# What is this "personal logic" that Ti uses?



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

When asked what Ti is in a nutshell most would say "It's when you make decisions based on personal logic." But exactly do you mean by that? If there are a bunch of facts out in front of you, are you going to disagree with them simply because you're using your own logic and it doesn't make sense to you? How and why?


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

Satan Claus said:


> When asked what Ti is in a nutshell most would say "It's when you make decisions based on personal logic." But exactly do you mean by that? If there are a bunch of facts out in front of you, are you going to disagree with them simply because you're using your own logic and it doesn't make sense to you? How and why?


please let's use personal only when referring to feelings, Ti is subjective judgment and usually have a more "original type of logic" in contrast with Te which have a more "pragmatic" and simplified type of logic, the judgments Ti make will depend on the objective perception of the person (Se, Ne)

and Ti dominants have an internal frame of reference, meaning they actually don't care about external evidence to know they're right


----------



## piscesfish (Nov 30, 2013)

Satan Claus said:


> If there are a bunch of facts out in front of you, are you going to disagree with them simply because you're using your own logic and it doesn't make sense to you? How and why?


In my experience, Ti would in this scenario see the facts and agree with the conclusion they suggest because determining that conclusion from the data given makes sense to the Ti user. But, unlike Te, Ti doesn't _need_ the facts to form said conclusions. All Ti requires is the _reasoning_. Ti can reason conclusions from weak data (which, in my case of tertiary Ti, is where I often falter) or find trends in anything else that isn't necessarily quantitative or proven.

Hopefully that makes sense...


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Ti looks at minimal evidence and puts it together in subjective ways, subjectively deciding which criteria is more important in judging how good the piece of evidence is, and putting the evidence together subjectively. 

There's a crime scene of a murder and only a hat and a brolly left with blood on the hat.

- Ti would look at it and think, okay hat has blood on it so perhaps it was a struggle and the hat fell off the murderer. Hat suggests they were trying to conceal themselves. The fact there was a struggle could point to the victim knowing the murderer, perhaps murder out of revenge. Level of blood suggests a violent death, again an emotional crime, probably not planned very effectively, impulsive. Or low IQ, helps to suggest why perpetrator left things at the crime scene. 

- Te would look at it and think, "okay what do we know?". Would look for potential witnesses, time of death, who the victim had recently spoken to, essentially unarguable facts from the scene. But my understanding of Te isn't too good.

Ti enjoys this kind of contemplating. Using thinking when faced with that for which we don't have sufficient information (evidence). Ti likes weighing up the options, building a case with what's available. Well it could be this because of this, or this due to this and this, particularly this as we can assume this with good probability.


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

Ti gather a series of principles upon which we understand the universe operates then makes decisions based upon these principles. Because this process is internal and subjective, it is considered "personal logic". This does not mean it is irrational. Ti users aren't incapable of Te logic, either.

Ti users don't ignore facts any less than Te users ignore reason. If you're having lunch with a friend, and he heads to the bathroom, would you follow him to verify that he had to piss, or would you be able to ascertain the at the most logical and likely explanation is that he had to utilize the facilities therein?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

@TruthDismantled

1. Te sends blood sample to forensics lab, crime database is searched for a match.

2. Examine hat for hair or skin particles, also send to forensics lab and place results into database.

3. Examine umbrella / brolly for finger prints or other clues, send to forensics lab etc.

The database is useful in two ways. If evidence at the scene of the crime implies a specific individual, and that individual has committed a crime before, all of their information will show up in the database, allowing police to quickly find and hold that person as a suspect. Two, if the case gets dead locked, but another crime occurs later and evidence at that scene matches the above evidence, it will pop up in the database and police will know that it's the same suspect (although the identity will still be unknown.) This is how serial killers get caught, they keep leaving evidence in different places allowing police to pile it up in the database, meanwhile some detective notices a pattern relative to it and baits them into a trap.

Where is the body? If the body is there it can be examined and the time, cause, and etc. of the death can be empirically determined or empirically deducted through forensics and other methods. There are other psychological factors to take into account, for example, trauma to the face with a blunt or sharp object usually indicates a crime of passion (the exception appears to be psychopathy) whereas others take a more detached approach when they have no emotional link to the person (they just shoot them basically.)


* *





At one point I wanted to be a detective but when I looked at how many years you have to spend being shot at by gang members and giving people speeding tickets I was like fuck that. That's why I know all this.




