# Is N-Ti a different function to S-Ti, etc?



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

I've been thinking about how T and F are different for sensors and intuitives. That is, Ti for an intuitive is different to Ti for a sensor, because they spend most of their lives developing their judgements on entirely different data.

S-Ti (the Ti in ISTP or ESTP) is very concerned with understanding physical things, like cars or electronics because that is the information they get. Whereas N-Ti (the Ti in INTP or ENTP) is concerned with the underlying theory or philosophy of more abstract things.

Likewise, N-Fi (ENFP or INFP) is very different to S-Fi (what ESFP and ISFP have). N-Fi get most of their information in an intuitive way, linked to the big picture, and makes value-judgement on that information such as right and wrong, or good and bad. But an ESFP or ISFP gets most of their information in a sensory way, so their S-Fi is different, and makes judgement on sensory things such as physical wellbeing and direct social contact.

I think there is some overlap. But really, is N-Ti a different function to S-Ti?

It follows that perceiving functions like Ne or Se are more similar between types. An ENTP with Ne-T is getting the same information as ENFP with Ne-F. Their lens may be slightly different, and they may be concentrating on different aspects of that information, but it is more similar and they can probably understand each other better.

What do you think?


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> S-Ti (the Ti in ISTP or ESTP) is very concerned with understanding physical things, like cars or electronics because that is the information they get. Whereas N-Ti (the Ti in INTP or ENTP) is concerned with the underlying theory or philosophy of more abstract things.
> 
> I think there is some overlap. But really, is N-Ti a different function to S-Ti?


No. Look at the number of STPs on this forum who are obviously concerned with underlying theory and other abstract things. Personally I don't find cognitive function theory all that abstract, but it's certainly not tangible like cars or electronics. Drop the mechanic stereotype.

Also: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/565778-ti-ne-ti-se.html


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

I love when intuition becomes a byword for thinking and being abstract. Not only could it be correlated with Ti quite as easily, but it becomes an assumption that sensors are incapable of understanding abstract concepts, or intuitive are incapable of seeing the chair in front of them. When did this cease to be about people's communication and information processing styles and more about caricatures? 

As to different variants of functions, Socionics does some stuff on that:


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

I grew up as a strong NF, and was mostly oblivious to physical objects. The primary concerns of the SFs were alien to me. Quite often, I would "not see a chair". I also know plenty of people who were similar, and have gradually developed their N or S to become more balanced.

But what you know in childhood is what you are instinctively good at, as an adult. As an S you may reject the stereotype that you were mainly about the physical world, because you see it as limiting. Nevertheless, if you grew up as a strong S, your N will always be much weaker, and your judging functions will always be more naturally strong on Sensory data.

[Wanderer - I have not said, anywhere, that N is a byword for thinking. S is a different type of thinking that is more intimately related to the physical, sensory world. I see only your over-reaction to a perceived slight. Also, do you have a link for that socionics page please? The image is too small to read.]


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Pangelicus said:


> Wanderer - I have not said, anywhere, that N is a byword for thinking. S is a different type of thinking that is more intimately related to the physical, sensory world.


Wasn't directed at you, just a note about intuitive bias that's in the MBTI community; more preemptive than anything (look at the sensor using Ni lolol), due to how comparisons between sensation and intuition usually go.



Pangelicus said:


> Also, do you have a link for that socionics page please? The image is too small to read.


Linky.


----------



## Marduk (Nov 9, 2015)

Pangelicus said:


> S-Ti (the Ti in ISTP or ESTP) is very concerned with understanding physical things, like cars or electronics because that is the information they get. Whereas N-Ti (the Ti in INTP or ENTP) is concerned with the underlying theory or philosophy of more abstract things.
> 
> Likewise, N-Fi (ENFP or INFP) is very different to S-Fi (what ESFP and ISFP have). N-Fi get most of their information in an intuitive way, linked to the big picture, and makes value-judgement on that information such as right and wrong, or good and bad. But an ESFP or ISFP gets most of their information in a sensory way, so their S-Fi is different, and makes judgement on sensory things such as physical wellbeing and direct social contact.
> 
> ...


I agree with this. Introverted functions have to be oriented towards extroverted data, whether it is Je or Pe. It's not so much that Ti is fundamentally different in an XSTP vis-a-vis an XNTP, but that the information it is concerned with is different. 

To take your Ti example: Ti is really a theoretical framework that breaks down systems into understandable chunks. There is nothing about Ti that is sensory or intuitively based. An Ni, Fe user will use Ti to create a framework of his insights into people, a Ti, Se user will create a framework of how he believes his physical surroundings work, and a Ti, Ne user will create a framework of how he thinks the abstract and less tangible world works, etc. You *have* to look at the functions in their entirety. No one has just Ti, the same way no one has any other function in isolation. You have a function stack.

@ketchup

It's not that XSTPs can't understand abstract things. Everyone can do that to some extent. XSTPs are geared towards the Se environment, though, that's just the way they function. If you are saying that XSTPs can apply their Ti to Ne, that's wrong. XSTPs actually get their insights from tertiary of inferior Ni. 

I disagree that XSTPs don't fit their mechanical stereotype. What makes you say they don't? Whether it is sports, mechanics, understanding objects, engineering, etc., that is their natural proclivity. If an XSTP was better at using any other function than Se, he wouldn't be an Se user (you can't really count Ti, as it's an introverted judging function being oriented towards an extroverted perception one). 

