# When Te contemplates vs. when Ti contemplates.



## Saint Batman of Gotham (Jan 24, 2014)

Hello all! I'm new to Personality Cafe, although I have frequently browsed through the forums in the past. Recently MBTI and Jungian functions have been gnawing into my mind. I am an INTJ, although I think it would be better stylized as iNTj. 

My question is about how exactly Te and Ti differ as far as they relate to internal discourse. I've heard over and over, "Te is about the world; Ti is about ideas," and similar notions. It's silly, of course, to think that we wielders of Te can't think at all inside our heads. In fact I know it to be false (unless I am mistyped). So I would like it if someone could help me by giving me a rough portrait how Te wielders and Ti wielders differ when they are alone, thinking. 

Cheers!


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

A simplistic picture.

One:
Inducted or invented axioms used within deductive logic and contrasted to established axioms and logic.

The other:
Claims or ideas explored and then contrasted to prior understanding and external precedents for congruence and conflict.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

default settings said:


> A simplistic picture.
> 
> One:
> Inducted or invented axioms used within deductive logic and contrasted to established axioms and logic.
> ...




```
half serious mode
```
^^I had a mental breakdown trying to understand that, how is that simplistic ?


----------



## Saint Batman of Gotham (Jan 24, 2014)

What default settings said is along the lines of what I had been thinking. I know a lot of the time when I think, I spend most of my time wishing I could google the answer or have some real statistics to deal with.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Saint Batman of Gotham said:


> What default settings said is along the lines of what I had been thinking. I know a lot of the time when I think, I spend most of my time wishing I could google the answer or have some real statistics to deal with.


Who wouldn't want that?

Have you ever read Lenore Thomson explanations for Ti? They're the best out there.

Socionics - the16types.info - Lenore Thomson's MBTI Wiki Explanation of Functions

Proposed definition #1: Orientation to underlying cause

Introverted Thinking (Ti) is the attitude that beneath the complexity of what is manifest (apparent, observed, experienced) there is an underlying unity: a source or essence that emerges and takes form in different ways depending on circumstances. What is manifest is seen as a manifestation of something. From a Ti standpoint, the way to respond to things is in a way that is faithful to that underlying cause or source and helps it emerge fully and complete, without interference from any notion of self. The way to understand that underlying essence is to learn to simultaneously see many relationships within what is manifest, to see every element in relation to every other element, the relationships being the "signature" of the underlying unity. This can only be experienced directly, not second-hand.

Proposed definition #2: Orientation by "the groove"

Introverted thinking is a form of mental representation in which every input, every variable, every aspect of things is considered simultaneously and holistically to perceive causal, mathematical, and aesthetic order. What you know by Ti, you know with your hands, your eyes, your muscles, even a tingling sensation "downstairs" because you sense that everything fits. Every variable is fair game to vary, every combination of variables worthy of consideration; the only ultimate arbiter is how well the parts form a unified whole rather than a jumble.

Orienting by Ti, you track causal harmony: you are part of the system, you do your part to fit in with that overall way that things make sense and harmonize. You get into "the flow" or "the zone". You need a gestalt sense of order to know what to do--a sense that you feel in your body, in your mind, in everything at once. "I get it." Without that, you are lost.

For example: You hear a Brahms piece that you've never heard before, and you're sure it's Brahms. How can you tell? You can't name a criterion, like the pitch of the notes, the number of notes, or some simply measurable criterion like that (see extraverted thinking). You know "all at once" because of the way in which the notes all relate to each other. You sense the overall pattern as an indivisible gestalt way in which the music makes sense.

For example: You are composing a piece of music, and you sense that something "doesn't fit". A dominant seventh chord here just doesn't fit the style of the piece. You take it out and replace it with a peculiar series of ambiguous chords, bridging two sections of the piece in a way that leads to but doesn't give away what is to come. Ahh, now that's right. That's what the piece really wanted. It's not what "you" wanted, it's what the emerging causal harmony of the music wanted. "Your" only job is to create faithfully to that emerging harmony--to follow the groove.

What is that groove? What distinguishes the harmonious whole from the jumble, or the almost-whole? This cannot be said, it can only be pointed to. It cannot be defined in advance of knowing it. It cannot be defined separately from the physical material that it potentially exists within. You can "say" it only by directing someone's attention to the parts and how they fit together. You acquire terms of discourse--a vocabulary of things to say--only through "conversation" with the material itself: interacting with it, letting it take shape. Once you've found the groove, you can explore it endlessly--the infinity of ways in which the underlying Idea of the Whole necessitates the arrangement of the parts, the infinity of different ways that the same Idea can be realized in different parts and different situations, and what that Idea is.