The point is, Te will use deductive reasoning in the same way as Ti. Many try attributing Inductive reasoning to Ti and deductive to Te, but the thinking functions use both. Te just has heavy emphasis on direct observation and empirical proof.
@Satan Claus

Jungian Objective and Subjective does not equate to the scientific or philosophical definitions for those words. Objective focuses on the object, subjective focuses on the subject. Which I kind of covered in this post.

http://personalitycafe.com/intj-for...king-intjs-understand-them-2.html#post6993497


----------



## L'Enfant Terrible (Jun 8, 2014)

Satan Claus said:


> When asked what Ti is in a nutshell most would say "It's when you make decisions based on personal logic." But exactly do you mean by that? If there are a bunch of facts out in front of you, are you going to disagree with them simply because you're using your own logic and it doesn't make sense to you? How and why?


the easiest way I can explain it is Ti is a child who likes to get toy planes to reverse engineer them where as Te is a child who likes to get puzzles or legos and figure out what to do with the pieces


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Ti is about looking at all the options and deciding which one to choose. There is no "best option" because a best option will be dependent on a subjective criteria (best option for what?). 

Te is the decision making based on the "best option" on an objective scale. This scale is established by the subjective criteria of Fi.


If both observe a skilled street musician who doesn't earn a lot

Ti might conclude the person is a musician who doesn't make a lot of money maybe because they didn't live with favorable circumstances
(the analysis is logical, but whether you donate or not (decision making) will be "subjective")

Te might conclude the person sucks at life
(Just kidding, but whether someone is good at life or not is a "fact" based on the established objective criteria: you have money or you don't ~ you don't suck or you do)


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Satan Claus said:


> When asked what Ti is in a nutshell most would say "It's when you make decisions based on personal logic." But exactly do you mean by that? If there are a bunch of facts out in front of you, are you going to disagree with them simply because you're using your own logic and it doesn't make sense to you? How and why?


My take is a bit different from other replies. Te looks at the facts you are talking about, and accepts them. Ti looks deeper, not accepting the surface facts a priori. Why do the facts exist? What are the facts really saying? It looks for the connections between them, and attempts a different interpretation of them, working out all the options. It's not a surface acceptance, and go with it. 

The same is true for Fe vs. Fi. Fe is more accepting of customs, etc. because they are what they are, but Fi needs to know what is behind them, and won't go along until it is sure that the reasons behind are genuine. Ti won't accept facts until it knows that the reasons behind them are valid.


----------



## nahuel_89p (Dec 27, 2013)

I'm INTP. Ti is my dominant function.

Ti is what allows you to break everything down into its constituent parts. It allows you to realize how many subcategories can be within a category, no matter how abstract they are. By the end of the day, Ti allowed to build a nice network of concepts, a theory, etc. 

Decision making and Ti: Ti asks: How many information do I need? How many variables are involved? How many variables do I know? What values can they adopt? Which way the operate? What are the possible outputs? How are they interrelated? What's the final balance? Is it convenient? What about unwanted consequences? Do I really have enough information already?

I believe Te works by simply asking: Does it work? Does it serve the purpose? Did it work before? Pros and Cons seem more clear to weigh them


I don't think Ti is good for action-oriented decision making, but it's certainly the best to fully understand and comprehend how an abstract system works. To realize what's beyond the appareances. Genius theories both in natural and social sciences come from INTPs. That's also because of Ne, which provides hunches in many -often unconventional- directions. Then Ti takes care to check if that hunch is coherent with the rest of the known theories and known observable facts. If the hunch passes the reality-check, voila, we have discovered the principles behind a given phenomena, and be able to explain them with a coherent set of concepts, which properties and domains are well established and well demarked.

English is not my native language.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

I think there is a lot of confusion on functions because of function interactions.




ferroequinologist said:


> My take is a bit different from other replies. Te looks at the facts you are talking about, and accepts them. Ti looks deeper, not accepting the surface facts a priori. Why do the facts exist? What are the facts really saying? It looks for the connections between them, and attempts a different interpretation of them, working out all the options. It's not a surface acceptance, and go with it.
> 
> The same is true for Fe vs. Fi. Fe is more accepting of customs, etc. because they are what they are, but Fi needs to know what is behind them, and won't go along until it is sure that the reasons behind are genuine. Ti won't accept facts until it knows that the reasons behind them are valid.