This has nothing to do with intelligence, which is what I think you are getting at. An XSTP may be more intelligent than an INTJ in every conceivable way, but he will still be better at Se oriented tasks above all else. It's all relative. I don't personally buy into the intuitive hype. I've met many ISTPs—and ISFPs, for some reason—who are extremely intelligent. Most people would probably type them as an N if they didn't realize what they were talking about. They are Se users, though. You are forgetting that there are huge differences in intelligence within types. Not all Se users can run complex equipment or be a world-class engineer, for example. That obviously takes intelligence.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> Wasn't directed at you, just a note about intuitive bias that's in the MBTI community; more preemptive than anything (look at the sensor using Ni lolol), due to how comparisons between sensation and intuition usually go.
> 
> 
> 
> Linky.


Socionics snobs make me laugh. Your self-righteousness is unwarranted. 

The Socionics descriptions of sensing are no better. They don't make sensors look good. They make them look concrete, pushy, opportunistic and shallow. People who use others for their own ends -- for their own gain -- instead of letting them be themselves. 

*Se includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se. There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing (Si)-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world". Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in. -*


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The Socionics descriptions of sensing are no better. They don't make sensors look good. They make them look concrete, pushy, opportunistic and shallow. People who use others for their own ends -- for their own gain -- instead of letting them be themselves.
> 
> *Se includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se. There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing (Si)-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world". Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in. -*


For every negative, there's at least one positive in that description...

Concrete, competitive, direct behavior, immediate impact, possibilities that impact the real world, influencing situations - not sure why you see these as categorically negative. A lot of them are positives, or at worst, double-edged swords (but that goes for all the functions).

I am just getting into Socionics, so I don't know much, but to me that description seems both flattering and honest.

If it sounds negative to you, I'd have to suggest that your inferior Se is showing.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ketchup said:


> For every negative, there's at least one positive in that description...
> 
> Concrete, competitive, direct behavior, immediate impact, possibilities that impact the real world, influencing situations - not sure why you see these as categorically negative. A lot of them are positives, or at worst, double-edged swords (but that goes for all the functions).
> 
> ...


Well I proudly would not want that description of me. You can call it what you want. Say I believe that for whatever reason. But there is nothing in that description that denotes a contemplative or abstract person.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Well I proudly would not want that description of me. You can call it what you want. Say I believe that for whatever reason. But there is nothing in that description that denotes a contemplative or abstract person.


Of course you wouldn't want to be described by your inferior function. That you value contemplativeness and abstractness, as opposed to practical action and concreteness, is itself a facet of your type.

Plus, that description is of Se alone; it doesn't account for the Se type's Ji, Je, and Ni which would certainly allow for both contemplativeness (especially in ISxP due to their introversion) and abstractness.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ketchup said:


> Of course you wouldn't want to be described by your inferior function. That you value contemplativeness and abstractness, as opposed to practical action and concreteness, is itself a facet of your type.
> 
> Plus, that description is of Se alone; it doesn't account for the Se type's Ji, Je, and Ni which would certainly allow for both contemplativeness (especially in ISxP due to their introversion) and abstractness.


But you were arguing the position that Se has a bad rap. Along with the other guy. That they are abstract and thoughtful -- and only got a shallow stereotype from MBTI. Can we at least agree that Se users are concrete and not actually interested in theory that does not have immediate benefit to themselves and help them manipulate others? It is what the description says.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But you were arguing the position that Se has a bad rap. Along with the other guy. That they are abstract and thoughtful -- and only got a shallow stereotype from MBTI. Can we at least agree that Se users are concrete and not actually interested in theory that does not have immediate benefit to themselves and help them manipulate others? It is what the description says.


Se users are plenty abstract and thoughtful. Se is concrete, but an SP is not just a ball of "Se" alone, they have other functions.

That's not what it says and it's a description of Se alone, anyway, not accounting for an SPs other functions. lol no, I'm not going to agree with you that Se users are not interested in theory when there are Se users on this very forum interested in this very theory.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ketchup said:


> Se users are plenty abstract and thoughtful. Se is concrete, but an SP is not just a ball of "Se" alone, they have other functions.
> 
> That's not what it says and it's a description of Se alone, anyway, not accounting for an SPs other functions. lol no, I'm not going to agree with you that Se users are not interested in theory when there are Se users on this very forum interested in this very theory.


How do you know they are Se users? Why do you take everything at face value? 

Se users are also described as not liking other possibilities. "What if?" thinking. Different perspectives. Which is Ne's wheelhouse. There is a difference between people who are open to possibilities and those not open to them.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Marduk said:


> @ketchup
> 
> It's not that XSTPs can't understand abstract things. Everyone can do that to some extent. XSTPs are geared towards the Se environment, though, that's just the way they function. If you are saying that XSTPs can apply their Ti to Ne, that's wrong. XSTPs actually get their insights from tertiary of inferior Ni.


I never said STP Ti can be applied to Ne. Or that NTP Ti can be applied to Se, for that matter. Not sure where you got that.



> I disagree that XSTPs don't fit their mechanical stereotype. What makes you say they don't? Whether it is sports, mechanics, understanding objects, engineering, etc., that is their natural proclivity. If an XSTP was better at using any other function than Se, he wouldn't be an Se user (you can't really count Ti, as it's an introverted judging function being oriented towards an extroverted perception one).


I said "mechanic stereotype", not "mechanical stereotype". The difference being that the very examples you state defy the mechanic stereotype.

An ISTP is better at using Ti than Se, yet he is still an Se user.

I get that the stereotype is a metaphor for an STP's inclination to dissect/analyze concrete/physical objects and systems, whereas an NTP might be more inclined to dissect/analyze abstract/theoretical systems. Admittedly, I gravitate to theories and abstract systems, while my ISTP brother gravitates to more concrete objects/systems (and yes, he is an engineer, as is our ENFP dad...I work in engineering too but am not an engineer...not that this is strictly relevant). I know an ESTP biomedical engineer who thinks of the human body as an elaborate, complex system - a highly concrete/physical system.