In contrast to the "linear thinking" necessitated by extraverted thinking's representation in terms of verbally defined criteria, Ti takes in everything at once and converts it into a "way in which the whole fits together." You can't stop and explain each step as you go; there are no steps, only flow, only finding the groove and going with it.

In contrast to other attitudes, especially left-brain and Feeling attitudes, Ti does not lead you to experience a sense of self. There is no "you" who is separate from the process in which the material takes on the form that is natural to it. Whether people find the way the parts want to arrange themselves into a harmonious whole offensive, whether you find it pleasant or painful, whether you personally like it or not--you see these as distractions. Your job is to get yourself in harmony with it. The Idea of the whole must become real, and it must be necessitated by the nature of the parts. What "you" create must already be there, as form latent within the material, already yearning to exist. You bring no notion of self to your work except perhaps that of midwife to Nature.

This last paragraph is a fairly high-fidelity description of using Ti as a dominant function, at least to this INTP reader. Midwife to Nature was especially apt. Writer, would you describe Introverted Feeling similarly to this?

High-bandwidth understanding

Introverted Thinking leads you to relate whatever you are doing to some larger principles that you have identified. Hence, Ti is like having some kind of book in your head, which describes the inner workings of things. When interacting with reality, you are constantly writing and re-writing your book. To deal with anything, you have to be able to understand in terms of the observations in your book. Whenever you are dealing with any new system, you start writing a new chapter on it in order to attain complete understanding of it.

This approach may seem very cumbersome from an extraverted standpoint. You don't really need to understand how a bicycle works in order to ride one. You don't have to actually understand a subject in school if you simply cram and memorize. You don't have to understand computers to check your email. Yet Ti leads you to desire complete understanding of whatever you are doing, instead of looking up the correct procedure, or asking your friends for help, or kicking it when it's not working. With Ti, you don't simply try to understand a system well enough to manipulate it. You try to become such an expert on how it works that you could write a book about it if you had to, even if your expertise is unusable or useless to everybody (sometimes even to yourself).

Hence, Ti is a kind of high-bandwidth understanding, because it leads you to try to understand the entire causal, aesthetic, or logical mechanism of any system of interest. This kind of understanding takes much more time and effort to develop, but it is more flexible once attained, because it allows you to deal with aspects of reality that cannot be described through social norms or sets of discrete procedures.
True knowledge comes through the fingers

In a sense that everyone understands, true knowledge comes through the fingers, not through the ears or the eyes.

To illustrate what we mean by that, consider what happens when someone tells you how to do something moderately complicated with a certain computer program (say, MS-Word or Excel). They tell you how to work it, but that day you don't operate it yourself (maybe they were telling you over the phone when you weren't at a computer). When you finally try it yourself the next day, you can't get anything to work. All sorts of crucial details are missing from your memory. Or perhaps you remember everything perfectly, but they forgot to tell you something crucial. Now consider what happens when someone sits down in front of you and demonstrates how to operate the program. They run through the whole thing and explain as they go. The next day, you try it yourself for the first time. And barely anything works, again because crucial details are missing. And now consider what happens when they show you how to work the program by having you sit down at the computer. You type as they tell you what to do and point things out on the screen. Every time they forget a detail, you catch it immediately, and they supply the missing info. Every time you run into something you don't understand, you just ask them right away, or they tell you without your asking because it's obvious what you need to be shown. When you work the program again the next day, you're not a pro yet, but you can actually do stuff.

What's relevant here is not the sense of touch, but whether you are actively engaged with the tool. When you interact with the tool using your very own body, the reality of the tool becomes known to you in a different way than when someone tells you or shows you how to use the tool. You understand in a right-brain way rather than a left-brain way. The reality of the tool is guaranteed to have shown itself, because you had a concrete experience with the tool, not just a verbal or symbolic representation of it. The causal relationships of the tool get burned into your brain in a way that transcends words. You could try to translate your understanding into a linear stream of words, but you would indeed be translating: the actual knowledge that you have is not linear and not words. It's an "all at once" thing, and it seems that the knowledge resides in your hand. Or in other words, you have come to understand the tool in the Ti way.

Another example: Let's say you want to make a tower out of random irregular objects. For example a book, an eraser, a pencil and a cup.

A Te approach would be to think of the tower as a list. And try to reduce variables to a minimun. For instance, you would only use the book closed to keep variables down. If you use every object in only one way you only have 24 combinations in total. That way you can be sure that you make the best choice. Then you can decide to put the book with the biggest base first. So you put the book first, then the cup, the eraser and the pencil. Done.

