# Ti doms. Please describe the experience of using Ti.



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

I would find it beneficial.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

Bump. I am interested too.


----------



## Monroe (May 13, 2016)

It's like putting info into a shredder, dissecting it into different parts. I would say you can think really hard on something, and then stop--and the Ti will look inside yourself for that answer. Ti usually always wants to find an answer to anything, it won't accept defeat. A good example may be this: my computer keyboard was ruined. I was about to take it to the shop (aahha ISTP but the keyboard needed to be ordered)...instead of had a sudden, hmmmmm? I wonder if something else would work than messing with all that?

I go dig out an old keyboard that has a USB connector--I put that into the USB port on my laptop. The keyboard now works, and I just type on that one. I had the parts in my head, computer-keyboard, and I made my own logic with it. Other types can come to this conclusion yes, but how I came to the answer with Ti, using my own connective steps, in a simpler way. 

(and yeah I eventually got the other fixed when I didn't have deadlines or money stuff going on)


----------



## VacantPsalm (Dec 22, 2014)

I'm pretty sure I'm Ti, but there is a chance I might not be. Take this as you will.


Oh look, there's a bum asking for money. Hm, I wonder if he's going to spend it on food or booze. Well, I really don't know what kind of person he is, and asking him questions won't tell me anything because he could be a good lier. So, I guess I should try accepting that both situations are true. If I give him money, I have accepted that I am helping someone who needs food AND helping someone get booze. If I don't, I have to accept that I am both keeping food form someone who needs it AND keeping alcohol from someone who wants it. Really, I don't care if he's a drinker. Me not being an enabler is not going to help his problem. I do, however, care about hungry people getting food. So if I accept that both possibilities are true, then it is clear that giving him money is the preferable option. Oh wait, I don't have any cash and already drove off. Never mind.


It's going to your head when you need to find an answer. Te would probably try looking at the person/situation for signs pointing to either of the possibilities. If the person looks like they have been drinking, Te would probably assume they would spend it on booze and make their decision based on that.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Is something true?
Yes - it fits the inner reasoning, such as: A equaled B before, B could correlate to C, A is similar to C, therefore it is possible for C to correlate with A and B, if in some situations perceptions make it fit.
No - back to intuition.


----------



## starvingautist (Mar 23, 2015)

I'm not sure how to describe it, but it's a filter. Whenever something doesn't seem right, I have to refine the definition and see if I get anywhere. It manifests in interpersonal interactions as an anxious dissonance in my chest whenever the other person says something I think is untrue or ambiguous. That said, I think that aspect of it has diminished over the years. But it's still an itch I have to resist scratching.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

I use Ti, just because my profession calls me to (I'm a teacher and I have to break things down into base concepts.)

However, I mostly use Te, though, which feels very adversarial. It is like "thinking with fists" if that makes sense; my thoughts are usually funneled into a way that will convince others. 

Could the latter possibly be Ti?


----------



## Paradox07 (Dec 30, 2015)

JaguarPap said:


> I use Ti, just because my profession calls me to (I'm a teacher and I have to break things down into base concepts.)
> 
> However, I mostly use Te, though, which feels very adversarial. It is like "thinking with fists" if that makes sense; my thoughts are usually funneled into a way that will convince others.
> 
> Could the latter possibly be Ti?


This is not example of you using Ti, but rather the process of using Introverted Intuition. You'll find that most INTJs who are not mistypes spend a great amount of time trying to understand concepts in-depth, as that's the nature of Introverted Intuition.

Ni: What's the core concept here? (perception)
Te: Why is this important or useful? (judgement)

Ti: What does this system mean, how is it defined? (judgement)
Ne: What other possibilities are there? (perception)

People tend not to understand how Introverted Intuition works, as I had to spend hours once trying to explain to somebody how I don't use Ti just because I like to break down information and get to the core understanding of a concept. People literally have translated and deluded themselves into believing that any process that breaks anything down until smaller parts is Ti.


----------



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

Paradox07 said:


> Ni: What's the core concept here? (perception)
> Te: Why is this important or useful? (judgement)
> 
> Ti: What does this system mean, how is it defined? (judgement)
> Ne: What other possibilities are there? (perception)


Your definition of Ni is definitely my primary function, but I always type INTP. I've always defined my primary mindset just like this, "always trying to see things as whatever larger concept they actually are and not attune to the details" and as an intuitive function it seems to fit the fundamental description of what it is to be an* intuitive*: big-picture oriented, simplifying details into the main concept of what things are and entail, and ignoring details. I'm a pretty logical and yet feeling-oriented person at the same time.