What's cool is that it's clearly all the same function (Ti). I don't quite know how to articulate this, but I can 'see' that it is the same function, in the way that we think. And we could (and sometimes do) each apply Ti to either realm, yet we have largely differentiated in what we gravitate to.

So I am not denying role of Se/Ne in how Ti presents. Admittedly I might have been in such a rush to squash potential anti-S typism that I missed the point in my first post.



> This has nothing to do with intelligence, which is what I think you are getting at. An XSTP may be more intelligent than an INTJ in every conceivable way, but he will still be better at Se oriented tasks above all else. It's all relative. I don't personally buy into the intuitive hype. I've met many ISTPs—and ISFPs, for some reason—who are extremely intelligent. Most people would probably type them as an N if they didn't realize what they were talking about. They are Se users, though. You are forgetting that there are huge differences in intelligence within types. Not all Se users can run complex equipment or be a world-class engineer, for example. That obviously takes intelligence.


I wasn't talking about intelligence at all.

I'm well aware that any type can be intelligent and that there are huge variances within each type in this regard. But I didn't say anything about that in my post, so again, I'm not sure why this is directed at me.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Ketchup,

All of the types, pretty much, allow for all behaviours. But your tertiary and inferior can be way behind your main functions. One website refers to them as your adult function, your 10-year old, your 3-year old, and your baby. You can use any of them, but your type is what you use most, and are best at using.

As ENFP I can use Ti, and I might imagine I am good at it (on a weird day). But if I talk to a Ti-dom of equal intelligence, about Ti stuff, I quickly realise that I am *way* out of my depth. Ye gods, I think to myself, Ti is not my thing.

This is what I am talking about in the OP. If S-Ti is your thing, then N-Ti is probably nowhere even close to it.

I can use Fi all day every day, and often do. But it is N-Fi. If I hang around with an ESFP, who uses S-Fi, it is entirely different. I learn things. I realise that I am very clearly outclassed on that type of judgement.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> How do you know they are Se users? Why do you take everything at face value?


There's no reason to assume that they're all mistyped. Why do you assume they're all liars?



> *Se users are also described as not liking other possibilities. "What if?" thinking. Different perspectives.* Which is Ne's wheelhouse. There is a difference between people who are open to possibilities and those not open to them.


Where is this description? Link/quote appreciated.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ketchup said:


> There's no reason to assume that they're all mistyped. Why do you assume they're all liars?
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this description? Link/quote appreciated.


A type with Ne PoLR has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives. Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time. This results in difficulties handling unexpected problems in their lives that put a halt on their usual pursuits, and they tend to fear all the possible "what-if's" when those problems prevent them from seeing a clear future. When unsure about something, these types can either avoid making any changes at all or making too quick and reckless of a decision, either of which resulting in missed opportunities. - 

See more at: Socionics Functions: Super-Ego

ENTp on ISTj: "logical but no imagination, no lateral thinking, would be lost without an instruction manual"


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/167-The-Hidden-Agenda-and-Point-of-Least-Resistance


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Guys, if you are arguing defensively on the basis of an inferiority complex created by other people, you spoil the discussion.

It is a fact that strong N's are usually rubbish at car mechanics (or even body mechanics, to use your example), so it makes a good example.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> A type with Ne PoLR has a difficult time understanding ideas that seem new or novel, especially when it has no tangible effect on their lives. Leaving little to chance, they are able to plan out their lives for years ahead of time. This results in difficulties handling unexpected problems in their lives that put a halt on their usual pursuits, and they tend to fear all the possible "what-if's" when those problems prevent them from seeing a clear future. When unsure about something, these types can either avoid making any changes at all or making too quick and reckless of a decision, either of which resulting in missed opportunities. -
> 
> See more at: Socionics Functions: Super-Ego
> 
> ...


Now you quote Socionics. Unbelievable.

That ENTP is projecting his Si onto the ISTJ. Meaningless.

Granted. Sounds like lower N. Doesn't really apply to me though, don't know what to tell you.




Pangelicus said:


> Guys, if you are arguing defensively on the basis of an inferiority complex created by other people, you spoil the discussion.
> 
> It is a fact that strong N's are usually rubbish at car mechanics (or even body mechanics, to use your example), so it makes a good example.


Is this directed at me? That was my example. Quote my post if you're talking to me.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ketchup said:


> Now you quote Socionics. Unbelievable.
> 
> That ENTP is projecting his Si onto the ISTJ. Meaningless.
> 
> ...



An ISTJ is is Ti-Se in Socionics. We are discussing Socionics because you wanted to know about it and another poster said that imagination or abstract thinking has nothing to do with intuition vs sensing. What you are seeing is that Ne-Ti finds Ti-Se to be boring and lost without seeing something right in front of them. What is the difference between the types? Ne vs Se. Intuition vs sensing. So that bias exists in Socionics, contrary to claims otherwise.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> An ISTJ is is Ti-Se in Socionics. We are discussing Socionics because you wanted to know about it and another poster said that imagination or abstract thinking has nothing to do with intuition vs sensing. What you are seeing is that Ne-Ti finds Ti-Se to be boring and lost without seeing something right in front of them. What is the difference between the types? Ne vs Se. Intuition vs sensing. So that bias exists in Socionics, contrary to claims otherwise.


Ah, only now did I actually see your point. I was getting the impression you were just using SPs as your punching bag, with the way you were framing "concrete, competitive, direct behavior, immediate impact, possibilities that impact the real world, influencing situations" in a negative light.