Ti, on the other hand, would encourage you to pick two objects and try to add more. Feel them, consider all the possibilities. Once you are very familiar with each object you can picture everything in your mind. You can see how they fit and how they interact with each other in time. But you don't longer think in 'objects', you think in gestals. You see everything as a fluid. For instance, you consider now the table and your breath as part of the system. You are familiar with the everything in a way that you can consider things like keeping the book open, or taking pages out of it and add them elsewhere to keep balance. After playing with everything a little you see how it would work best and you just do it.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> Who wouldn't want that?
> 
> Have you ever read Lenore Thomson explanations for Ti? They're the best out there.
> 
> ...


what is interesting about this is the overlap between how Ti is described and how Ni is described.
It would, perhaps, explain why NeFi users seem "more" Ne than NeTi users.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Te kind of compares phenomenons against safe measures. Te focuses on what is already known, and attempts to define what they exactly need to learn in order to know what is unknown.

For example, when Te-user gets lost in the unfamiliar city, he first attempts to recall where did he come from (airport), where is he exactly going (bus station), and where can he access the information that can point out his location (tries to find a city map). Using the map, he sees which street he is at, and which route does he have to move to reach destination (up the street, turn left, cross the street, up the street, look right). 

Ti kind of separates the phenomenon and attempts to compare these divided parts against conceptually similar parts. Ti focuses on what is unknown, and attempts to build a pattern, or link together the parts within that unknown area, using the simple and universal principles, and learns largely through trial and error. 

For example, when Ti-user gets lost in the unfamiliar city, he first attempts to locate his exact position (sees many new buildings and private houses, logically concludes that this the outskirts of the town) and then attempts to locate the general direction (it's friday and many cars are coming from the left, which means the cars are coming from the freeway and heading into the downtown) and decides to turn to the right and walk up the street, while actively observing the streets and buildings (increasingly more people on the street, the mix of old and new buildings indicates that the downtown is near) and next up attempts to look at the maps on the bus stops to see where the buses are heading, and follows this path to reach the destination.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

@Saint Batman of Gotham

I don't have anything to add which hasn't already been said, but I just have to congratulate you on your username, I love it! :tongue:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> what is interesting about this is the overlap between how Ti is described and how Ni is described.
> It would, perhaps, explain why NeFi users seem "more" Ne than NeTi users.


Not according to lenores definition of ni which is closer to what ni is compared to most other descriptions. She brings up the symbolism and lenores description was the only one I related to when I mistyped and related more so than her ne which didn't make sense to me. 

Lenore is right, most other descriptions are wrong in my opinion.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

Tertiary Ti coming in.

I can relate a bit to what @_Cellar Door_ said. 

I notice that when I try to figure something out or test it's legitimacy, it needs to be true to their 'core.' The core being something which I have observed steady/present along/in many different things and thus consider true. If it's not true to the core 100%, I/other person either did something wrong or it's false. Everything must indeed fit together with an underlying harmony. Stress always being on the underlying harmony or core. 

And like Cellar Door said, there's no 'you.' Ti simply presents, always searching for the truth of the matter. Which not being a Ti-dom/aux is sometimes rather difficult to accept. So at times when it's too unpleasant I just stop thinking of it and do something else to forget about it. Tert Ti after all.

"You want the truth? This is the damn truth. Such and such never was, this is how it always has been plain and simple, even when you were off to fantasy land. There's nothing to like, it just is." *stares you in the face like a crazy maniac* xD j/k j/k

-great... :dry:

I don't even know if that's actually my tertiary Ti, but I'll asume it is anyway. Being tert Ti I only have a vague sense of it so I might be (way) off or not even close.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

As for the title and the OP, I am uncertain if the word "contemplate" can even be properly applied to Te.



KraChZiMan said:


> Te kind of compares phenomenons against safe measures. Te focuses on what is already known, and attempts to define what they exactly need to learn in order to know what is unknown.
> 
> For example, when Te-user gets lost in the unfamiliar city, he first attempts to recall where did he come from (airport), where is he exactly going (bus station), and where can he access the information that can point out his location (tries to find a city map). Using the map, he sees which street he is at, and which route does he have to move to reach destination (up the street, turn left, cross the street, up the street, look right).
> 
> ...


This is pretty nonsensical and useless hairsplitting. It doesn't describe what Te and Ti are and how they approach problem-solving. The examples are not mutually exclusive. I would for example first try to locate where I am, then I would try to think of where I came from and where I was supposed to go etc. Te and Ti deal with judgements, or how we decide the state of things. You didn't describe that process here.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I think an important point to make is that Te is lazy.
All the objective functions are lazy.
Te looks around for an allready precompiled recipie or method.
Only if there is no excisting method does Te start to constuct from scratch.
And what is constructed becomes the new method until a better one emerges.

Ti on the other hand has this great work ethic and will gladly reason out a solution from scratch.
And the next time the same method can be used again, but likely Ti will just do it from scratch again.
*Cause working is just so god damn fun. xD*

I see this with Fi also, always trying to do social ethical interactions from scratch.
Te wants me to just use some prescripted method, but then I feel cruel and heartless.
Fe on the other hand kinda imports their ethical methods from the environment.
Sort of like when they arrive they import ethics.sys and then update it as needed.

