" so useful- they simplify (but do not weaken) my understanding of Jung's functions, and enables me to have greater flexibility when relating it to real-life examples. I dislike systems that are too specific, or are too concerned with maintaining vagueness so it has the freedom to expand since that makes it cumbersome and unwieldy to use. What is the point of adopting it if its too complicated or too vague to be applied efficiently? I just need something that does the job, and can adapt to the situation when I need it to, doesn't have to be exact but it has to be useful or at least relevant- power over control basically haha.

But yes, Jung's preferred way of description runs opposite to what I prefer. It was an exercise in patience and endurance... having to force myself to slow down and work my way through his way too wordy thoughts lest I miss out or misunderstand something. I generally skim books for their salient points / the information relevant to my search- but I couldn't do that with Jung. His way of writing made that impossible. -___-

As for the phone example, to further elaborate. I do not personally like the iPhone but it fits my needs, and is the best choice for me with my current gadget setup in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. My personal feelings regarding the iPhone and Apple is irrelevant to the efficiency it can afford me. I don't pick things to an ideal, but rather I pick it to fulfill a need in my life, to do the job I bought it for with the functions that I chose it for. Aesthetics is something I'd place on the lowest rung of my priorities because of how useless it is in general.

Haha well I just had a semi-meltdown at itsme45, so the feelings of frustration are still fresh in my mind. Basically the biggest difference I'd point out is what we'd define as the object of our frustrations. I'd always direct it towards their ideas, or their approach- impersonal things that can be subject to change and context, not as a judge of character but rather as a problem in perspective. Though I do get personal occasionally (usually unconsciously / unintentionally), I always try to keep my focus on their opinions and actions which I see as separate from their own personal identity.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Yeah, because I stopped my thought-process when I realized that I was about to go on a long rant about how much I think my computer sucks in this regard. That's what I mean, I think it sucks and everything I was about to write then was to inform how much it sucks in various ways. It's that perception that it sucks, it's a bad computer, that makes it Fi-informed if that makes sense. It's my personal experience/impression of it. Slow in contrast is without value judgement but it's a bad computer because it is slow is a value judgement with Se impressions backing it up to support it.


Yeah, ok. So you personally hate the computer? 




> In the Tavistock lectures I think he says a couple of times that he often has to define things because the scientific community requires operational definitions but he himself shies away from defining too much. There are definitions there, but yes, he is vague and he often avoids trying to define more than what seems to be absolutely necessary for him to do so. I don't remember which lecture, but one attendant even asked Jung a question where he wanted Jung to define a concept further so he could understand, but Jung purposefully avoided answering it.


None of that really contradicts him being Ti-dom, IMO. (Scientific operational definitions could be Te-related and Ti-doms don't always like to explicitly define everything when talking to someone else.)

Not that I have much against a Ni-Ti typing instead of Ti-Ni. 




> My imagination? What do you mean? I honestly don't think I imagine things the way I see others imagining things as in, daydreaming and such.


I meant your writings really. So you don't daydream a lot?




soppixo said:


> I bought it  couldn't find a full version online. I've read somewhere that Jung self-identified as INFJ in one of his books. Not 100% sure about his type, but he certainly doesn't seem to favor Se.


Too bad on the book :/ 




> ...Which is also why I found the terms "Objective" / "Subjective" so useful- they simplify (but do not weaken) my understanding of Jung's functions, and enables me to have greater flexibility when relating it to real-life examples. I dislike systems that are too specific, or are too concerned with maintaining vagueness so it has the freedom to expand since that makes it cumbersome and unwieldy to use. What is the point of adopting it if its too complicated or too vague to be applied efficiently? I just need something that does the job, and can adapt to the situation when I need it to, doesn't have to be exact but it has to be useful or at least relevant- power over control basically haha.


That's interesting. I do like those terms myself for the same reason but don't mind Jung being a bit vague in places. Again that's because it's all so abstract anyway, the topic. But I didn't try to use it in real life much anyway, if I were to do so, I definitely would require it to be *not* vague. I'll then go for specific... in terms of it being absolutely clear and yes preferably exact too.

Sorry, what did you refer to with "power over control"? (Not sure if I interpreted that right)




> But yes, Jung's preferred way of description runs opposite to what I prefer. It was an exercise in patience and endurance... having to force myself to slow down and work my way through his way too wordy thoughts lest I miss out or misunderstand something. I generally skim books for their salient points / the information relevant to my search- but I couldn't do that with Jung. His way of writing made that impossible. -___-


So funny you see it so differently  I also think quickly by default, probably too quickly at times but I didn't mind taking the time with Jung. :O Maybe it's all that Ni 




> As for the phone example, to further elaborate. I do not personally like the iPhone but it fits my needs, and is the best choice for me with my current gadget setup in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. My personal feelings regarding the iPhone and Apple is irrelevant to the efficiency it can afford me. I don't pick things to an ideal, but rather I pick it to fulfill a need in my life, to do the job I bought it for with the functions that I chose it for. Aesthetics is something I'd place on the lowest rung of my priorities because of how useless it is in general.