Compare @Marduk for example who made his point clear immediately.

Well, this discussion has been enlightening, in a way.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ketchup said:


> Ah, only now did I actually see your point. I was getting the impression you were just using SPs as your punching bag, with the way you were framing "concrete, competitive, direct behavior, immediate impact, possibilities that impact the real world, influencing situations" in a negative light.
> 
> Compare @_Marduk_ for example who made his point clear immediately.
> 
> Well, this discussion has been enlightening, in a way.


My plans were bigger than that actually. lol. They are against dogmatism basically. I am not saying sensors or Se users are actually shallow, I am saying those descriptions say they are to a certain degree. 

This other guy is like "derp, Socionics is for smart people and doesn't have these stereotypes." Which is in a similar vein of post he made not too long before in another thread. I hoped to negate that post. It needs to be challenged.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> An ISTJ is is Ti-Se in Socionics. We are discussing Socionics because you wanted to know about it and another poster said that imagination or abstract thinking has nothing to do with intuition vs sensing.


I've said this before, but your comprehensive skills are _really_ in need of improvement; I said _nothing_ about tendencies or preferences. What I said was types shouldn't be _reduced into caricatures_. It was a preemptive preface in case of the all too common I-bias rolling on through.

I also didn't make the claim that socionics doesn't have biases (hello Alpha Quadra!). What I said about socionics was an on-topic point in a separate paragraph. Ne+ is Ne+Ti and Ne- is Ne+Fi. 



FearAndTrembling said:


> Socionics snobs make me laugh. Your self-righteousness is unwarranted.


Man, you've taken my previous criticism of you to heart haven't you? Once again, I didn't walk into this thread and say "Socionics is better than you, peasant". I said "Socionics is on the path to kind-of addressing this".



FearAndTrembling said:


> Can we at least agree that Se users are concrete and not actually interested in theory that does not have immediate benefit to themselves and help them manipulate others?


I don't, but thanks for agreeing with my point while attacking me over a point that I didn't make, though.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> I've said this before, but your comprehensive skills are _really_ in need of improvement; I said _nothing_ about tendencies or preferences. What I said was types shouldn't be _reduced into caricatures_. It was a preemptive preface in case of the all too common I-bias rolling on through.
> 
> I also didn't make the claim that socionics doesn't have biases (hello Alpha Quadra!). What I said about socionics was an on-topic point in a separate paragraph. Ne+ is Ne+Ti and Ne- is Ne+Fi.
> 
> ...


Socionics has its own caricatures. 

The example I gave of Ne-Ti finding Ti-Se to be unimaginative and lacking lateral thought is based on what differences? Would an ENTP say that about an INTP? Why an ISTP? I agree with it btw. Ti is not an abstract function by itself, and I feel the same way about Ti-Se as the ENTP do. They are not abstract thinkers.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Socionics has its own caricatures.


No shit (hello Alpha Quadra!) 



FearAndTrembling said:


> The example I gave of Ne-Ti finding Ti-Se to be unimaginative and lacking lateral thought is based on what differences?


Supervision relations.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Socionics has its own caricatures.
> 
> The example I gave of Ne-Ti finding Ti-Se to be unimaginative and lacking lateral thought is based on what differences? Would an ENTP say that about an INTP? Why an ISTP? I agree with it btw. Ti is not an abstract function by itself, and I feel the same way about Ti-Se as the ENTP do. They are not abstract thinkers.


That's funny - you seem unable to imagine Ti+Se being imaginative, which strikes me as a limitation of your own imagination. We all know that Ns are biased against every other type, most thinkers I know would call you an overemotional idiot due to your aux. Fe, but we don't go by that because we know people are biased. This is absurd. And yeah, Ti is very abstract, all introverted functions are abstract per Jung.

EDIT: I am NOT claiming that F doms/auxes are overly emotional or idiots or anything of the sort! I'm just saying that's something I hear a lot from T-dominant types. I don't think that.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ketchup said:


> That's funny - you seem unable to imagine Ti+Se being imaginative, which strikes me as a limitation of your own imagination. We all know that Ns are biased against every other type, most thinkers I know would call you an overemotional idiot due to your aux. Fe, but we don't go by that because we know people are biased. This is absurd. And yeah, Ti is very abstract, all introverted functions are abstract per Jung.


Logic itself is not abstract. I used the example of Data from Star Trek. Data knows the textbook answer to everything. The logic to everything. He never sees the big picture though. lol. It is a machine type thought. Very clean. It usually works. 

Jung used Kant's definition of abstraction: the less you notice the difference in things. Meaning, the more you see how other positions are not very different. They are part of something larger. The differences disappear. You are less critical. Ti is known as being close minded on this forum. lol. Ask The Wanderer. It has a bad reputation around here. Ti wants to sort, to find differences. To cut things with reason. To say this is this, and that is that. Swat things away. I used the example of a human body. Reason cuts it into sections. Into parts. Those parts are useful models. Abstraction is zooming out and seeing the body without the distinctions. Without the artificial scars of reason.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Logic itself is not abstract. I used the example of Data from Star Trek. Data knows the textbook answer to everything. The logic to everything. He never sees the big picture though. lol. It is a machine type thought. Very clean. It usually works.


That sounds like Te more than Ti. Ti is more than "logic".



> Jung used Kant's definition of abstraction: the less you notice the difference in things. Meaning, the more you see how other positions are not very different. They are part of something larger. The differences disappear. You are less critical. Ti is known as being close minded on this forum. lol. Ask The Wanderer. It has a bad reputation around here. Ti wants to sort, to find differences. To cut things with reason. To say this is this, and that is that. Swat things away. I used the example of a human body. Reason cuts it into sections. Into parts. Those parts are useful models. Abstraction is zooming out and seeing the body without the distinctions. Without the artificial scars of reason.