Objective functions are crude and incapable of finesse, and hence are looked down upon
by their introverted cousins as primitive. Jung also called them primitive.
So when we wonder about this we should really look at the level of work a person is willing to do on a certain level.
If that willingness is low, well that is a huge sign of extroversion, if it is high it is a huge sign of introversion.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Te's definitive conclusion will align with the objective facts. 
Ti's definitive conclusion will be that which appears true and correct to Ti. 

That's why Ti types may perceive Te types as 'not thinking for themselves' and why Te types may perceive Ti types as 'cherry picking facts to fit a subjective idea'. These are the assumptions they make because their opposite viewpoints are incomprehensible to the other.

The process is the same, the difference is the content which they place importance on.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Te uses external systems, methods, logic, and conclusions to apply information.

Ti uses internal systems, methods, logic, and conclusions to apply information. 


When the perceiving function is extroverted the judging function checks that information internally. When the perceiving function is introverted the judging function checks that information externally. 

The judging function is looking for truth, lies, fallacies, failures, and completeness. Te does it in an extroverted way and Ti does it in an introverted way.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

hornet said:


> All the objective functions are lazy.
> [...]
> Objective functions are crude and incapable of finesse, and hence are looked down upon


Hey now. Why put it like that? I could equally say that introverted functions finetune and sculpt something so much it becomes frictionless. And no friction often isn't a good thing. There are parts that jut out for a reason. Or introverted functions can focus on the objectively wrong aspect and tunnel vision into that, leaving other parts of reality untouched. Sure maybe it works for them, but similarly, dealing with larger quantities of objective data (simplistic a definition as that is, but you get the point) is an extrovert skill. The energy is the same, it's just split into many different directions. And that's not lazy. That's our form of finesse.


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> As for the title and the OP, I am uncertain if the word "contemplate" can even be properly applied to Te.


That was the first thing that went through my mind when I read the OP, I don't think that Te even contemplates. It either knows or doesn't, after that it either goes out and get the right information or a percieving function like Ni would deem such action to be irrelevent.

I consider Te to be an outward flow of either this works and that doesn't because of reason 1,2,3 and 4. Most answers seem like true, false or presently unknown and X,Y and Z need to be done in order to get such information in a reliable fashion. I think that Te dominant or auxiliary users also use a bit of Ti in order to mess with the variables of given facts, such as statistics.

Edit: There would be no reason for Te to 'contemplate' to begin with, take INTJ's for example, they already have Ni and if one function out of the 8 can contemplate on an issue it would be Ni. Having one 'contemplating' function right after the other wouldn't make much of an awesome personality type now would it?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Amaterasu said:


> Hey now. Why put it like that? I could equally say that introverted functions finetune and sculpt something so much it becomes frictionless. And no friction often isn't a good thing. There are parts that jut out for a reason. Or introverted functions can focus on the objectively wrong aspect and tunnel vision into that, leaving other parts of reality untouched. Sure maybe it works for them, but similarly, dealing with larger quantities of objective data (simplistic a definition as that is, but you get the point) is an extrovert skill. The energy is the same, it's just split into many different directions. And that's not lazy. That's our form of finesse.


Good point.
I can see how it would be wrong to approach it like that.

Extroverted function isn't lazy then, but rather spread thin, so each aspect is less covered.
But from the perspective of the introverted function the extrovert apears lazy,
because they just touch base with everything real quick.
And to the extrovert the introvert appears to nitpick some random thing for no good reason.


----------



## azdahak (Mar 2, 2013)

hornet said:


> Ti on the other hand has this great work ethic and will gladly reason out a solution from scratch.
> And the next time the same method can be used again, but likely Ti will just do it from scratch again.
> *Cause working is just so god damn fun. xD*



Haha. This is so true. I will often re-derive things I already know, or work something through by hand rather than just letting a computer do it. 

I'm not sure if I would call it fun, but it's somehow more satisfying. 
It's almost as if I believe a "fact" more when I see myself how it fits into the picture.

Maybe a good pejorative word for this would be redundant or inefficient, lol


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> Have you ever read Lenore Thomson explanations for Ti? They're the best out there.


Just for the record, none of that stuff you quoted is Lenore Thomson. The page you linked to includes some short Thomson quotes, but the stuff you quoted is just that particular forumite doing a lot of riffing/expanding on their own interpretations of Thomson.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> As for the title and the OP, I am uncertain if the word "contemplate" can even be properly applied to Te.
> 
> This is pretty nonsensical and useless hairsplitting. It doesn't describe what Te and Ti are and how they approach problem-solving. The examples are not mutually exclusive. I would for example first try to locate where I am, then I would try to think of where I came from and where I was supposed to go etc. Te and Ti deal with judgements, or how we decide the state of things. You didn't describe that process here.