I also completely fit your Te definition: "Then what is the point of this, is it going to help me? or provide a solution?" I don't fit these Ti and Ne definitions you wrote, they seem very foreign to me. ie. when I try and understand a system, my first thoughts are always (a) "Why? What will be the benefit?" and (b) "Let's try to find the basic essence of this and see if it sparks any real meaning for me."

But I always type INTP as I am not proactive or organized. Anyone care to chime in on these definitions, or possible (P/J) preference problems?


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Manipulate the variables to the extremes to see if something continues to hold true.


----------



## Paradox07 (Dec 30, 2015)

NostalgicWizard said:


> Your definition of Ni is definitely my primary function, but I always type INTP. I've always defined my primary mindset just like this, "always trying to see things as whatever larger concept they actually are and not attune to the details" and as an intuitive function it seems to fit the fundamental description of what it is to be an* intuitive*: big-picture oriented, simplifying details into the main concept of what things are and entail, and ignoring details.
> 
> I also completely fit your Te definition: "Then what is the point of this, is it going to help me? or provide a solution?" I don't fit these Ti and Ne definitions, they seem very foreign to me. ie. when I try and understand a system, my first thoughts are always (a) "Why? What will be the benefit?" and (b) "Let's try to find the essence of this and see if it sparks any ideas or meaning for me."
> 
> But I always type INTP and am not proactive or organized.


This is a common reason of why people not only confuse an INTJ with an INTP, but also confuses this personality type with ISTJs. The problem becomes evident when people focus only on the practical and efficient nature of INTJs (extroverted thinking) without first considering how dominant Ni manifest in this personality type. I suspect this has become a main focus for INTJs, because it’s often used to separate the difference between an INTP/INFJ and an INTJ in many communities, but it’s misleading.

INTJs are big picture thinkers, meaning they concern themselves more with the underlining concepts of a particular thing than its actual practical nature (leading with Ni, not Te), and this can help be explained with their poor use of extroverted sensing. This ideally means that INTJs spend a vast amount of time conceptually trying to understand things (Ni) and their application (Te). This doesn’t always translate into immediate action and organization, as an INTJ can spend a great amount of time in one area before actually putting that purpose to use. When comparing this process to an ISTJ, an INTJ would look more similar to the nature of an INTP. When comparing this process to an INTP, an INTJ will look more practical due to wanting an application/results. Dominant Ni and auxiliary Te is a really weird mix of idealism and practicalities, sometimes contradicting themselves.


----------



## Spiren (May 12, 2016)

I don't know if this is necessarily true, but do INTPs have a tendency to cite more than INTJs?

It seems as if they already have a vast system and they're intimately more familiar with aspects of the system (Ti) than N doms, which allows them to point out every minute detail in a fashion I haven't noticed with others.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Nyle said:


> I don't know if this is necessarily true, but do INTPs have a tendency to cite more than INTJs?
> 
> It seems as if they already have a vast system and they're intimately more familiar with aspects of the system (Ti) than N doms, which allows them to point out every minute detail in a fashion I haven't noticed with others.


INTJs are known to cite a lot more. A lot of INTPs complain about this, as they don't see citing, by its own validity, to be enough to prove something. An INTP will deconstruct the citation, as well.


----------



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

Well, *Paradox07*, the reason that each function in MBTI is simplistically defined as the preferences they belong to, is to not cause confusion. MBTI takes 4 typological preferences and creates a generalized description. Ni, for instance, is really defined as a type of decisive judging just like Te is, because all Ni and Te users are Js. While Ti is a type of open-ended perceiving that uses objective logic as a tool, because Ti users are _defined_ as perceivers. It is laid out quite simple, because preferences leave no room for error. Ni and Te are strictly functions of Judging lifestyles:

*Ni = *an intuition about things that gives straight answers and an ability to work with these answers without having to ponder more. A quick accurate intuition, vision, or insight, aimed at coming to conclusions and implementations and moving on. Very _trial and error and experience-based_ intuition. Ni can tend to be defined in different ways by different xNxJs, but all xNxJs fit this.

*Ti = *a logical analysis of information, systems and things that seeks to gather more information and develop a more extensive understanding. A logical questioning of things aimed at being open to understanding how things work. Very _thought over > action, malleable_ thinking. Ti can tend to be defined in different ways by different xxTPs, but all xxTPs fit this.