Here's what Jung actually said: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-idealization-devaluation-8.html#post23095114


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

ketchup said:


> That sounds like Te more than Ti. Ti is more than "logic".
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what Jung actually said: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-idealization-devaluation-8.html#post23095114



What is abstraction to you and how is Ti abstract? Ti is the antithesis of abstract in a philosophical sense. Though people who believe in it can be abstract thinkers. lol. 

The bottom line with Ti types and which Jung summed up extroversion vs introversion with, was philosophical realism vs philosophical nominalism. A Ti type believes numbers and scientific don't just describe reality, they are reality in its most fundamental form. The abstraction rules. Nominalists unstick themselves from the abstraction and can see the difference between it and reality. 

It is a mess to figure out honestly. lol. Also why Einstein isn't a Ti dom.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> What is abstraction to you and how is Ti abstract? Ti is the antithesis of abstract in a philosophical sense. Though people who believe in it can be abstract thinkers. lol.
> 
> The bottom line with Ti types and which Jung summed up extroversion vs introversion with, was philosophical realism vs philosophical nominalism. *A Ti type believes numbers and scientific don't just describe reality, they are reality in its most fundamental form.* The abstraction rules. Nominalists unstick themselves from the abstraction and can see the difference between it and reality.
> 
> It is a mess to figure out honestly. lol. Also why Einstein isn't a Ti dom.


Bolded is Te.

It sounds like you're putting your own pet theory above what Jung actually said. We're done here.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Is that yes or no? :exterminate:


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> What is abstraction to you and how is Ti abstract? Ti is the antithesis of abstract in a philosophical sense. Though people who believe in it can be abstract thinkers. lol.


I think the meaning of the word abstract is a potential issue here. In the thread @ketchup linked too @PaladinX seemed to clear this up with:


> Despite what some may think, Jung didn't come up with his own arbitrary definitions for the words. His use of abstract and concrete are based upon their latin roots. Concrete comes from 'concretus' which means 'grown together' and abstract from 'abstractus' which means "drawn away."


If we take both concrete and abstract to be in reference to the external world then essentially this is Extroversion and Introversion how Jung intended.

I presume this isn't what you mean by abstract?
Sigh, semantics :/


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Pangelicus said:


> Is that yes or no? :exterminate:


I presume this is in reference to the opening question of the thread 
Ti in both are the same function. Se and Ne is not. There will be a difference between N-Ti and S-Ti


S is a different function to N. Ti is the same, that is thinking judgment with an introverted attitude.
Thinking is the process of defining/categorizing/relating/seeing difference/meaning/concepts. All this summed up as a focus on 'what something is'.

Both ENTPs and ESTPs will have this process (and assuming the function stack is correct) directed inwardly (introversion). This means that categories/definitions may come from within rather than adopted from the external. Concepts may also be created internally and external data is taken in and fitted into these concepts. Te is much more likely to define things based on external references, and have the data collected inform the concept. (this is my take, could be a bit off).

They however lead with difference perception functions, so Ti is of lesser concern to both types and so there will be more of a difference observed than comparing a INTP with and ISTP.

The N/S differece?
For Ne there is focused on possibilities. Where has the object come from? where could it end up? how could it be change? The potential, the new, the endless possibilities.
S is concerned with what exists. The experience of the object in greatest detail. How does it feel, smell, taste. All the detail of the object that exists in this moment right now.

N-Ti: what could this mean? how could it be define? what potential connections can be made between things? what possible ways could it be defined as? Random ideas come to mind that seem to have some connection.

S-Ti: what is this object? what does it mean? how could the object be defined? what characteristics that exist relate to other objects with similar characteristics? How are the qualities of the object different?

Note: it is often seen that Ne is about brainstorming and lots of connections however the thinking process is about making connections through defining what something is. The process of a definition is about how a particular thing is similar or different to other things and where it fits (which can form a concept).
Essentially N-Ti sees the connections between the potential/possibilities and defines these possibilities, and S-Ti sees the connections between what exists/experienced and defines what exists.

_I am paraphrasing from the knowledge I have so don't take it as the complete truth_


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Essentially N-Ti sees the connections between the potential/possibilities and defines these possibilities, and S-Ti sees the connections between what exists/experienced and defines what exists.
> 
> _I am paraphrasing from the knowledge I have so don't take it as the complete truth_


That is valuable paraphrasing, and a very careful analysis. So we might say that N-Ti is about defining the dynamics of situation (its possible sources and futures), and the relations between things in it. And S-Ti is about defining the things in the situation, in all of the tangible ways?

NT in particular, also strips out superfluous meaning and tries to see underlying principles - those dynamics and relations, but also the principles that have formed or constructed the objects.

ST also strips out superfluous meaning and looks at underlying principles - but there is more focus. The things, their qualities, and how they are connected, and how they interact in tangible ways.

?

---
My question is - firstly, given that Ti deconstructs different aspects of reality, can it be seen as a different function "in practice", eg. when you observe people using it. Or is there significant overlap?

Perhaps it depends on the strength of N-S within the individual. An extreme N or S may not overlap much, but most people in the middle of the N-S scale will overlap more -?

---
Secondly, can this be generalised for all Ti and Fi?
- And, perhaps for Te and Fe?? (I haven't put any thought into that yet)
- And, perhaps for others, into a coherent method for advancing the understanding of mbti theory?

My inspiration for this train of thought is that often, when people are observed for various functions, we label them Ti or Fe etc, but we are looking at different subdivisions of them, which can be very distinct and separate, and might as well be labelled differently.