Okay, I get it that you do not agree. People sometimes have disagreements, that's what makes us human.

Like, every time I make a post, you always have to point out that "OMG HE'S AN INFP TIME TO BE SUPER CRITICAL". Can't there be least bit of democracy without some weird INTJ being condescending towards others?


----------



## Saint Batman of Gotham (Jan 24, 2014)

Pelopra said:


> what is interesting about this is the overlap between how Ti is described and how Ni is described.
> It would, perhaps, explain why NeFi users seem "more" Ne than NeTi users.


I actually thought about the same thing when I read @Cellar Door's post. The Ti which was described sounds an awful lot like Ni to me. I bookmarked the page which he had linked. His description makes me question classifying myself as an INTJ somewhat. I used to think I was an ENTP. My mother is an xSTJ, so I've always wondered if perhaps her Te has just rubbed off on me somehow. 
@Boogie man

I don't have a standardized username for sites like this, so I had to make it up on the spot. I was pretty thrilled with it though. 
@ephemereality

I just have to say that Scar Symmetry is an incredibly wonderful and underappreciated band.


----------



## Saint Batman of Gotham (Jan 24, 2014)

Dedication said:


> That was the first thing that went through my mind when I read the OP, I don't think that Te even contemplates. It either knows or doesn't, after that it either goes out and get the right information or a percieving function like Ni would deem such action to be irrelevent.
> 
> I consider Te to be an outward flow of either this works and that doesn't because of reason 1,2,3 and 4. Most answers seem like true, false or presently unknown and X,Y and Z need to be done in order to get such information in a reliable fashion. I think that Te dominant or auxiliary users also use a bit of Ti in order to mess with the variables of given facts, such as statistics.
> 
> Edit: There would be no reason for Te to 'contemplate' to begin with, take INTJ's for example, they already have Ni and if one function out of the 8 can contemplate on an issue it would be Ni. Having one 'contemplating' function right after the other wouldn't make much of an awesome personality type now would it?


So wait, you're saying that Ni can contemplate? What does that look like? I'm thoroughly confused now. =P

Edit: How about this: Ti simply thinks, using raw ideas - linear and organized, but not necessarily expressible in words. Te is ALWAYS expressible in words. "Contemplation for the Ni-Te user might be somewhat like this: Ni comes up with an idea or a relationship, Te expresses it in words. Is this accurate? 

A few months ago, I took up mindfulness meditation. One of the most interesting parts of it for me was being able to witness my thoughts in raw form. When I would initially have a thought arise into my conscious view, it would be only an impression, one which I understood, but not words. As soon as I would give it my focus however, it gained a label. Could this be Ni and Te? I can contrast this with my girlfriend, an INFJ, who usually has trouble putting her thoughts into words, but is almost always able to feel ideas, if that makes sense. Could that be Ni-Fe being unable to express a concept in a concrete and linguistic way?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Okay, I get it that you do not agree. People sometimes have disagreements, that's what makes us human.
> 
> Like, every time I make a post, you always have to point out that "OMG HE'S AN INFP TIME TO BE SUPER CRITICAL". Can't there be least bit of democracy without some weird INTJ being condescending towards others?


But don't you think it's strange that I agree with other fi types on this site? I don't agree because honestly I think your understanding of the theory is crap and this being an open forum makes it possible for me to openly express that disagreement. I have the right to point out what I think is flawed reasoning.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Okay, I get it that you do not agree. People sometimes have disagreements, that's what makes us human.
> 
> Like, every time I make a post, you always have to point out that "OMG HE'S AN INFP TIME TO BE SUPER CRITICAL". Can't there be least bit of democracy without some weird INTJ being condescending towards others?


I don't think that's an INTJ trait. What type is generally critical of theories? I see INTJs as wanting to improve theories. So we try to help improve them instead of dismissing input out of hand, especially since none of the current theories are correct yet. Try not to let one outlier bother you.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> what is interesting about this is the overlap between how Ti is described and how Ni is described.
> It would, perhaps, explain why NeFi users seem "more" Ne than NeTi users.


Yeah, the Ji functions aren't necessarily as conscious as Je functions according to the definition of conscious most people use. I work with some ESTJs that think in a lot of detail, and they're really impressed when people know lots of objective facts about something. For example, how much something weights, dimensions of objects, the exact size screw driver required to do something, the cabling type and grade you'll need to do something. It's all the stuff that would still exist if humans died out, and while I'll know a lot of that stuff, I have a much more feel-based understanding of things. I'll have lots of details about stuff that I have direct experience with where I had to know it, but when it comes to figuring out new things I have to do it myself and according to how I feel and see things at the time I'm doing them. The knowledge I accumulate and that I'm interested in is more functional knowledge or dynamics in situation that you only really know if you were there. 