ENTxs fit these definitions primarily too. MBTI functions only work by fitting with the preferences the type has (NJ or TP.) There is nothing deeper that MBTI has really done but use fancier words to describe more typical manifestations in xxTPs and xNxJs. People wrap their mind too much around the preconceived idea that these _more typical manifestations _are what they should experience when being these types, but the fact is, if you're an xNTP, you like all xNTPs, experience the xNTP functions of intuition and thinking.

If someone wanted to create a deeper theory of cognition, they would have to get rid some of these more shallow preferences like P and J, and especially E and I. (I also prefer the creation of a typology that is more balanced in types.)

For example, 



JaguarPap said:


> *INTJs are known to cite a lot more.* A lot of INTPs complain about this... *INTJs see citing, by its own validity, to be enough to prove something.* An INTP will deconstruct the citation, as well.


A clear manifestation of Thinking + Judging. This = Te because it has to = Te. If it were defined as deeply questioning sources of information, sources that are already reliable to make informed decisions, it would not represent the Judging lifestyle but can still be used by a J. Te = using facts, opinions, and any other preconceptions, to roll with quick _objective_ decisions, and move on. The_ degree_ a J does this without gathering more information, however, depends on how much % their J preference is. Therefore any time a J is pondering the objective working of things, rather than finding the objective answer, is the difference between them using Ti instead of Te and having more of a P lifestyle.

J functions = making a solid decision to implement a course of action (Ni, Si, Te, Fe.)

P functions = gaining more information and thought about something (Ti, Fi, Ne, Se.) However most SPs tend to type more J than NPs do, and are less reliant on the P lifestyle of reflective information-gathering.

The reason SPs type more J than NPs, with less reflective information-gathering, like the reason we see NJs as rarer types, is because intuition is a very P tool in general. The reason for its Perceiving lifestyle tendency is that it deals primarily with the _unseen aspects of life,_ therefore such questionable qualities naturally require _more_ pause, thought and wondering than other types. NJs happen to have this certain unique chemistry however where they're not so much interested in _questioning _these intuitions as they are comfortable and confident with just rolling with them.

This is why Ni type descriptions often read "the INxJ is usually correct and know they are," because anyone who has the instinct to be comfortable acting on intuitions that are not correct, will find themselves somewhere dead in a ditch and will be out of the evolutionary gene pool. This is why NJs are often very intelligent and correct about their intuitions, because by definition they _have_ to be in order to be that type. NJ, unlike SJ, is combination that _requires_ a decent amount of intelligence in order to work. And thus we see not many NJs, making MBTI a kind of unbalanced cognitive classification system imo. I prefer other systems of thought that go a step deeper than these strictly configured functions.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Paradox07 said:


> This is not example of you using Ti, but rather the process of using Introverted Intuition. You'll find that most INTJs who are not mistypes spend a great amount of time trying to understand concepts in-depth, as that's the nature of Introverted Intuition.
> 
> Ni: What's the core concept here? (perception)
> Te: Why is this important or useful? (judgement)
> ...


How does your example of Ni differ from Jung's definition of Thinking in that it is the function that links ideas by means of a concept?

Not to mention these other snippets on thinking:

by thinking I mean the function of intellectual cognition and the forming of logical conclusions; - CW Vol 6 Psychological Types - par 899

thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment - CW Vol 6 Psychological Types - par 900

Others are exclusively oriented by what they think, and simply cannot adapt to a situation which they are unable to understand intellectually. I call such people thinking types. - CW Vol 6 Psychological Types - par 901

thinking enables us to recognize its meaning - CW Vol 6 Psychological Types - par 958

thinking tells us what it means - CW Vol 6 Psychological Types - par 983

When the accent falls on thinking, judgment is reserved as to what significance should be attached to the facts in question. And on this significance will depend the way in which the individual deals with the facts. - CW Vol 6 Psychological Types - par 984

Another faculty interprets what is perceived; this I call thinking. By means of this function, the object perceived is assimilated and its transformation into a psychic content proceeds much further than in mere sensation. - CW Vol 8 The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche - par 256

Supposing we hear a noise whose nature seems to us unknown. After a while it becomes clear to us that the peculiar noise must come from air-bubbles rising in the pipes of the central heating: we have recognized the noise. This recognition derives from a process which we call thinking. Thinking tells us what a thing is. - CW Vol 8 The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche - par 288

The process of recognition can be conceived in essence as comparison and differentiation with the help of memory. When I see a fire, for instance, the light-stimulus conveys to me the idea “fire.” As there are countless memory-images of fire lying ready in my memory, these images enter into combination with the fire-image I have just received, and the process of comparing it with and differentiating it from these memory-images produces the recognition; that is to say, I finally establish in my mind the peculiarity of this particular image. In ordinary speech this process is called thinking. - CW Vol 8 The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche - par 290