I don't like apple hype but yeah... I would've used the iphone if it had fit my needs  (I trialed it out of curiosity) I suppose this is a good example of T over F in general.




> Haha well I just had a semi-meltdown at itsme45, so the feelings of frustration are still fresh in my mind. Basically the biggest difference I'd point out is what we'd define as the object of our frustrations. I'd always direct it towards their ideas, or their approach- impersonal things that can be subject to change and context, not as a judge of character but rather as a problem in perspective. Though I do get personal occasionally (usually unconsciously / unintentionally), I always try to keep my focus on their opinions and actions which I see as separate from their own personal identity.


And that would be a really good example of Ti over Fi! I'm exactly like this too...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

soppixo said:


> I bought it  couldn't find a full version online. I've read somewhere that Jung self-identified as INFJ in one of his books. Not 100% sure about his type, but he certainly doesn't seem to favor Se.


I need to go read up on Jung's Se type again though in itself it is a bit of a tell-tale sign that he actually classified sensing first as the most basic and a sense, implied, primitive out of all the functions, thinking after that, feeling of course as the third, and intuition as the last.


> lol you know us so well


I don't personally understand it, but I've been around Ti types enough to know. 



> ...Which is also why I found the terms "Objective" / "Subjective" so useful- they simplify (but do not weaken) my understanding of Jung's functions, and enables me to have greater flexibility when relating it to real-life examples. I dislike systems that are too specific, or are too concerned with maintaining vagueness so it has the freedom to expand since that makes it cumbersome and unwieldy to use. What is the point of adopting it if its too complicated or too vague to be applied efficiently? I just need something that does the job, and can adapt to the situation when I need it to, doesn't have to be exact but it has to be useful or at least relevant- power over control basically haha.


I wonder if we look for a bit different ideas in this regard because I'm quite sure you don't understand efficiency exactly the same as I do considering the differences in Te/Ti here but yes, so regarding the paragraph after:



> But yes, Jung's preferred way of description runs opposite to what I prefer. It was an exercise in patience and endurance... having to force myself to slow down and work my way through his way too wordy thoughts lest I miss out or misunderstand something. I generally skim books for their salient points / the information relevant to my search- but I couldn't do that with Jung. His way of writing made that impossible. -___-


Completely agreed. I found some books by Jung at my library, unfortunately not PS, but I think I don't need to read it specifically. Not sure I could manage my way through it anyway. I tried to read his article about libido and I gave up at some point when he spent an entire page explaining a footnote. 

The problem I have with Jung mostly is that he sometimes just goes so off-tangent and is unable to get, what I think is the point, and that he sometimes irritatingly refuses to provide logically consistent definitions of his own working concepts. Take the idea of the unconsciousness, for example. Is the inferior situated within the unconsciousness or is the bridge to unconsciousness? But if the inferior is merely the bridge to the unconsciousness, then how come we reject the inferior as a conscious perspective out of our ego? Doesn't make any fucking sense and it irks the hell out of me. 



> As for the phone example, to further elaborate. I do not personally like the iPhone but it fits my needs, and is the best choice for me with my current gadget setup in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. My personal feelings regarding the iPhone and Apple is irrelevant to the efficiency it can afford me. I don't pick things to an ideal, but rather I pick it to fulfill a need in my life, to do the job I bought it for with the functions that I chose it for. Aesthetics is something I'd place on the lowest rung of my priorities because of how useless it is in general.


Right, interesting. To me, the brand definitely matters. Even if iPhone in theory fulfills the criteria I have that I outlined in the above post, I just refuse to buy an iPhone because it's Apple and I have bad experiences with Apple. Thus I therefore dislike Apple as a company and brand, and I therefore refuse to buy any of their products since buying their products would mean continued support and that Apple can keep producing more, in my opinion, shitty products. 

So to me, it was obvious I would turn to Samsung and their Galaxy series and I definitely don't regret it. For one I am far happier running Android than an Apple OS. Not only have Samsung pretty shamelessly copied the basic iPhone design because I do like the iPhone aesthetically, most Apple products look great, I just don't think they function as great. But I just don't get all the issues you get when you are stuck with an Apple product. 



> Haha well I just had a semi-meltdown at itsme45, so the feelings of frustration are still fresh in my mind. Basically the biggest difference I'd point out is what we'd define as the object of our frustrations. I'd always direct it towards their ideas, or their approach- impersonal things that can be subject to change and context, not as a judge of character but rather as a problem in perspective. Though I do get personal occasionally (usually unconsciously / unintentionally), I always try to keep my focus on their opinions and actions which I see as separate from their own personal identity.