This sounds more like Si vs Ni. Si is about accepting what is taught. Ni is about figuring out what exactly is being taught.




nahuel_89p said:


> I'm INTP. Ti is my dominant function.
> 
> Ti is what allows you to break everything down into its constituent parts. It allows you to realize how many subcategories can be within a category, no matter how abstract they are. By the end of the day, Ti allowed to build a nice network of concepts, a theory, etc.
> 
> ...


In this case it seems to me you accurately describe Ti/Ne. It is Ne that tries to expand on the understand that Ti demands.

However, I would like to add Ti will be different when it is paired with Se. Ti/Se is very capable of action-oriented decision making. This is why athletes and smooth talking salespeople often type as ISTP/ESTP.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

S8on said:


> I think there is a lot of confusion on functions because of function interactions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You may be right about the Ni, but I'm trying to describe my wife's thinking processes, and her attitude to Te type thinking/decisions. She's INTP. Plus, I sort of relate to what I wrote, due to my Fi attitude towards Fe. I just sort of put my observations of my wife together with my attitude towards Fe. ;-)

I can't really say much about the Ni vs. Si... but I'm not just talking about the "figuring out" part. I'm talking about the decision to go along vs. not. I won't go along with things unless I have have personally judged it. The same is for my wife. She won't just accept executive decisions unless they have proven themselves internally (that's how I express it). 

I think that some of our problems in this kind of discussion is how we use words. We are using the same words, but they don't always mean to the other what we think they mean. I'm really bad about subjective definitions of things. ;-)


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

For Fi vs Fe my observations are more like this:

Fe is attuned to how we can get along in terms of how other people should act.

Fi is attuned to how the individual can get along in terms of how they act.

Neither is more "genuine" than the other and it's a lot more complicated than that depending on which perception function it is paired with.

But consider this: My ISFP friend agrees that if he were a white person in the 1700s, he wouldn't be against using slaves. He would be a benevolent slave owner yes, and he may question the process itself, but because he benefits from it, he would not be against using them. 
(My friend is not white and he is not racist at all, but that is just a depiction of a hypothetical situation. This would be Fi/Se interaction.)

On the other hand: In my mind, an ISFJ in the same situation would be a person who would not be against hurting his slaves. If a slave misbehaves, they should be punished; that is the way things are. They wouldn't do it because they are evil, but racism would be the only thing they've ever known. Si/Fe


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

Satan Claus said:


> When asked what Ti is in a nutshell most would say "It's when you make decisions based on personal logic." But exactly do you mean by that? If there are a bunch of facts out in front of you, are you going to disagree with them simply because you're using your own logic and it doesn't make sense to you? How and why?


The purpose of all thinking is to ascertain truth values, which is to say that statements can be classified is being valid or not. Now under the Jungian framework, Te vs Ti is characterized by the former's orientation towards the object (concretist) and the latter's orientation towards the subject (abstract). Orientation in this context means where libido (willpower, attention, awareness) is directed. So Te user's truth evaluation is directed towards the object as distinguished from the subject by a "not-I" statement, where the former is existant in the immediate context. Such objects may include facts, figures, statistics, laws, equations and Te will readily employ them. Compare this to Ti, which is concerned with abstract qualities of the subject, such as symmetry/balance, scope, generality/specificity, consistency/non-contradiction, morphisms, equivalences. Taken together, Ti qualities are abstract in the sense that they are removing aspects the objects. The consequence is that Ti language stays in the abstract/generalities and thus ignores the realizations of the particulars.

To give a concrete example, a pure (one-sided) Te user may look as facts and draw the conclusion from the immediate context as is. e.g. socialism doesn't work as the Soviet union collapsed. Pure Ti user will not look at facts ((e.g. whether captailsim/socialism works in reality), but rather at their internal consistency/contradictions.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Octavian said:


> @_TruthDismantled_
> 
> 1. Te sends blood sample to forensics lab, crime database is searched for a match.
> 
> ...


I've been seriously considering being a Detective for the last few months as it goes. That, or something to do with exploring rain forests, studying animals and their behaviors. 

I think that's a good explanation of Te. I find that when I idealize being a detective I'm mostly imagining trying to build a story in my head of what the criminal was thinking, his plans, the events that led up to this, making inferences upon the evidence to understand this person's personality to try and foresee his next movements. Looking around seeing what it all leads to, exploring all possibilities and seeing whether it makes sense to me (would he have come through the door, in what ways and how strongly does the evidence support this, etc.). Though when I try to imagine what it will be like I get an overly positive idea and fail to account for how long the process is, the fact that many crime scenes aren't your typical TV show scene.