[thinking (intellect)] - CW Vol 10 Civilization in Transition - par 626

it is _recognized as this and distinguished from that (thinking); - CW Vol 10 Civilization in Transition - par 774

In the diagram … In the second circle, thinking , he gets what his senses have told him; he will give things a name. - Analytical Psychology - pg 60-62

Thinking tells us what that thing is - Analytical Psychology - pg 29

The next function that is distinguishable is thinking. Thinking, if you ask a philosopher, is something very difficult, so never ask a philosopher about it because he is the only man who does not know what thinking is. Everybody else knows what thinking is. When you say to a man, 'Now think properly', he knows exactly what you mean, but a philosopher never knows. Thinking in its simplest form tells you what a thing is. It gives a name to the thing. It adds a concept because thinking is perception and judgement. (German psychology calls it apperception.) - Analytical Psychology - pg 28+

thinking tells you what it is; - Man and His Symbols - pg 49

Thinking, roughly speaking, tells you what it is. - Memories, Dreams, Reflections - pg 306

thinking enables us to recognize its meaning - Modern Man in Search of a Soul - pg 96_


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Actually, Ti is a judging function. Ni is a perceiving function.


----------



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

First, let us assume that INTPs don't have a stronger preference for Thinking than they do Intuition (I actually type much stronger in intuition,) and INTJs the same. Perceiving and Judging in MBTI refer to the _lifestyle_ of an individual. Because we're in the MBTI system, we have to correlate Ne and Ti with the Perceiving lifestyle preference, because IxTPs do _not _have a Judging preference. The lifestyle and primary aim of INTPs is to reflect on information, brainstorm, and further comprehend, which Ti and Ne are both attributed (and see no reason an INTP is Ti > over Ne or visa versa.) The singular visions an Ni type has are in response to J-ness limiting perception. The same ease of gaining powerful visions is _equally_ INTP's, but the INTP's response is not for resolution, but _further_ reflection and brainstorming which produces more visions and possibilities. Ni doesn't make objective judgments, but directly follows the Judging lifestyle in that its aim is for singular decisive information and implementation of it. Ni is attributed to a Judging preference because INxJs do_ not _have a Perceiving preference.


----------



## JaguarPap (Mar 26, 2016)

Since Ni is a Perceiving function, INJs often report that its workings often feel effortless. When INJs express the need to “think about” something, this means something very different from what it might for other types. Namely, the lion’s share of INJs’ “thinking” or cognitive processing occurs outside of their conscious awareness.


----------



## NostalgicWizard (May 28, 2016)

My predominant workings feel effortless and I type INTP, (workings which aren't presented here.) I believe some INTJs might record Ni as effortless, but it's generally a misconception of themselves among other people.

Ni has a preference for information that is singular and decisive in nature, as it fits with a decisive Judging lifestyle. Ti and Ne don't do this. The reason why Ni feels effortless to an INTJ is because in its initial step, it doesn't need to gain more information or ponder, because it has already come to a vision. INTPs through Ne come to singular visions all the time. It is easy, it is effortless. However there are two parts to being a J, and gaining a decisive bit of information is the second part. The first part is the initial desire to utilize where everyone with a J lifestyle finds purpose. An INTJ might view the making of decisions based on their intuition "effortless," but this is because intuition simply comes and goes like it does primarily with the INTP too. You think my primary cognition takes effort? Yet INTJs have a predominant lifestyle approach which is firstly too much effort to an INTP. INTPs are effortless and unthinking, just as much.

Where the actual effort of each type comes into play might be a different story, however. As Perceivers, INTPs give _some_ effort in the intellectual explanations of things, writing papers and designing diagrams. As Judgers or Proactive decision-makers however, INTJs give their effort in the realm of making and implementing decisions, and that is their way of life.


----------



## Madman (Aug 7, 2012)

Definitions are my best friend. I use them to outline a system/model and to understand the structure of said system/model. I view everything as intertwined, a conceptual framework of stuff that constitute my model (understanding) of the world. No loose ends, internal consistency and coherence between all the points of information. If something does not fit the logical framework, break it down, and re-define it.

You can derive so much new information from a few simple axioms. In my view definitions are the backbone of every model. If I want to understand something I change the definition to see why it does not work (why it cannot work) and the reason why it usually does not work is that it creates an incoherent system. I do not like incoherent systems. In terms of logic I am far more interested in validity than soundness. The flow of information between these systems is what gives me new insights in my understanding of the world. My world is not made from sensory inputs, but from definitions.


----------