Yes, I definitely see people's ideas as an obvious extension of themselves, they are their ideas. So if they present an idea I find stupid, then that means they too are stupid since they after all, generated that idea to begin with. 

I do however tend to keep a impersonal distance in debate that I notice feelers don't do, especially when disagreements occur. I recently was in an argument with another person and this person felt that I was trying to force my opinion about enneagram as a fact and didn't respect his opinion as an opinion. I suspect this person is also an Fe type, hence that logic too. But I clearly don't understand where that judgement came from since I think ideas can be more or less correct or more or less valid. People have right to have opinions but when I argue with others, I clearly do so with the intent to convince why my position is superior. It doesn't mean I think my opinion is a fact, but it does mean that I think my opinion is the more valid one logically. 

So in this case what I saw as simply arguing against what I found to be a logically weak position this person saw as not respecting each other's opinions and therefore took it personally. I only really start to take it personally when I feel that people clearly do not understand what I am trying to convey no matter how many times I try to convey it. There's also a point here where I feel that Fi informs my psyche in such a sense that I often feel I am right because well, I am right, because it feels right. Not because I cannot admit I can be wrong, but I suppose Fi hidden agenda plays a role if one wishes to view it that way, where I also seek my opinion to simply be validated emotionally.

I mean, it would be great to hear something akin to, this is such a great and well-reasoned idea and I totally agree! but obviously, this doesn't happen that often. But then I get this slight impression deep down that yes, someone actually gets me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Yeah, ok. So you personally hate the computer?


When it doesn't operate the way it should, I guess yes, I do. I throw fits at it.


> None of that really contradicts him being Ti-dom, IMO. (Scientific operational definitions could be Te-related and Ti-doms don't always like to explicitly define everything when talking to someone else.)


Well yes, the logical requirement of scientific definitions are, but one would assume that since it is his system to begin with and he developed it not to conform or to contribute to the scientific community but to understand his patients better, one would think his system would at least be more internally consistent. See my post above regarding this. 



> Not that I have much against a Ni-Ti typing instead of Ti-Ni.


Also, there are other things such as his emphasis on symbolic reading. That's pretty much what draws me into his ideas originally to begin with, because it's the commonly shared Ni base there I think. I would love to have a job where I can come up with symbolic interpretations and be paid for it. 



> I meant your writings really. So you don't daydream a lot?


No, I honestly don't quite understand what daydreaming _is_. How one does it and why one would do it? Like, fantasize about something completely out of touch with reality? That doesn't make any sense to me, because reality definitely at some level simply is reality. I wonder if Ne types would have a natural propensity towards daydreaming or the like because when I think about it, the only types I think I've seen clearly have expressed that they do daydream seem to be Ne types. Scratch that. I just asked my SEE friend and she said she daydreams too. Maybe I should blame my enneatype then. I am not sure type 5 would really have a strong propensity towards daydreaming, either.

Here's a longer post I've written recently if you want to study that: http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/160909-all-western-societies-manipulative.html#post4109210


----------



## Fish Launcher (Jan 14, 2013)

monemi said:


> It this true for all introverted thinkers in general? Or specifically ISTP? (You're introverted thinkers too right?)
> 
> I definitely get noticebly excited. I've got a trip in the morning. Cannot sleep for the life of me. I desire to be around people a lot more than I desire to be alone. But I'm still an introverted thinker. I'm not really all that self aware about my thought processes.
> 
> ESTP are extroverts with introverted thinking. I'm trying to figure out how that works.


INTJs are introverts with extroverted Thinking. Yes, @DevilishGrin is an introverted Thinker, but she's a Ti DOM. Ti is her dominant function. It is the secondary function in ESTPs, who's dominant function is Se. Se! If you're an introvert, your dominant and tertiary (1st and 3rd) functions are introverted, and seconadary and inferior (2nd and 4th) extroverted. I bet you can figure out how it is for extroverts (it's vice versa). That's the difference between ESTPs and ISTPs:
ISTP = Ti Se Ni Fe
ESTP = Se Ti Fe Ni

Is that clear? I apologize for not including descriptions of Ti or refraining from pulling MBTI into this explaination, but doing so simplifies it and makes it easier to understand. As for Ti...

It is internal structure of the mind. For example: 
Book: "Perceiving types liked tactile learning and loud noise and approaches to learning that are random and holistic."
ESTP: *Haha! Yeah, right! As if that's ever going to happen!*

As far as I understand it, that's Ti, right there.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Stumbledore said:


> INTJs are introverts with extroverted Thinking. Yes, @_DevilishGrin_ is an introverted Thinker, but she's a Ti DOM. Ti is her dominant function. It is the secondary function in ESTPs, who's dominant function is Se. Se! If you're an introvert, your dominant and tertiary (1st and 3rd) functions are introverted, and seconadary and inferior (2nd and 4th) extroverted. I bet you can figure out how it is for extroverts (it's vice versa). That's the difference between ESTPs and ISTPs:
> ISTP = Ti Se Ni Fe
> ESTP = Se Ti Fe Ni
> 
> ...