It was interesting hearing your account of Te in this situation as compared to Ti. It didn't even occur to me to use forensic labs, and I don't believe this is simply because you have explored what being a detective entails more than I have. I mean I've studied Forensic Psychology, I know a bit at least lol. 

But yeah, my Ti perspective focused on everything at that moment, I wanted to solve the crime then and there almost, through using reasoning based on the minimal facts we could pick up at that time. Of course I see the need for Te in this situation and I also don't consider the reasoning enough as it often just leads to "most likely" truths. But I see why Jung said that the most energy (libido) is exuded to the conscious functions. 

So yes, Ti is more concerned with, and places more energy and excitement on, pieces of information that have more than one logical explanation, while Te is more focused on examining what is incontestable. 

- Ti can suck because they can take a logically concise route and be convinced through logic alone that they've come to the correct conclusion. This is what Se/Ne is for, to tie up the loose ends and say "steady now, have you considered this possibility/have you noticed this piece of information".

- Te can suck because it can become redundant in the face of minimal evidence, and relies heavily on the senses. So can find difficulty in trying to understand situations alien to those they have facts relating to, or those they haven't come across before. This is what Si/Ni is for, looking through time to guide further action for instance.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

nonnaci said:


> [...]


When this man types, I read. I suggest everyone else to do the same :mellow:

Always a pleasure


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

From what I understand, Ti users (especially the dom/aux) ones are often more into self-discovery than Te dom/aux. By that, I don't mean that Te dom/aux just take everything at face value and that Ti dom/aux don't - but rather that Ti dom/aux, when confronted with a question that needs answering, is more likely to use a method completely their own. The Te dom/aux, on the other hand, has an almost irresistible urge to look first at "what we already know" - that is, what _people_ already know. 

I've noticed, for example, that if I'm playing a video game that's been out for a long time and I want to know something, I will just google search the question, rather than potentially spend hours trying to answer the question myself. Some Ti dom/aux might do this too, for convenience, but I think they are more inclined to set aside the invention of the wheel and try to reinvent it because they want to know how wheels work.

Whereas for me, I like knowing how things work, so that I can apply that knowledge in the most effective manner, but if I can get away with a broader understanding and still optimize effectively, I am generally satisfied.

(Some of this may apply to Te/Ti in the tertiary and/or inferior, but I'm not sure how evident it would be compared to dom/aux.)


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> I've noticed, for example, that if I'm playing a video game that's been out for a long time and I want to know something, I will just google search the question, rather than potentially spend hours trying to answer the question myself. Some Ti dom/aux might do this too, for convenience, but I think they are more inclined to set aside the invention of the wheel and try to reinvent it because they want to know how wheels work.


OK, then, what keeps men from asking for directions?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ferroequinologist said:


> OK, then, what keeps men from asking for directions?


? ...social pressure to be independent?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> ? ...social pressure to be independent?


I don't think so... it's their desire to solve it themselves. It's like not reading the instructions to make things--gotta do it alone. I know with games, I don't like to look up solutions on the internet because I want to solve it myself. Isn't that why you bought the game? 

I don't think that is a Ti vs Te thing... There's something else at play, I suspect... what? I do not know.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Erbse said:


> When this man types, I read. I suggest everyone else to do the same :mellow:
> 
> Always a pleasure


Hear hear


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

ferroequinologist said:


> I don't think so... it's their desire to solve it themselves. It's like not reading the instructions to make things--gotta do it alone. I know with games, I don't like to look up solutions on the internet because I want to solve it myself. Isn't that why you bought the game?
> 
> I don't think that is a Ti vs Te thing... There's something else at play, I suspect... what? I do not know.


I can attest to this. I don't care much for instructions if there is a logical process from prior accumulated data available. I like to solve problems my way first, and if they don't work, I look up the information I'm missing. For me Ti is knowing what I don't know and a compelling need to discover that information to complete a thought. I incorporate my findings with previous experience, assimilating the new data into my own thoughts, not adopting it by the letter, only what I need. I look to do things the easy way, too. 

Ti is a 'why?' engine and wants things to make sense according to known data, not just from what it sees externally. It's very much like an intuitive process. Personally, my Ti draws from Ni which gets its information from Se. Ti checks Ni's conclusions against its framework and decides if it makes sense or not from already known data. Ti is the voice in my head telling unbiased Ni "Thats's stupid and won't work because of ..." Ti is the realist that wants to get to the root and wants to have reasons to do things that make sense to what they know. 