For example, I can't stand following written directions, I hate being told how to do things, I don't organize things unless I absolutely have to, etc. I would much rather look at what's going on and develop my own system. So I may follow parts of directions as a way to trouble shoot my own method, or I may ask advice but only really specific advice to get me past a road block, and I'll only organize something if it's required to get the tangible result I desire. It's like, when I'm in the moment and can see what's going on I can easily react and do what I need to do, planning in advance beyond what I've experience is really frustrating because I don't feel the same sense of certainty as when I'm actively involved with something.

I don't know if that makes sense...


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Not according to lenores definition of ni which is closer to what ni is compared to most other descriptions. She brings up the symbolism and lenores description was the only one I related to when I mistyped and related more so than her ne which didn't make sense to me.
> 
> Lenore is right, most other descriptions are wrong in my opinion.


I <3 Lenore


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Merihim said:


> Tertiary Ti coming in.
> 
> I can relate a bit to what @_Cellar Door_ said.
> 
> ...


Yeah the way I think of it is that I need to make sure a fact is consistent with everything else I know. For example, one of my majors in undergrad was math. Every time I did a problem I would solve it in multiple different ways to make sure my answer was right. It definitely wasn't necessary, but I wanted to make sure my solution was consistent with all the different theorems and relationships. It was like everything I ever learned about math would culminate to this ultimate solution and everything was just...obvious.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> Just for the record, none of that stuff you quoted is Lenore Thomson. The page you linked to includes some short Thomson quotes, but the stuff you quoted is just that particular forumite doing a lot of riffing/expanding on their own interpretations of Thomson.


Damn really? I own her book and a lot of it seemed like her, didn't realize the other person's words. Idk though, I agree with it regardless. Sorry about that, didn't mean to misrepresent what I quoted.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Saint Batman of Gotham said:


> I actually thought about the same thing when I read @_Cellar Door_'s post. The Ti which was described sounds an awful lot like Ni to me. I bookmarked the page which he had linked. His description makes me question classifying myself as an INTJ somewhat. I used to think I was an ENTP. My mother is an xSTJ, so I've always wondered if perhaps her Te has just rubbed off on me somehow.
> 
> @_Boogie man_
> 
> ...


I felt the same way when I first found Lenore, I love her function descriptions, I highly recommend her book.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> But don't you think it's strange that I agree with other fi types on this site? I don't agree because honestly I think your understanding of the theory is crap and this being an open forum makes it possible for me to openly express that disagreement. I have the right to point out what I think is flawed reasoning.


That's the point. Everything you do is express disagreement, and it's not very constructive thing to do.

This is not only me saying this, but even E J Arendee has told in his videoblogs that everyone interprets theory differently.

For example, Jung saw Te in quite negative light, Myers-Briggs describes Si as "remembering", and in Socionics, functions are described more accurately in "keywords" than in larger detail. Basically, every site describes everything with slight bias. 

There are plenty of members who "get theory wrong", and it's not a huge deal, as long as they got the fundamentals right. 

This forum is meant for people to advise, exchange opinions and learn from others, when someone seems to "get it right", as long as they have some idea of the theory. I have understood so far that PerC does not advocate cultism, and "there is only one way to view things" mentality. 

Not allowing the diversity of different thoughts to strive is essentially a stagnation.



Kathy Kane said:


> I don't think that's an INTJ trait. What type is generally critical of theories? I see INTJs as wanting to improve theories. So we try to help improve them instead of dismissing input out of hand, especially since none of the current theories are correct yet. Try not to let one outlier bother you.


Of course INTJ's are inclined to innovate improvements, and I respect that, but without mutual respect, all this innovation is going to seem a soulless one-man-band.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> That's the point. Everything you do is express disagreement, and it's not very constructive thing to do.
> 
> This is not only me saying this, but even E J Arendee has told in his videoblogs that everyone interprets theory differently.
> 
> ...


Irrelevant to the point like I could give a crap what DJArendee who doesn't know shit thinks. There are more or less correct or accurate ways of understanding something. Just because everyone is entitled to an opinion doesn't mean their opinion is a valid or even an educated one. It is very much possible for individuals to formulate a unique understanding that still overlaps with the understanding of others, and disagreement is not always something inherently bad as it forces someone to re-evaluate their position and explain define why they hold it in the first place. That leads to progress. You don't seem to want that. You seem to inherently think that people should just agree with you just because, perhaps even pat you on the back and say, well done, that was such a great thing you did there. I call that bullshit and dishonesty. If you genuinely think that no person can have similar opinions or viewpoints, then there is no point for you to share your thoughts here either since people as a fundamental principle, cannot and will not agree. 