I think we're missing each other here. I recognize that Ti is the second function for ESTP's. That's not really in question. At what points are ESTP's using it, as compared with ISTP, INTP and ENTP? Why does it seem that in stereotypes, these other three types are recognized as thinkers, but ESTP's are written off as dumb jocks? Part of this is trying to understand why ESTP's are seen as under utilizing Ti. How do other types that have Ti in their dominant and auxiliary functions use Ti and how is that different from ESTP's?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> ESTP's are written off as dumb jocks?


yeah uh in some crappy stereotypes. then in other more thorough type descriptions it's not like that.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> No, I honestly don't quite understand what daydreaming _is_. How one does it and why one would do it? Like, fantasize about something completely out of touch with reality? That doesn't make any sense to me, *because reality definitely at some level simply is reality*. I wonder if Ne types would have a natural propensity towards daydreaming or the like because when I think about it, the only types I think I've seen clearly have expressed that they do daydream seem to be Ne types. Scratch that. I just asked my SEE friend and she said she daydreams too. Maybe I should blame my enneatype then. I am not sure type 5 would really have a strong propensity towards daydreaming, either.
> 
> Here's a longer post I've written recently if you want to study that: http://personalitycafe.com/debate-forum/160909-all-western-societies-manipulative.html#post4109210


I'll check that link out.  

Daydreaming... I also don't do it myself. Yes I view it as being out of touch with reality.

I didn't understand the bolded, that is, how do you connect that to daydreaming. Can you rephrase?




Stumbledore said:


> It is internal structure of the mind. For example:
> Book: "Perceiving types liked tactile learning and loud noise and approaches to learning that are random and holistic."
> ESTP: *Haha! Yeah, right! As if that's ever going to happen!*
> 
> As far as I understand it, that's Ti, right there.


Huh? Why does the ESTP react like that? I'm not following that train of thought there


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> I'll check that link out.
> 
> Daydreaming... I also don't do it myself. Yes I view it as being out of touch with reality.
> 
> I didn't understand the bolded, that is, how do you connect that to daydreaming. Can you rephrase?


What I mean is that there is little point to think of impossible scenarios when reality itself operates on possibility and therefore the likelihood for something to happen is greater than others. Thinking about what is likely to not happen as opposed to what can or will actually happen therefore at some levels seems pointless, I guess.

Reality simply is. It operates on certain logical axioms that defines it the way we experience it. I see no point trying to deviate to re-imagine it some other way.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> What I mean is that there is little point to think of impossible scenarios when reality itself operates on possibility and therefore the likelihood for something to happen is greater than others. Thinking about what is likely to not happen as opposed to what can or will actually happen therefore at some levels seems pointless, I guess.
> 
> Reality simply is. It operates on certain logical axioms that defines it the way we experience it. I see no point trying to deviate to re-imagine it some other way.


That is an incredible example of how Ni/Ti is so much different than Ne/Ti. My whole existence is imagining reality as different than it is, or imagining different aspects of reality looking for opportunities.

Powerful stuff this is.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> That is an incredible example of how Ni/Ti is so much different than Ne/Ti. My whole existence is imagining reality as different than it is, or imagining different aspects of reality looking for opportunities.
> 
> Powerful stuff this is.


Ni yes, Ti no. I honestly think my thinking when it comes to this is more informed by my enneagram than it is my cognition. They obviously synergize to a degree.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

monemi said:


> How do other types that have Ti in their dominant and auxiliary functions use Ti and how is that different from ESTP's?


ISTP likes to think, and looks at the world to find stuff to think about. So, they are perceived as very analytical. INTP is even more so, as they use intuition, and intuitiion is somewhat rare and perceived as even more analytical.
ENTP is just weird. 

A young ESTP uses Ti to filter the senses and the experiences they get from the world. There are so many experiences, most of their Ti gets used just to process what "happens" in the world. 
The next function an ESTP works on is Fe. Should happen around 20 to 23 for most, but brighter healthier people it happens a bit younger. After that, I'd GUESS an ESTP learns Si. 

Intuitive is NOT the strong point of an ESTP, just like S is not the strong point of ENTP's. 

Those who define "intelligence" are intuitives, specifically INTJ's who wrote IQ tests. INTJ's reward Thinking and Intuitive and give no credit for noticing what goes on in the world around nor about getting laid (interpersonal skills). 