Maybe!


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Pangelicus said:


> That is valuable paraphrasing, and a very careful analysis. So we might say that N-Ti is about defining the dynamics of situation (its possible sources and futures), and the relations between things in it. And S-Ti is about defining the things in the situation, in all of the tangible ways?
> 
> NT in particular, also strips out superfluous meaning and tries to see underlying principles - those dynamics and relations, but also the principles that have formed or constructed the objects, etc.
> 
> ...


If I am understanding you correctly, yes. The reason why both are about connecting is because of the thinking process (essentially to define what something is). As for what thing that is connected is influenced by what is perceived, either the actual that exists now (Se) or the potential/possibilities of the object (Ne).

I wonder if a basic example would be how Se-Ti may connect apple to and orange as both are fruit. This is based on their actual/physical qualities. An apple can also be related to the color red and other red things, or since it falls under food other edible objects.

Ne-Ti may connect and apple to a square, as it can relate it under a mathematical concept. That is an apple can be baked into a pie, and this has a similar sound to Pi which is a mathematical number (approximately 3.41) and a square can also be considered a geometric shape defined by mathematical concepts, it's angles in which could be written as Pi/2 relating Pi to the apple.
here the apple is not physically related to the square, rather it is related due the possible interpretation of definitions.



> ---
> My question is - firstly, given that Ti deconstructs different aspects of reality, can it be seen as a different function "in practice", eg. when you observe people using it. Or is there significant overlap?
> 
> Perhaps it depends on the strength of N-S within the individual. An extreme N or S may not overlap much, but most people in the middle of the N-S scale will overlap more -?


No. I say no because Ti is the deconstruction (or connection) process. What aspect of reality it works with hasn't changed the process of deconstructing here.
I can bowl a bowling ball, I can also bowl a toilet roll. The objects here don't change the fact I am bowling them.
(as for toilet roll, don't ask, it's what came to mind haha )

These individuals with a lot of S/N overlap are likely to be IxTP as the auxiliary may not be well defined. In this case Ti will (maybe more so for the individual being introverted) be much more clear. That is the process of Ti is most important (that is the definitions/categories/concepts are logically correct and sound). The what they focus on is of secondary importance. They may be seen as INTP, ISTP or IxTP.

As for ExTP, Ne or Se will be most obvious are are the focus for these types.


Is what you asking about in relation to the strength of the Auxiliary and how much influence it has? and how we get slightly different types? for example an ENTP who uses mostly Ne compared to an ENTP who uses Ti a lot more?



> ---
> Secondly, can this be generalised for all Ti and Fi?
> - And, perhaps for Te and Fe?? (I haven't put any thought into that yet)
> - And, perhaps for others, into a coherent method for advancing the understanding of mbti theory?


I don't see why not. Effectively the first two functions are what gives each type it's flavor.
The only concern is that there is no agreed upon function stack. So it may not be as simple as Ne + Ti for ENTP.

The other aspect however is that the tertiary and inferior do exert some influence, especially when caught in an inferior eruption.




> My inspiration for this train of thought is that often, when people are observed for various functions, we label them Ti or Fe etc, but we are looking at different subdivisions of them, which can be very distinct and separate, and might as well be labelled differently.
> Maybe!


This to me sounds very similar to how Socionincs defines sub types for each type. I think another labeling system labels the letters in order of strength, so you can have ENTP or ETNP or EPNT, etc.

I'm not sure how much value this would add personally for me. To me I just see labels as lines in the sand. Adding more lines may be useful, or add to confusion. But that's just my personal opinion


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Re. strong Ne, vs strong Se, vs a mixture -



Ksara said:


> Is what you asking about in relation to the strength of the Auxiliary and how much influence it has? and how we get slightly different types? for example an ENTP who uses mostly Ne compared to an ENTP who uses Ti a lot more?


Not quite, but you've already answered me by distinguishing between ExTP and IxTP. You say IxTP has the strong Ti, so Ne/Se is more likely to be ambiguous. Which infers - IxTP has a more generally applicable Ti process which may be similar between both types.

Whereas ExTP has strong Ne or Se, so the Ti is likely to be weaker. So ExTP probably has a more specific N-Ti or S-Ti process.

You're probably right, most of the time. I was trying to see it more generally - and to make a generelised distinction between Ti, N-Ti and S-Ti. In practice any of them might apply to all 4 types.

(I'll have a think about your other points...)


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Pangelicus said:


> Re. strong Ne, vs strong Se, vs a mixture -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you could rephrase the question maybe I'll be able to better answer it?

Personally if I were to follow the labeling convention you are suggesting I would go with Ne-T or Se-T, that is the dominant function stated with a preference towards thinking. This also highlights the importance of the dominant function as the main influential factor of the type, and thinking as secondary. As for IxTP, Ti-N or Ti-S.

Be careful claiming what I say as right. A lot of the time i'm paraphrasing (effort providing sources, unless specifically asked ) and sometimes I feel I may be making stuff up...


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Personally if I were to follow the labeling convention you are suggesting I would go with Ne-T or Se-T, that is the dominant function stated with a preference towards thinking. This also highlights the importance of the dominant function as the main influential factor of the type, and thinking as secondary. As for IxTP, Ti-N or Ti-S.


As a general rule,

Ne-T suggests you are talking about the Ne part. I used N-Ti to talk about the Ti.

Agreed, Ti-N or Ti-S for the introverts.



> If you could rephrase the question maybe I'll be able to better answer it?


Do you mean OP? :exterminate: 

Ok, how about this -

When Ti is used strongly on either N or S, but not on the other, would it be better to refer to it as Ti-N or N-Ti? And to define it differently and more specifically?