Also, I couldn't give a crap what PerC thinks. I strive towards one thing - accuracy. I find your thoughts to be inaccurate. That is all.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Saint Batman of Gotham said:


> So wait, you're saying that Ni can contemplate? What does that look like? I'm thoroughly confused now. =P
> 
> Edit: How about this: Ti simply thinks, using raw ideas - linear and organized, but not necessarily expressible in words. Te is ALWAYS expressible in words. "Contemplation for the Ni-Te user might be somewhat like this: Ni comes up with an idea or a relationship, Te expresses it in words. Is this accurate?
> 
> A few months ago, I took up mindfulness meditation. One of the most interesting parts of it for me was being able to witness my thoughts in raw form. When I would initially have a thought arise into my conscious view, it would be only an impression, one which I understood, but not words. As soon as I would give it my focus however, it gained a label. Could this be Ni and Te? I can contrast this with my girlfriend, an INFJ, who usually has trouble putting her thoughts into words, but is almost always able to feel ideas, if that makes sense. Could that be Ni-Fe being unable to express a concept in a concrete and linguistic way?


As far as I can recall, my Ti is nearly always expressible in words. My Ne is harder. 

Ti draws distinctions, negates, classifies, sharpens... Almost all of those things lend themselves highly to expression in words...


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> But don't you think it's strange that I agree with other fi types on this site? I don't agree because honestly I think your understanding of the theory is crap and this being an open forum makes it possible for me to openly express that disagreement. I have the right to point out what I think is flawed reasoning.


Could you be less abrasive, please? A disagreement doesn't give you the right to be mean.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Cellar Door said:


> Yeah, the Ji functions aren't necessarily as conscious as Je functions according to the definition of conscious most people use. I work with some ESTJs that think in a lot of detail, and they're really impressed when people know lots of objective facts about something. For example, how much something weights, dimensions of objects, the exact size screw driver required to do something, the cabling type and grade you'll need to do something. It's all the stuff that would still exist if humans died out, and while I'll know a lot of that stuff, I have a much more feel-based understanding of things. I'll have lots of details about stuff that I have direct experience with where I had to know it, but when it comes to figuring out new things I have to do it myself and according to how I feel and see things at the time I'm doing them. The knowledge I accumulate and that I'm interested in is more functional knowledge or dynamics in situation that you only really know if you were there.
> 
> For example, I can't stand following written directions, I hate being told how to do things, I don't organize things unless I absolutely have to, etc. I would much rather look at what's going on and develop my own system. So I may follow parts of directions as a way to trouble shoot my own method, or I may ask advice but only really specific advice to get me past a road block, and I'll only organize something if it's required to get the tangible result I desire. It's like, when I'm in the moment and can see what's going on I can easily react and do what I need to do, planning in advance beyond what I've experience is really frustrating because I don't feel the same sense of certainty as when I'm actively involved with something.
> 
> I don't know if that makes sense...


Dunno if this is what you're trying to describe... But i have a huge preference for problems that I have to reason my way through vs problems I solve via a process I already memorized. And it shows in things like test scores...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> Could you be less abrasive, please? A disagreement doesn't give you the right to be mean.


No, I can't. I don't give a shit. If you think I'm mean now you don't know what I'm like when I actually want to be mean.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> No, I can't. I don't give a shit. If you think I'm mean now you don't know what I'm like when I actually want to be mean.


Alright. @KraChZiMan I think that officially gives you the right to ignore anything he writes, as policy. 

Ephemereality, you can choose not to play by the basic rules of human interaction, but there's no reason other people should have to put up with that and interact with you. 

http://personalitycafe.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> Alright. @KraChZiMan I think that officially gives you the right to ignore anything he writes, as policy.
> 
> Ephemereality, you can choose not to play by the basic rules of human interaction, but there's no reason other people should have to put up with that and interact with you.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist


And there's no need for you to act as a social police telling people what they should and shouldn't do on the forum. Basic social human interaction? Don't make me laugh ok. That's the thing that annoys me the most. Take it or leave it. So simple. 

If people don't want to respond to my posts or choose to ignore me, that is completely and entirely up to them. That is the power they have if they are willing to go down that route. I never removed that action from them.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

Saint Batman of Gotham said:


> A few months ago, I took up mindfulness meditation. One of the most interesting parts of it for me was being able to witness my thoughts in raw form. When I would initially have a thought arise into my conscious view, it would be only an impression, one which I understood, but not words. As soon as I would give it my focus however, it gained a label. Could this be Ni and Te? I can contrast this with my girlfriend, an INFJ, who usually has trouble putting her thoughts into words, but is almost always able to feel ideas, if that makes sense. Could that be Ni-Fe being unable to express a concept in a concrete and linguistic way?