I see Ti as flexible because it contantly changes its internal and this external view of the world according to new data or revelations from Ni. Te is more ridged, things are the way they are because that is how they are currently working. I know every now and then I get a weird feeling when my perception changes because of an experience. It's like having an epiphany and the world shifts in an intangible yet felt way. It's a bit like a boat cruising in still waters when a rogue wave washes under it, lifting and tilting the boat so it sees the world from a new angle, and the boat adopts that angle as the new, level plane of the water. Ti, in a way, experiences different dimensions of existance throughout its life by perceptions.


----------



## Angina Jolie (Feb 13, 2014)

Kavik said:


> I can attest to this. I don't care much for instructions if there is a logical process from prior accumulated data available. I like to solve problems my way first, and if they don't work, I look up the information I'm missing. For me Ti is knowing what I don't know and a compelling need to discover that information to complete a thought. I incorporate my findings with previous experience, assimilating the new data into my own thoughts, not adopting it by the letter, only what I need. I look to do things the easy way, too.
> 
> Ti is a 'why?' engine and wants things to make sense according to known data, not just from what it sees externally. It's very much like an intuitive process. Personally, my Ti draws from Ni which gets its information from Se. Ti checks Ni's conclusions against its framework and decides if it makes sense or not from already known data. Ti is the voice in my head telling unbiased Ni "Thats's stupid and won't work because of ..." Ti is the realist that wants to get to the root and wants to have reasons to do things that make sense to what they know.
> 
> I see Ti as flexible because it contantly changes its internal and this external view of the world according to new data or revelations from Ni. Te is more ridged, things are the way they are because that is how they are currently working. I know every now and then I get a weird feeling when my perception changes because of an experience. It's like having an epiphany and the world shifts in an intangible yet felt way. It's a bit like a boat cruising in still waters when a rogue wave washes under it, lifting and tilting the boat so it sees the world from a new angle, and the boat adopts that angle as the new, level plane of the water. Ti, in a way, experiences different dimensions of existance throughout its life by perceptions.


Just wanted to add tat this applies to Fi as well, very much. The ''changes'', ''evolves according to new perceptions, experiences'' and the need to know ''why'' and the ''solving or deciding on my own''. Of course, with it's own differences that come from F vs T.
@ferroequinologist what cha think?


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

SplitTheAtom said:


> Just wanted to add tat this applies to Fi as well, very much. The ''changes'', ''evolves according to new perceptions, experiences'' and the need to know ''why'' and the ''solving or deciding on my own''. Of course, with it's own differences that come from F vs T.
> @_ferroequinologist_ what cha think?


I'm agreeing with the two of ya. ;-)

(my personal theory is that Fi is values-added, and Ti is Fi without the values--not that it's a perfect model, but it works for me. Of course, if push comes to shove, I will chose my values-based rationality over cold reason that devalues or ignores my values) ;-)


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

ferroequinologist said:


> I don't think so... it's their desire to solve it themselves. It's like not reading the instructions to make things--gotta do it alone. I know with games, I don't like to look up solutions on the internet because I want to solve it myself. Isn't that why you bought the game?
> 
> I don't think that is a Ti vs Te thing... There's something else at play, I suspect... what? I do not know.


You kinda lost me - I'm not sure if what you're saying is in reference to my first post, or a completely separate thought.

It's ok though.


----------



## PallasAthena (Aug 3, 2013)

nonnaci said:


> To give a concrete example, a pure (one-sided) Te user may look as facts and draw the conclusion from the immediate context as is. e.g. socialism doesn't work as the Soviet union collapsed. Pure Ti user will not look at facts ((e.g. whether captailsim/socialism works in reality), but rather at their internal consistency/contradictions.


I don't see this though. My INTJ (Te) brother tends to form quick conclusions from the facts he has immediately available and stick with them stubbornly. I'm more likely to collect data overtime, refining my conclusion. It's true that I don't rely heavily on facts, in that I can piece together a picture without having every puzzle piece, but I still prefer to have as many as I can.
I think Ti is much more open-ended than Te, but Te is also faster than Ti.



Satan Claus said:


> When asked what Ti is in a nutshell most would say "It's when you make decisions based on personal logic." But exactly do you mean by that? If there are a bunch of facts out in front of you, are you going to disagree with them simply because you're using your own logic and it doesn't make sense to you? How and why?