Besides all that, INTJ's were picked on in grade school by the jocks, and they are still bitter.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

a side comment. ESTP's write the most concise posts I have seen, INTP's are FAMOUS for long wandering posts of great length.

Ever gotten a PM from treebob? They are short, directive, and effective.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> yeah uh in some crappy stereotypes. then in other more thorough type descriptions it's not like that.


I see it on here a lot. I'm wondering where the origin of it is. The assumption around here seems to be that thinkers are intelligent. But ESTP's again and again are excluded by types that consider themselves intellectuals. What is it about ESTP's use of Ti that has them conclude that we're not intelligent?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

monemi said:


> I see it on here a lot. I'm wondering where the origin of it is. The assumption around here seems to be that thinkers are intelligent. But ESTP's again and again are excluded by types that consider themselves intellectuals. What is it about ESTP's use of Ti that has them conclude that we're not intelligent?


I really believe it's just bad stereotypes, heavy bias by some people.

Or it can be the weak intuition of ESTP being a bother for some N types.

Btw IQ or other kinds of intelligence aren't really that dependent on MBTI type...

I think ESFP's have worse stereotypes with regard to that


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

drmiller100 said:


> ISTP likes to think, and looks at the world to find stuff to think about. So, they are perceived as very analytical. INTP is even more so, as they use intuition, and intuitiion is somewhat rare and perceived as even more analytical.
> ENTP is just weird.
> 
> A young ESTP uses Ti to filter the senses and the experiences they get from the world. There are so many experiences, most of their Ti gets used just to process what "happens" in the world.
> ...


I read a thread in the INTP board about which type 'hates' them more. ESTP's were specifically excluded as Ti's. It's not the first time I've seen this perspective of ESTP's. 

The most intelligent people I've known weren't the most successful. Advertising intellect ahead of people skills results in being written off as a snob and won't get me ahead. It is illogical for me to place too much emphasis on intellect in a world that doesn't value it highly.



drmiller100 said:


> a side comment. ESTP's write the most concise posts I have seen, INTP's are FAMOUS for long wandering posts of great length.
> 
> Ever gotten a PM from treebob? They are short, directive, and effective.


I've never received a PM from treebob. I value efficiency, but I recognize that isn't a high priority for everyone.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> I really believe it's just bad stereotypes, heavy bias by some people.
> 
> Or it can be the weak intuition of ESTP being a bother for some N types.
> 
> ...


The bad ESFP stereotype doesn't surprise me. I recognize a lot of thinking functions place low value on feelings. I disagree with their evaluation but am not surprised. What surprises me is the presumption of low IQ in a type with thinking in their first two functions. Doesn't that strike you as odd?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

monemi said:


> I read a thread in the INTP board about which type 'hates' them more. ESTP's were specifically excluded as Ti's. It's not the first time I've seen this perspective of ESTP's.
> 
> The most intelligent people I've known weren't the most successful. Advertising intellect ahead of people skills results in being written off as a snob and won't get me ahead. It is illogical for me to place too much emphasis on intellect in a world that doesn't value it highly.
> 
> ...


I've gotten a few PM's from him. Never never never a good thing. (grins!) he is more than fair, and when something comes up, he addresses it in a staightforward way and tries to get good information.

IQ tests are written by INTJ's. INTP's do better on them. IQ tests reward Thinking and intuitive. They do NOT reward sensing at all. The closer you are to an INTJ, the better you will do on an IQ test.

ENTP's do ok. 

Personality categorizing is done mostly by INTJ's and INFJ's. There are 16 types, and different people could lump whatever groups they wanted together, but "NT's" tend to get lumped, and "NF's" tend to get lumped, leaving the rest to get sorted. Notice the focus on intuitive.

Those who are GOOD at types respect the power and strengths each type has. 

Note that treebob, the owner of the site, is ESTP. And the other "site owner" is promethea, an INFJ. They respect each other immensely, and complement each other well.
One thing of note is both ESTP and INFJ are both strong Fe users. Important I believe.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

"Dumb jocks" stereotypes are almost certainly SJs. Just sayin. The "tell me what to do coach" type guys can't be using much Ti, if any, that's for sure. I'd say the most stereotypical dumb jock is a young ISFJ male. Lack of confidence undermines their Ti.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> That's interesting. I do like those terms myself for the same reason but don't mind Jung being a bit vague in places. Again that's because it's all so abstract anyway, the topic. But I didn't try to use it in real life much anyway, if I were to do so, I definitely would require it to be *not* vague. I'll then go for specific... in terms of it being absolutely clear and yes preferably exact too.


I take issue with his vagueness, because his system was made to be applied- and you can't apply things that you can't understand.