I love mindfulness meditation as well, because, like you said, it makes me witness my thoughts, as well as emotional states. Detaching and observing really helps tame emotion and watch impressions crystalize. I can then "put my finger" on the essence of a given situation or a mind state and effectively express it in a concrete fashion with Te.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

KraChZiMan said:


> Of course INTJ's are inclined to innovate improvements, and I respect that, but without mutual respect, all this innovation is going to seem a soulless one-man-band.


I just wanted to point out that it's safe to conclude that those here who refuse to accept any suggestions for improvement on the theory are probably not INTJs. They are people who want to stick to the "traditional" understanding and original Jung ideas because it takes a lot to build up new details. 

I see INTJs getting a bad rap for things that aren't even associated with our type, which is the perfect example as to why we want to improve the theory. Less mistyping would be great. Not listening to new ideas is the opposite of what we would do.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Irrelevant to the point like I could give a crap what DJArendee who doesn't know shit thinks. There are more or less correct or accurate ways of understanding something. Just because everyone is entitled to an opinion doesn't mean their opinion is a valid or even an educated one. It is very much possible for individuals to formulate a unique understanding that still overlaps with the understanding of others, and disagreement is not always something inherently bad as it forces someone to re-evaluate their position and explain define why they hold it in the first place. That leads to progress. You don't seem to want that. You seem to inherently think that people should just agree with you just because, perhaps even pat you on the back and say, well done, that was such a great thing you did there. I call that bullshit and dishonesty. If you genuinely think that no person can have similar opinions or viewpoints, then there is no point for you to share your thoughts here either since people as a fundamental principle, cannot and will not agree.
> 
> Also, I couldn't give a crap what PerC thinks. I strive towards one thing - accuracy. I find your thoughts to be inaccurate. That is all.


Okay, I understand your view of point now. 

I don't expect people to agree with me, but to remain constructive, especially when people disagree. 

Constructive is like this:

"As I understood, you think X is related with Y, but when X is defined as C and Y is defined as B, the connection you made does not seem to be correct. In my opinion, X is related to V instead, because this and this and that."

Not constructive is like this:

"The connection you made about X being related to Y is bullshit. X is not related to Y, it's related to V. Also, you're dumb as a ton of bricks, because if you knew the definition of X, you wouldn't connect that with Y."

I agree that not every opinion is educated one. But anyone who voices this out is prone to create a conflict, instead of a debate. Disagreements have to be solved delicately (meaning, in constructive manner), so that their agenda of promoting the search for truth and accuracy would be evident, instead of getting lost in general "you're stupid - no u" kinds of fights.




Pelopra said:


> Alright. @_KraChZiMan_ I think that officially gives you the right to ignore anything he writes, as policy.
> 
> Ephemereality, you can choose not to play by the basic rules of human interaction, but there's no reason other people should have to put up with that and interact with you.
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist


You have my support for now, Pelopra! It's true, the atmosphere seems to be getting really hostile because the way how he behaves.

It's always so time-consuming and stressful when people can not remain civil and have to feel superior towards others, when it is totally uncalled for, childish and rude.



Kathy Kane said:


> I just wanted to point out that it's safe to conclude that those here who refuse to accept any suggestions for improvement on the theory are probably not INTJs. They are people who want to stick to the "traditional" understanding and original Jung ideas because it takes a lot to build up new details.
> 
> I see INTJs getting a bad rap for things that aren't even associated with our type, which is the perfect example as to why we want to improve the theory. Less mistyping would be great. Not listening to new ideas is the opposite of what we would do.


There are different kinds of subtypes even for INTJ's. Actually, the differences within a single type can be quite significant sometimes. So the things that are "naturally associated" with INTJ's may only apply on certain archeotype, or even a very plain stereotype.

That being said, it's true that INTJ's are about improving the theory rather than conserving it. I would say it's one of the positives about this type. 

One of my personal opinions (discussed it with INFJ brother as well) would be that in order to reduce the amount of mistypes, the theory needs to be made simpler, but yet in a way that it remains accurate. There needs to be more firmer principles, that clearly define certain traits about cognitive functions, and other aspects. That way, it would be so much easier for rookies to understand the theory, and less ignorant stereotypes will be formed.



ephemereality said:


> And there's no need for you to act as a social police telling people what they should and shouldn't do on the forum. Basic social human interaction? Don't make me laugh ok. That's the thing that annoys me the most. Take it or leave it. So simple.
> 
> If people don't want to respond to my posts or choose to ignore me, that is completely and entirely up to them. That is the power they have if they are willing to go down that route. I never removed that action from them.


You're certainly a valuable member in this community, and nobody is against your opinions, reasoning or thoughts. People are getting upset because you express them in a condescending manner, and there is no reason for throwing around dark sarcasm and being agressive on a psychology-related online forum.


----------