I wouldn't say "personal" in the sense that it's a logic only I can understand. If I had a conclusion that surprised or confused people, I'd easily be able to write down specifics on how I arrived there. Now these specifics might span my entire life story, and maybe that's where the personal aspect comes in. To me, it feels like logic is something I build up over time and keep adding onto it with every new piece of information. Some strange event occurs or some crazy study is published and I take it and think about it until I've made sense of it and fit it in with the rest of what I know, even if that means scrapping parts that I used to think I know. So over time, this gets more solidified and I'm much more sure of my perspective on the world, though I'm still very open to changing my thinking if the evidence suggests I need to. So I think "personal logic" applies here, not because I'm using logic someone else wouldn't understand, but more because I'm processing it through a lot more than just the problem at hand and using things I know from seemingly unrelated things to help solve the problem.
Does that make sense? I suspect that this is a better description of Ti/Ne than pure Ti, but I can't quite split my mind up satisfactorily enough for this conversation :/


----------



## PallasAthena (Aug 3, 2013)

I'll add that I love facts (assuming they're credible) because I love learning more about the world. I just prefer to take my time with them and fit them into my conceptual thinking.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Ti is the ability to look at something or a system of things and consciously or even subconsciously pick up how it works and how it's operating, which is the case with introverted judgement in general. 

So if you were to hear the first second of a song and already know what song it is, that's Ti you're just hearing stuff and making a read.

In the example of the crime scene, it would be looking at the all the evidence and then based on a gut feeling know it's related to another crime scene because there is some underlying dynamic or style to how the crime was committed. The crimes may be totally different, but there's a motif to how the evidence looks that's similar. Like an essence. 

Ti is when you need to use a tool, knowing exactly how to manipulate it to get what you want. The Te method is to make a step by step linear path, Ti is understanding how all the variables move dynamically and going directly to the answer.

Ti is reading a Te generated list of steps and being frustrated, because it's used to reading every variable at once and understanding a living system. So it endures going through steps so that it can understand the purpose of each step, then throw away the steps entirely. 

Ti is dynamic, situation decision making, no rules, just getting the job done. It is meant for things like packing suite cases in the back of a car, grocery items in a bag, and other things that there is no possible logical way to do. Could you imagine a Te step by step method for those things? It would be fucking impossible and like 200000 steps, you just need too look at the items and at a gut level you just know the best way to do it.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> Ti dynamic, situation decision making, no rules, just getting the job done. It is meant for things like packing suite cases in the back of a car, grocery items in a bag, and other things that there is no possible logical way to do. Could you imagine a Te step by step method for those things? It would be fucking impossible and like 200000 steps, you just need too look at the items and at a gun level you just know the best way to do it.


This is taking it to a bit of an extreme. The step-by-step that gets talked about so much in relation to Te is not something that people are married to because they use Te.

My Ni, for example, is great at jumping around to boost efficiency when needed - it's just very dependent on having gathered and synthesized information about what I'm doing. So fitting grocery items in a bag, for example, is something I can do quickly and instinctively because I have a general impression of what sort of approaches work and don't work (not consciously really, just internally). 

Comparing Ti and Te in such an example is sort of like comparing a hammer and a nail, and asking which one is better at breaking something; they're not both suited for the job, but that doesn't mean that other available tools couldn't be applied in comparable ways.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> This is taking it to a bit of an extreme. The step-by-step that gets talked about so much in relation to Te is not something that people are married to because they use Te.
> 
> My Ni, for example, is great at jumping around to boost efficiency when needed - it's just very dependent on having gathered and synthesized information about what I'm doing. So fitting grocery items in a bag, for example, is something I can do quickly and instinctively because I have a general impression of what sort of approaches work and don't work (not consciously really, just internally).
> 
> Comparing Ti and Te in such an example is sort of like comparing a hammer and a nail, and asking which one is better at breaking something; they're not both suited for the job, but that doesn't mean that other available tools couldn't be applied in comparable ways.


I don't think that I am being extreme, and as an INTJ you should actually be pretty good at Ti related tasks according to model A socionics. With having said that, anyone can put groceries in a bag, cognitive functions aren't about capabilities because every person has the ability to experience cognitive functions on some base level. There are types that are going to be bad at Ti related tasks and/or good at them but don't like them, but that doesn't mean that they are somehow unable to do what they need to do.

I disagree, I think it's a good example because it illustrates the types of situations Ti is strong in and describes how Te would make no sense in that situation. Could you imagine bagging groceries using Fi or Fe? You would end up bagging it as piece of modern art that expresses your inner turmoil, or in a way that bonds you with the customer behind you in a show of community loyalty. How would Ni be involved in bagging groceries?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> With having said that, anyone can put groceries in a bag, cognitive functions aren't about capabilities because every person has the ability to experience cognitive functions on some base level.