> Sorry, what did you refer to with "power over control"? (Not sure if I interpreted that right)


Haha, well my ideas of power vs control are kinda subjective. To be more exact it would be effectiveness over exactness. Taking risks for better rewards than playing safe for less punishment. Ah.....if I were to think of an example, recently I had to write an essay on a topic I wasn't entirely sure about. I scored pretty badly previously because I didn't think my subject through and was stuck in the middle, but here I was...about to take another risk and write about something that didn't fit exactly into the topic. The difference was that I had a good feeling that my chosen subject would be an effective topic, though it wasn't exact. In the end, my gamble paid off and the lecturer liked my essay. (My ISFP friend on the other hand, went the Exact route- she didn't score as well...)



> So funny you see it so differently  I also think quickly by default, probably too quickly at times but I didn't mind taking the time with Jung. :O Maybe it's all that Ni


Haha possibly. Training in a N-heavy field like graphic design has made me demanding and impatient in that regards. I want information to be absorbable within 3 seconds of scanning. Rather than 5 minutes of reading and rereading lol



> And that would be a really good example of Ti over Fi! I'm exactly like this too...


Cool  though.....not to assume stuff but I just wanted to ask- did you think I was implying that ESTPs were less intelligent because they didn't think as much as ISTPs when translating thought into action? (I know this is another thread...but oh well)

My considerations weren't about intelligence or the lack of it, but about impulse and inertia. In my opinion, ESTPs are no less intelligent, and perhaps more so than some ISTPs but to me, they're subject to more impulsive actions despite their intelligence, and are able to act with less info on hand and blaze their way through. ISTPs- analytic and adaptable they may be, but they're likely to succumb to inertia, being bogged down with waiting, watching, analyzing and never really getting down to the doing part.

This is what I really meant by ISTPs think too much / ESTPs don't think enough. Of course I've already established that this extreme example is but for the sake of illustration.....my own personal preference. Personally I can relate to both, having done impulsive actions that ended up with me flying by the seat of my pants, with my shirt on fire (metaphorically), and also giving up on opportunities because I couldn't be bothered to take advantage of them. But I relate to inertia more than impulse, and that is why I see myself as ISTP more than ESTP.



drmiller100 said:


> Note that treebob, the owner of the site, is ESTP. And the other "site owner" is promethea, an INFJ. They respect each other immensely, and complement each other well.
> One thing of note is both ESTP and INFJ are both strong Fe users. Important I believe.


Promethea self-identified as an ISTP  No idea how long it'd last but for now, this is the reign of the STPs haha


----------



## Fish Launcher (Jan 14, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Huh? Why does the ESTP react like that? I'm not following that train of thought there


I don't know about the schools where you live, but the school system here is ruled by SJs who prefer a stuctured approach to learning. They would never let the curriculum be "random and holistic", and noise pollution isn't permitted.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

One of my ENTP professors, due to being as old as dirt and founding the program himself with an INTJ professor, based his entire class structure on being almost entirely random/chaotic. Most fun classes ever. SJs were constantly complaining about lack of structure...but even they enjoyed it in the end.


----------



## Fish Launcher (Jan 14, 2013)

monemi said:


> I think we're missing each other here. I recognize that Ti is the second function for ESTP's. That's not really in question. At what points are ESTP's using it, as compared with ISTP, INTP and ENTP? Why does it seem that in stereotypes, these other three types are recognized as thinkers, but ESTP's are written off as dumb jocks? Part of this is trying to understand why ESTP's are seen as under utilizing Ti. How do other types that have Ti in their dominant and auxiliary functions use Ti and how is that different from ESTP's?


Lol, u mad?


----------



## Fish Launcher (Jan 14, 2013)

monemi said:


> I think we're missing each other here. I recognize that Ti is the second function for ESTP's. That's not really in question. At what points are ESTP's using it, as compared with ISTP, INTP and ENTP? Why does it seem that in stereotypes, these other three types are recognized as thinkers, but ESTP's are written off as dumb jocks? Part of this is trying to understand why ESTP's are seen as under utilizing Ti. How do other types that have Ti in their dominant and auxiliary functions use Ti and how is that different from ESTP's?


ISTPs are not seen as thinkers (at least, not in the NT world. However, ISTPs ARE the most NT Sensors.) They're seen as silent, monster-slaying gladiators with a 2 million piece drill set who live in auto shops.
NTPs are seen as thinkers because of the Ne Ti combination, which makes them think of non-people related possibilities. 
ESTPs are seen as dumb jocks because of Se Ti, paired with extroversion. Se likes to live in the moment, and Ti is competitive. 
Dumb not because of lack of talent, but lack of motivation. Se demands instant gratification, so the idea that school will actually benefit them in the long run is hard for some ESTPs to swallow. It is a fact that ESTPs get some of the lowest grades in class. Admit it, you didn't give a fuck about school, did ya?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Stumbledore said:


> ISTPs are not seen as thinkers (at least, not in the NT world. However, ISTPs ARE the most NT Sensors.) They're seen as silent, monster-slaying gladiators with a 2 million piece drill set who live in auto shops.
> NTPs are seen as thinkers because of the Ne Ti combination, which makes them think of non-people related possibilities.
> ESTPs are seen as dumb jocks because of Se Ti, paired with extroversion. Se likes to live in the moment, and Ti is competitive.
> Dumb not because of lack of talent, but lack of motivation. Se demands instant gratification, so the idea that school will actually benefit them in the long run is hard for some ESTPs to swallow. It is a fact that ESTPs get some of the lowest grades in class. Admit it, you didn't give a fuck about school, did ya?


actually, estp's do fine in school. They do not understand the need for school work, but they absolutely can buckle down and do it. The feelers, such as ESFJ's and ESFP's struggle a more.

I have never seen an INTJ so passionate about putting down a type as this. Are INTJ's jealous? Bad memories from no dates in high school?


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

Stumbledore said:


> Se demands instant gratification


I would beg to differ. Se isn't so much about instant gratification or lack or motivation, but the ability to live in the moment and give no fucks about what happens in the past or future. It isn't about being mindless or instinctual, but being able to let go of things when its time to go, and to enjoy things when they come. Most of my P friends are a lot healthier (and resilient) emotionally and mentally as compared to my J friends, so there are boons and banes to being each type. :/

ESTP....dumb jocks? :| Y'know apart from the fact that this is your personal opinion, if I were to give the ESTP any sort of stereotypical high school role it'd be the unrepentant prankster / the Jackass-wannabe. Intelligent enough to wreak havoc, but not patient enough to think things through and cover their ass (the older they get, the better they get at this I'd guess).

Wow, and when is scoring well in school a measure of intelligence or capability (or even motivation)? :| Such rigid and traditionalistic thinking....I'm seriously doubting that N in your typing.

(lmao, why do all the ISTP descriptions sound like a cliche RPG protagonist)


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Stumbledore said:


> Lol, u mad?


Not really. More confused by their reaction. If they aren't stereotyping ESTP's as idiots, why distance themselves from them?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Stumbledore said:


> ISTPs are not seen as thinkers (at least, not in the NT world. However, ISTPs ARE the most NT Sensors.) They're seen as silent, monster-slaying gladiators with a 2 million piece drill set who live in auto shops.
> NTPs are seen as thinkers because of the Ne Ti combination, which makes them think of non-people related possibilities.
> ESTPs are seen as dumb jocks because of Se Ti, paired with extroversion. Se likes to live in the moment, and Ti is competitive.
> Dumb not because of lack of talent, but lack of motivation. Se demands instant gratification, so the idea that school will actually benefit them in the long run is hard for some ESTPs to swallow. It is a fact that ESTPs get some of the lowest grades in class. Admit it, you didn't give a fuck about school, did ya?


I didn't give a fuck about school work. But I'm competitive. I was one of the top performing students in my year. Why? I always competed against the other kids in my grade. School was slow, grueling, boring. Bright parts of my day were PE, history and the ongoing competition with others in my year to get the highest mark in the class. In the work place, I've always been either the top performer or one of the top performers. 

ESTP's don't generally give a fuck about school, but if we find competition in there, we'll go after it anyway. 
@soppixo - I'll cop to the pranks. Although, I haven't entirely outgrown that. My kids love it.


----------



## Fish Launcher (Jan 14, 2013)

soppixo said:


> I would beg to differ. Se isn't so much about instant gratification or lack or motivation, but the ability to live in the moment and give no fucks about what happens in the past or future. It isn't about being mindless or instinctual, but being able to let go of things when its time to go, and to enjoy things when they come. Most of my P friends are a lot healthier (and resilient) emotionally and mentally as compared to my J friends, so there are boons and banes to being each type. :/
> 
> ESTP....dumb jocks? :| Y'know apart from the fact that this is your personal opinion, if I were to give the ESTP any sort of stereotypical high school role it'd be the unrepentant prankster / the Jackass-wannabe. Intelligent enough to wreak havoc, but not patient enough to think things through and cover their ass (the older they get, the better they get at this I'd guess).
> 
> ...


Actually, I am borderline ISTP, an N just by 12%, and J by 28%. Besides, you comprehension of my post was almost entirely incorrect. Se is about "living in the moment", which is synonymous to "preferring instant gratification", which leads to lack of motivation for school. I also never stated that ESTPs were "dumb jocks", but simply explaining the roots of the stereotype to @monemi. I suggest you read my post, not skim it. There are several places where I could correct you, but I'm not going to bother. You yourself will read it and correct yourself.
(Agree with the prankster thing, though.)


