# Dichotomies and functions



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> Each letter represents a preference, not an absolute. Splitting types up into every combination of those preferences still doesn't make an absolute statement (all it really does is clarify that type is more than the addition of four discrete and non-interacting preferences) - so, for example, the fact that ESTJ has "ES" and "ET" no more suggests an absence of interaction between introversion and sensing, or introversion and thinking, than "E" does an absence of introversion (i.e., it doesn't). Regardless, this whole post is predicated on a conflation of, for instance, "IT" (meaning "the combination of a preference for introversion over extraversion and a preference for thinking over feeling") and Ti (meaning "introverted thinking") - as others have pointed out, they're not the same thing, so the suggestion raised here is without basis.


I understand they're preferences.

But how is TI and Ti different, except it's written differently? Or is it some Ti hocus-pocus I am not privy to?


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ixim said:


> I understand they're preferences.
> 
> But how is TI and Ti different, except it's written differently? Or is it some Ti hocus-pocus I am not privy to?


As I said in my post - "IT" is "the combination of a preference for introversion over extraversion and a preference for thinking over feeling" (to put it more succinctly, "introversion + thinking"), whereas "Ti" is "introverted thinking". In the latter, it is the thinking that is introverted; in the former, the introversion is a description attaching to the person themselves. The two are clearly conceptually different. (I raised preferences because, if you equate, say, "Si" with "IS", and then proceed to point to the absence of "IS" as a combination of ESTJ preferences as though it means something, you imply that the letters represent some absolute claim. Even if we ignore type dynamics, it seems theoretically feasible that the sensing facets of an ESTJ's personality could arise more commonly in introverted situations - thus giving them a stronger relationship to "IS" than either "ES" or "IN" (and quite a weak "EN"), despite their being an ESTJ. So the argument is flawed on that level as well.)

Understand that I'm not arguing the validity of type dynamics here, or anything like that; all I am doing is addressing an unreasonable conflation in the argument you presented in the OP. Maybe "Ti" is "hocus-pocus", maybe not - but, either way, your argument doesn't have anything to say on that question, because of that unreasonable conflation.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> As I said in my post - "IT" is "the combination of a preference for introversion over extraversion and a preference for thinking over feeling" (to put it more succinctly, "introversion + thinking"), whereas "Ti" is "introverted thinking". In the latter, it is the thinking that is introverted; in the former, the introversion is a description attaching to the person themselves. The two are clearly conceptually different. (I raised preferences because, if you equate, say, "Si" with "IS", and then proceed to point to the absence of "IS" as a combination of ESTJ preferences as though it means something, you imply that the letters represent some absolute claim. Even if we ignore type dynamics, it seems theoretically feasible that the sensing facets of an ESTJ's personality could arise more commonly in introverted situations - thus giving them a stronger relationship to "IS" than either "ES" or "IN" (and quite a weak "EN"), despite their being an ESTJ. So the argument is flawed on that level as well.)
> 
> Understand that I'm not arguing the validity of type dynamics here, or anything like that; all I am doing is addressing an unreasonable conflation in the argument you presented in the OP. Maybe "Ti" is "hocus-pocus", maybe not - but, either way, your argument doesn't have anything to say on that question, because of that unreasonable conflation.


I literally understood NOTHING what you said. Care to speak human?


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Ixim said:


> I literally understood NOTHING what you said. Care to speak human?


don't blame him he's a bit lost in the world, went from istj to intjs then isfp and finally he's an intp
ti is funny specially when you try that hard


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ixim said:


> I literally understood NOTHING what you said. Care to speak human?


Your comprehension issues really aren't my problem, but I'll simplify regardless:
First Point
IT = "introversion preference + thinking preference"
Ti = "thinking which is introverted"
The former is the combination of two statements about the person (they prefer I to E, and they prefer T to F). The latter is a claim about a person's thinking, _irrespective_ of whether they prefer T to F or not, and _irrespective_ of whether they prefer I to E or not. Thus, the two are distinct; "Ti" and "IT" do not denote the same concept.
Second Point
You attempted to show that a breakdown of ESTJ preference combinations (ES, ET, EJ, &c.) and the notional ESTJ function-stack (Te-Si-Ne-Fi) were at odds, by pointing out "ES" and "Si". But, as above, "ES" is just "preference for E over I, and preference for S over N" - the introversion isn't absent. Maybe the sensing aspects of the given ESTJ coincide with the introverted side of his/her personality? 
Third Point
I was clarifying that what I'm stating here is not an argument for either side of the "dichotomies vs. functions" debate you seem to be seeking to engender: all I am doing is showing that the argument you provided in the OP doesn't follow, for the reasons shown above. 