Which is why the example (as with most examples of cognitive functions) fall short of clarity because they're trying to pin specific skills to mental processes. It's not so much that it's a bad example - it's that it's a potentially misleading example.

We all do it sometimes when we try to come up with examples of the functions. I don't know how many times I've done it in some way or another.


----------



## EclecticAgenda (Jul 12, 2014)

It means that I can empathize intellectually.

It's like putting myself in your shoes and then rationalizing the situation from your position before popping back over to my own perspective and answering appropriately.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> Which is why the example (as with most examples of cognitive functions) fall short of clarity because they're trying to pin specific skills to mental processes. It's not so much that it's a bad example - it's that it's a potentially misleading example.
> 
> We all do it sometimes when we try to come up with examples of the functions. I don't know how many times I've done it in some way or another.


Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that capability to do certain tasks doesn't have to do with cognitive functions, but then how are you supposed to make cognitive function descriptions?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> Maybe I didn't make it clear enough that capability to do certain tasks doesn't have to do with cognitive functions, but then how are you supposed to make cognitive function descriptions?


By being as vague and theoretical as possible. Which, unfortunately, has its own set of problems - language lacking in clarity (e.g. readers have to do a lot of mental work applying the theoretical to their own reality, and then they may interpret incorrectly too). 

It's not a question I've been able to come up with a good answer for. I would love to be able to reference descriptions that are both clear in meaning and don't fall prey to misguided notions of capability, but it may be wishful thinking.

It irks me to no end because I can encapsulate most ideas succinctly and clearly, and the functions are so nebulous as to be almost impossible to do that with. Perhaps the model is insufficient, or I am just not thinking outside the box.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> By being as vague and theoretical as possible. Which, unfortunately, has its own set of problems - language lacking in clarity (e.g. readers have to do a lot of mental work applying the theoretical to their own reality, and then they may interpret incorrectly too).
> 
> It's not a question I've been able to come up with a good answer for. I would love to be able to reference descriptions that are both clear in meaning and don't fall prey to misguided notions of capability, but it may be wishful thinking.
> 
> It irks me to no end because I can encapsulate most ideas succinctly and clearly, and the functions are so nebulous as to be almost impossible to do that with. Perhaps the model is insufficient, or I am just not thinking outside the box.


I absolutely identify with what you're saying. However, I try to avoid the practice of being vague and theoretical, I hate descriptions like that, I want definitive criteria where I can isolate one function from another. There is an inescapable flaw to theoretical function definitions, and it's because it's impossible to confirm someone else's typing without objective evidence signifying a cognitive process. Otherwise, it's like the old example of two people looking at an apple, both people agreeing the apple is red, but through the eyes of each person they might be looking at a totally different color that they each call red. In the same way, I can give a theoretical definition and we can both look at an example and both agree on a CF being used, but if there's no objective basis then how can we ever be sure? Someone's Ti could be another person's Te, or someone's Si could be another's Ni, etc.

Furthermore, another problem with typology is there is no clean data. There's no way to say with absolute certainty that someone is a type and not any other type, at least with the information that's available now. I've searched the internet, read countless books on typology, and I can type people in real life to some extent. However, it's more of a gut feeling usually or based on VI, which is suspect for totally different reasons. I found a blog that I've been reading about typing people, and it's actually sort of interesting but it's written by an amateur so I don't know if it's legit yet. It seems like a lot of times I'll get really close, where I feel like I've figured everything out, then I realize I actually knew less than I did all a long, haha. Based on my continuing research I'm starting to believe that socionics is probably the way to go, although there are a couple other decent typology people in the myers briggs realm, but not many. I'm also considering switching over to enneagram for a little bit to see what kind of potential it has.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

From the way everyone seems to describe Ti, it's as if ALL Ti users are intuitives by definition. I don't understand the distinction between Ti and intuition. So Ti users want to fully understand how something works and don't need facts and can do abstract reasoning and work with pure logic etc. whilst Te is "Does it work?" Tjis sounds a lot more like N vs S, where N is Ti and S is Te. I'm so confused, none of this makes sense! I don't get how thinking can be "personal" or introverted. I (think) I get Fi vs Fe and I totally get Te but I can't work out what Ti is or how it's used etc. None of these descriptions seem to make any sense to me