Plus all the stuff about applying the same to other functions.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Pangelicus said:


> As a general rule,
> 
> Ne-T suggests you are talking about the Ne part. I used N-Ti to talk about the Ti.
> 
> Agreed, Ti-N or Ti-S for the introverts.


How I see it Ne-T suggest the Ne is the determining factor combined with auxiliary thinking.

Well I am yet to prescribe to the functions follow the order of Ne-Ti-Fe-Si, etc 
Some sources suggest Ne-Ti-Fi-Si to Ne-Te-Fi-Si. At this point I am happy with 'dominant Extroverted Intuition with a preference for thinking' 




> Do you mean OP? :exterminate:
> 
> Ok, how about this -
> 
> ...


I just thought I hadn't quite answered your question.

I see. how about:
ExTP --> Ne-T or Se-T
IxTP --> Ti-N or Ti-S

To keep it more standardized (I have seen others refer to them as this):
Ne/Ti Se/Ti Ti/Se Ti/Ne

Or the smart arse answer 
ENTP ESTP INTP ISTP as each combination defines if thinking is paired with sensing or intuition., and the E/I and J/P determine Ti being dominant or Ne/Se being dominant.

Really though all labels here are in essence to explain the same phenomena, how Ti interacts with Ne and/or Se. If you want to prescribe to a label that focuses on Ti influenced by Ne or Se it is important to realize we haven't created a new function labelled Ti-N. This label represents two functions interacting.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Ksara said:


> Well I am yet to prescribe to the functions follow the order of Ne-Ti-Fe-Si, etc
> Some sources suggest ...


[on a tangent] The function order is purely theoretical. Most people seem to have atypical function stacks, although their identity is most clearly defined by a dom and an aux which are at or near the top. Mine goes Ne-Ni-Fi-Fe, all quite strong. Then a little of Se and Te. But Ne-Fi is characteristic, plus other permutations.



> how about:
> ExTP --> Ne-T or Se-T
> IxTP --> Ti-N or Ti-S


I am only trying to establish a terminology here which can be used in any combination, to refer to a specific function, supported or fed by another. Eg. Ne-T to refer to Ne of a particular flavour, or N-Ti to refer to Ti of a particular flavour. But it's not important.

Let's move on from labels. Anything that looks like what it means is fine.

In terms of the function Ti (as an example),

S-Ti is quite different in practice from N-Ti, so it would be useful to write up an official description of them, separately - in addition to the generalised Ti which we already have.

Because a lot of people do actually have N-Ti or S-Ti. They don't actually have the Ti which is in the textbooks.

And the same for N-Fi or S-Fi, Ne-T or Ne-S, Ni-S or Ni-T, etc etc. They are all different, and they are what many real people have.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Pangelicus said:


> [on a tangent] The function order is purely theoretical. Most people seem to have atypical function stacks, although their identity is most clearly defined by a dom and an aux which are at or near the top. Mine goes Ne-Ni-Fi-Fe, all quite strong. Then a little of Se and Te. But Ne-Fi is characteristic, plus other permutations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From my point of view Ti is still acting as Ti. What has changed is what information Ti is dealing with (be that N or S) and how conscious the individual is of this process. There is no N-ti function or S-Ti function. The people do have textbook Ti, however textbook Ti does not take into account other functional process that are occurring.
I'm not sure if this distinction is being made here, I'm trying to describe the dynamics of the two function, not creating two types of Ti functions. It may very well be and I'm just misinterpreting what you mean 

Essentially rather than straight Ti descriptions (or an IXTP profile)? A description that incorporates the dynamic between Ti and Ne or Ti and Se, essentially writing a xNTP or xSTP profile that is perhaps more relatable to these types?


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Ksara said:


> From my point of view Ti is still acting as Ti. What has changed is what information Ti is dealing with (be that N or S)


In theory, or at birth, perhaps. But we are defined by our most advanced functions - the ones we have used most and developed. If a person has significantly developed S-Ti, that is what they have. The Ti at birth was only a potential.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

I am biased as an ISTP, but i will offer my own take.

Personally I have not experienced such a big disconnect from my "N" as people seem to imply for sensors. Whether that is well developed or used Ni that I possess as an ISTP, or if I am just a unique individual that enjoys the more abstract side to things, I do not know.
I am unsure If more ISTPs are this way, but i think I do know a few. I also know a few who are relatively literal and physical with their Ti-Se.

A better comparison would be for the ESTP and the ENTP, imo.

Anyway, enough about that.

Se-Ti and Ne-Ti both work pretty similarly. The Ti is at aid of their main function, and used the same for both.

Se types and Ne types judge whatever they gather with Se with the Ti afterwards. The effect Ti gives is pretty much the exact same, only the first filter is Ne or Se, so the TYPE of information Ti is going to be abstracting and analyzing is relevant to the source.

Now where it changes is for a Ti dominant type.
Ti is an abstract function first. It is closer to an intuitive function, than Te for example.

A Ti dom, whether INTP or ISTP, does not necessarily have that first filter that the ENTP and ESTP go through before using their Ti.
This means that both types can be quite similar on the surface. the raw process of Ti is not concerned with what it analyzes in this position. It just wants to categorize and check for consistency, discrepancies and dependencies. now if the next function is going to be involved, only then do they start to differ. The ISTP may look at the same problem as the INTP, they might both initially be on the same page, but when the perspective is changed and new information comes in, the ISTP will likely take it in via their Se, and now have Se data to judge with Ti, and the INTP will be the same with Ne. This is where the split occurs.

hope this made sense.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Pangelicus said:


> In theory, or at birth, perhaps. But we are defined by our most advanced functions - the ones we have used most and developed. If a person has significantly developed S-Ti, that is what they have. The Ti at birth was only a potential.