Clearer?



MeTheParrot said:


> don't blame him he's a bit lost in the world, went from istj to intjs then isfp and finally he's an intp
> ti is funny specially when you try that hard


Don't recall ever considering myself an INTJ or ISFP, so not sure where you're deriving those from. Did type as ISTJ, though... I take it, from "ti is funny specially when you try that hard", that you think I'm at least somewhat on the right track with INTP? Though I can't recall interacting with you previously, so I don't know what evidence you'd be working from anyway...


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> Your comprehension issues really aren't my problem, but I'll simplify regardless:
> First Point
> IT = "introversion preference + thinking preference"
> Ti = "thinking which is introverted"
> ...


Ok, now I understand. It's basically the nature of the systems:

MBTI tests preferences
(Almost) everything else tests underlying phenomena

Fair enough.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ixim said:


> Ok, now I understand. It's basically the nature of the systems:
> 
> MBTI tests preferences
> (Almost) everything else tests underlying phenomena
> ...


Not really - functions and dichotomies (so, consequently, both the concepts of "IT" and "Ti") are both part of MBTI, just entirely distinct parts with distinct meanings. In treating the two as the same concepts, your OP was in error.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

StunnedFox said:


> Not really - functions and dichotomies (so, consequently, both the concepts of "IT" and "Ti") are both part of MBTI, just entirely distinct parts with distinct meanings. In treating the two as the same concepts, your OP was in error.


I wouldn't exactly say that MBTI supports functions. I'd say that something that has roots in both MBTI and JTI is just the thing you are talking about. I call it simply "modern typology". And it is very often mistaken for MBTI.

But that doesn't matter! What matters is that I understood you.


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Ixim said:


> I wouldn't exactly say that MBTI supports functions. I'd say that something that has roots in both MBTI and JTI is just the thing you are talking about. I call it simply "modern typology". And it is very often mistaken for MBTI.
> 
> But that doesn't matter! What matters is that I understood you.


Depends what you mean by "supports functions". There's no getting around the fact that official MBTI information does have a significant function-based component (what's called "type dynamics"), and IxTPs have Ti as their dominant function under that just as they do under what you call "modern typology", but at the same time, you're right that some slightly amorphous function-based typology gets mislabelled as "MBTI" on sites like this one frequently. 

Glad to hear you've understood me.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Ixim said:


> There are no emotions, there is peace.
> 
> Ok, it is difficult but how is a guy who has next to no interest in T stuff(especially Ti) supposed to learn these things? To me, all these descriptions are just bunch of letters. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> And are you really suggesting that a man shouldn't have an ace in the hole? If you really think that, I'll really start doubring your Ni type. And I will not give up. I'll find it even if it means...whatever it means(my type that is).


If this is mostly about getting laid then I think you would have an easier time just looking up a dating coach.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

hornet said:


> If this is mostly about getting laid then I think you would have an easier time just looking up a dating coach.


No it is not, it is about being prepared. And I believe MBTI and such things can help you with a lot of things. In other words, prepare you.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Ixim said:


> No it is not, it is about being prepared. And I believe MBTI and such things can help you with a lot of things. In other words, prepare you.


I think that you're overestimating the power of the MBTI. Type doesn't mean that you're completely unable to do an specific job, just that you may focus in a different way if there's a part of it that annoys you or that maybe you're not exactly drawn to it, but that also depends of your own skills.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Ixim said:


> No it is not, it is about being prepared. And I believe MBTI and such things can help you with a lot of things. In other words, prepare you.


Well okay then I misread you.
You are right that such a system can be helpful.
You are a Delta and hence you operate in a very different informational level.
I wish you luck with your adventures.
This is after all a debate where you are basically fighting over who interprets reality most correctly.
I mean how are you planning to actually apply this IRL?
That is what matters, theory only matters if your application is screwed up and one needs to go in and fix it.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

hornet said:


> Well okay then I misread you.
> You are right that such a system can be helpful.
> You are a Delta and hence you operate in a very different informational level.
> I wish you luck with your adventures.
> ...


I could still be gamma. I know that I am ExFP. Now which one is up for anyone's guess. Mine is ENFP.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Ixim said:


> I could still be gamma. I know that I am ExFP. Now which one is up for anyone's guess. Mine is ENFP.


Oh I see...
So you havn't landed on a type yet.
Well too bad...
I'd point you somewhere, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't listen.
Cya!


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

hornet said:


> Oh I see...
> So you havn't landed on a type yet.
> Well too bad...
> I'd point you somewhere, but I get the feeling that you wouldn't listen.
> Cya!


I've tried everything. This is up to me to figure via "try and witness" method.


----------