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

RK LK said:


> I guess my Fi expresses itself in an Se sort of way. I think the Fi is really abstract but it looks for forms, textures, colors, sounds, etc. that resonate with it. It can create a sort of artificial environment inside myself that feels 3D-like, intricate and intense, but it can be hard to translate into the physical realm, let alone express it sometimes. I meant to say Ti vs Fi on the mystical symbolism stuff, not Ti vs Te. My bad. :frustrating: For a while I was in an Fi-Ni sort of loop that made wonder how symbols and words worked exactly, and which ones were the most powerful. Part of the reason why I got really into the MBTI stuff.


Hmm this Fi thing does seem to share some things with Ti, then. But this "resonate" thing is just based on subjective feeling right? Not some kind of logical resonance. The logical version doesn't use feelings to achieve resonance even if the result can certainly come with a feeling of awe etc. What it uses instead of feelings, I guess it's something that's also found in mathematics. Hope I'm making sense 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "powerful" words or symbols...?


----------



## RK LK (Sep 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Hmm this Fi thing does seem to share some things with Ti, then. But this "resonate" thing is just based on subjective feeling right? Not some kind of logical resonance. The logical version doesn't use feelings to achieve resonance even if the result can certainly come with a feeling of awe etc. What it uses instead of feelings, I guess it's something that's also found in mathematics. Hope I'm making sense
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "powerful" words or symbols...?


Yep, it's all subjective feeling. Definitely not guided by logic for the most part, even though I like to think so sometimes. I can understand your mathematics example. I assume Ti is more about pure logic than a directly applicable kind of logic, or 'tainted' logic (tainted in the sense that reality contains many logical paradoxes that can't be understood by pure logic or mathematics).[HR][/HR]What meant by powerful symbols was the fact that some words and images can greatly affect people, like a picture of the cross, words like love or freedom, sexual images. I guess it's amazing to me how the brain can interpret a bunch of squiggly lines, like the ones I'm typing, into something meaningful. Powerful organizations like governments, churches, and corporations use certain words and images to conjure up certain feelings in people (things like fear, pride, sexual desirability, social standing, freedom, insecurities, etc.) so that the masses become dependent on them. My interest was in religious philosophies at the time, stuff like Daoism, Zen Buddhism, Judeo-Christianism, Hinduism, Western philosophies, etc., so I was more into spiritual symbols, ideas like oneness and duality and nothingness. I don't really think about that kind of stuff too much anymore but for a while I was really into it.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

RK LK said:


> Yep, it's all subjective feeling. Definitely not guided by logic for the most part, even though I like to think so sometimes. I can understand your mathematics example. I assume Ti is more about pure logic than a directly applicable kind of logic, or 'tainted' logic (tainted in the sense that reality contains many logical paradoxes that can't be understood by pure logic or mathematics).


Well it can be applied too but you got it I think. 

As for the logical paradoxes: those are not necessarily a problem. But tell me which paradoxes you thought of in terms of "reality" containing such things.




> What meant by powerful symbols was the fact that some words and images can greatly affect people, like a picture of the cross, words like love or freedom, sexual images. I guess it's amazing to me how the brain can interpret a bunch of squiggly lines, like the ones I'm typing, into something meaningful. Powerful organizations like governments, churches, and corporations use certain words and images to conjure up certain feelings in people (things like fear, pride, sexual desirability, social standing, freedom, insecurities, etc.) so that the masses become dependent on them. My interest was in religious philosophies at the time, stuff like Daoism, Zen Buddhism, Judeo-Christianism, Hinduism, Western philosophies, etc., so I was more into spiritual symbols, ideas like oneness and duality and nothingness. I don't really think about that kind of stuff too much anymore but for a while I was really into it.


Ahh okay. I was also into some spiritual stuff a long time ago though I guess we approached the topic differently 

As for the brain's workings, yes it's amazing. Btw, I don't want to ask you what you'd define "meaningful" as, it would lead very far.


----------



## RK LK (Sep 19, 2013)

itsme45 said:


> Well it can be applied too but you got it I think.
> 
> As for the logical paradoxes: those are not necessarily a problem. But tell me which paradoxes you thought of in terms of "reality" containing such things.


 Well, I think Ti is going to ask "why" things are a certain way more often, which leads to more questions. More questions lead to more unanswered questions. Instead of saying paradoxes, I should have said 'open questions'. Te knows more 'answers' (or solid facts) than questions. Ti is only content with ideas or explanations that fall within its own personal logical system. This logical system is invisible and elusive and possibly not even understood by the Ti user him/herself. It works on its own sort of mathematical laws. If a certain explanation doesn't add up in their internal system then they move on to the next idea. Objective reality can be just one small variable in a much larger 'equation' inside the Ti user's mind, whereas for the Te user it is the deciding factor.


----------