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Cellar Door said:


> Furthermore, another problem with typology is there is no clean data. There's no way to say with absolute certainty that someone is a type and not any other type, at least with the information that's available now. I've searched the internet, read countless books on typology, and I can type people in real life to some extent. However, it's more of a gut feeling usually or based on VI, which is suspect for totally different reasons. I found a blog that I've been reading about typing people, and it's actually sort of interesting but it's written by an amateur so I don't know if it's legit yet. It seems like a lot of times I'll get really close, where I feel like I've figured everything out, then I realize I actually knew less than I did all a long, haha. Based on my continuing research I'm starting to believe that socionics is probably the way to go, although there are a couple other decent typology people in the myers briggs realm, but not many. I'm also considering switching over to enneagram for a little bit to see what kind of potential it has.


Yeah, you make some good points. I'm pretty much the same way with typing people; it's really hard to verify - I just have a strong sense of it sometimes. 

And I'm totally like that with figuring it all out lol. I've been studying and discussing this stuff on and off for at least half a decade and sometimes I feel like the only thing I know for sure is that I know very little. 

I've never really broached Socionics, but perhaps I should. I do think that Enneagram is good for filling in the gaps for people who strongly fit with a particular type, but still seem out of place.


----------



## aeralin (Jul 11, 2014)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> From the way everyone seems to describe Ti, it's as if ALL Ti users are intuitives by definition. I don't understand the distinction between Ti and intuition. So Ti users want to fully understand how something works and don't need facts and can do abstract reasoning and work with pure logic etc. whilst Te is "Does it work?" Tjis sounds a lot more like N vs S, where N is Ti and S is Te. I'm so confused, none of this makes sense! I don't get how thinking can be "personal" or introverted. I (think) I get Fi vs Fe and I totally get Te but I can't work out what Ti is or how it's used etc. None of these descriptions seem to make any sense to me


I would think the difference between a S and N is like how we pick out whats important/data collection etc. Ti and Te are how we make decisions based on that/or how we interpret the information/think about that information. Ti's, at least for me, I have my own world view that I have made up, and it would not necessarily be the same as another Ti's. These inner thoughts influence everything for me whether they coincide with the outside world or not. I would say that Te would probably be more influenced by the outside as in the "world order" or how they think the world should be ordered. 
For instance, if I was to get a new list/procedure/rules from my boss, if this did not necessarily coincide with my world view/reasoning/logic/thinking I might need to rationalize to myself before I follow them, if I can't rationalize it, I would probably refuse or not do it. A Te my guess, would be okay with a new rule, if it's rationalized by the world needs structure and there are rules to make sure it happens to prevent disorder (if they thought disorder would happen because of it, they may do something different, they aren't robots). So in essence "I need to rationalize this rule, if it does not fit into my own world (in my head)" vs "This rule makes sense or not based on how it affects the world". Personal world vs the real world affects? I am not sure if this would make sense to others. It makes Ti's sound somewhat self-driven, lol.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

The way I imagined it was that Ti users have their own "system" of understanding. Like as if everything had to make sense in their own way - that they'd have their own way of understanding something. So if you were to present some strong Ti user with something that worked but was different from how they would do it, they would be completely baffled because although it "works", it's not how they envision it to work or how it makes sense to them so they have to think hard even if it's something very simple to understand simply because they use Ti instead of "standard" logic, if that makes sense. But after reading this thread it's totally confused me. Not sure if I'm on the right lines or totally missed the point.


----------



## aeralin (Jul 11, 2014)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> The way I imagined it was that Ti users have their own "system" of understanding. Like as if everything had to make sense in their own way - that they'd have their own way of understanding something. So if you were to present some strong Ti user with something that worked but was different from how they would do it, they would be completely baffled because although it "works", it's not how they envision it to work or how it makes sense to them so they have to think hard even if it's something very simple to understand simply because they use Ti instead of "standard" logic, if that makes sense. But after reading this thread it's totally confused me. Not sure if I'm on the right lines or totally missed the point.


I am not too sure, I would necessarily be baffled. However, I would consider my way better, for me. Whether other people think the other way is the best way is entirely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with me, and I accept that is how you want to do it, however your thinking and the way you do it, probably would not affect mine, unless you pushed me to change the way I was doing it. If there was a better way of doing it, and I considered your idea as something I might implement, I would probably ask a million questions on why you think that way is better. Though asking you questions about why you think that, still might not affect the way I do things.


----------