I do disagree with this 
It has however been an interesting conversation so thank you


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Splash Shin said:


> when the perspective is changed and new information comes in, the ISTP will likely take it in via their Se, and now have Se data to judge with Ti, and the INTP will be the same with Ne. This is where the split occurs.


Isn't that what has been happening to each of them, all of their lives? The "new information" has always been what you describe here, and it has always been that information that has built the Ti.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> Isn't that what has been happening to each of them, all of their lives? The "new information" has always been what you describe here, and it has always been that information that has built the Ti.


No. At least not in my experience as a Ti Dom. My Ti can be very disconnected from my Se. Ti is a judging function, and is abstract. 
I think it may be harder to explain the experience to a perceiving dominant type, as they have no way to judge the information they take in via their dominant function without their aux.

My Ti doesn't base itself on the knowledge or ideas it analyzes. That is not what builds it. It stands alone and only seeks to analyze.

I can use Ne, I can use Se. Personally I have come to the conclusion that we develop other functions to whatever degree we use them. Even ones not in our natural stack.
The only exception may be our dominant function. This is closer to Jung's original types. He didn't make too much distinction after the dominant function types. He even said that we have Two auxiliary functions rather than a tertiary.

anyway, i may be getting off topic.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Splash Shin said:


> No. At least not in my experience as a Ti Dom. My Ti can be very disconnected from my Se. Ti is a judging function, and is abstract.
> I think it may be harder to explain the experience to a perceiving dominant type, as they have no way to judge the information they take in via their dominant function without their aux.
> 
> My Ti doesn't base itself on the knowledge or ideas it analyzes. That is not what builds it. It stands alone and only seeks to analyze.


I'm not surprised here.
I think Jung describes the dominant function as being able to differentiate itself not only from the unconscious mind, but also from the other function. So for a Ti dom, Ti can stand alone separated from the other functions, and this also makes sense the following functions can be more muddled being somewhat unconscious compared to the dominant as the unconscious functions tend to fuse together in the unconscious mind.

I could be wrong however.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Logic itself is not abstract. I used the example of Data from Star Trek. Data knows the textbook answer to everything. The logic to everything. He never sees the big picture though. lol. It is a machine type thought. Very clean. It usually works.
> 
> Jung used Kant's definition of abstraction: the less you notice the difference in things. Meaning, the more you see how other positions are not very different. They are part of something larger. The differences disappear. You are less critical. Ti is known as being close minded on this forum. lol. Ask The Wanderer. It has a bad reputation around here. Ti wants to sort, to find differences. To cut things with reason. To say this is this, and that is that. Swat things away. I used the example of a human body. Reason cuts it into sections. Into parts. Those parts are useful models. Abstraction is zooming out and seeing the body without the distinctions. Without the artificial scars of reason.


I think Ti is an abstract function, and I also think Fi is too.
I would not liken Ti to Data from Star Trek either. That is a Te example. I view Te as a non abstract function, the same as Fe.

Most ISTPs have very good Se, and they have a big preference for using it in the world from a very young age. You do not as often see an ISTP with a less Se driven approach to things. 

Another point i would like to make is that Ti is not grounded in reality. I can attest for this myself. It can become So subjective and lost in it's own quest for consistency(rather than pure logic) that it actually loses practicality. That happens a lot to ISTPs I know along with INTPs. ISTPs are just fortunate to have that Se which is quite strong. Though when We have less developed Se or an individual who enjoys using their Ti more abstractly, you can begin to see it.

In fact, i would argue that there are many good examples of Ti-Se being abstract and more theoretical in most ISTP forums, even on here. Ti-Se in action is quite different to Ti-Se in thinking mode. Watch them talk to each other about some problem and often you see that. Normally Ti is stronger in these situations because it is talking rather than doing, which is where the Se comes into play more.

I've been in a lot of ISTP communities and ESTP ones. You notice a huge difference in how they communicate or look at a problem or issue to find a solution, or just a general comment about it. So very different. ESTPs are very literal, concrete, and grounded. Sometimes after talking with a lot of ISTPs for a time, i get confuses a bit believe it or not.
While ISTPs are very similar, there is often a lot more theoretical and abstraction of these things than with ESTPs.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Splash Shin said:


> I think Ti is an abstract function, and I also think Fi is too.
> I would not liken Ti to Data from Star Trek either. That is a Te example. I view Te as a non abstract function, the same as Fe.
> 
> Most ISTPs have very good Se, and they have a big preference for using it in the world from a very young age. You do not as often see an ISTP with a less Se driven approach to things.
> ...


I disagree. Ti is a sorting function. A "straight line" function. It sorts concepts into different categories quite rigidly. This goes here, that goes there. It separates them. I consider abstraction to synthesize and see hidden connections. To descend merely beyond systematic thought. Get "beneath" the words or concepts. Not just to see logical concepts but the hidden connections they float in. Data cannot do that.

I mean many Ti doms on here. I wish could name names. lol. They do type themselves as Ti doms too. But they just logically question you in circles with never seeing the big picture. It never clicks.


----------



## Bunny (Jul 11, 2015)

ISTPs who are into the abstract are probably better at using their Ni, that's more-so where it comes from in us.

Ti connecting with Ni but not in a bad "loop" way.

That's how I see it any way.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I disagree. Ti is a sorting function. A "straight line" function. It sorts concepts into different categories quite rigidly. This goes here, that goes there. It separates them. I consider abstraction to synthesize and see hidden connections. To descend merely beyond systematic thought. Get "beneath" the words or concepts. Not just to see logical concepts but the hidden connections they float in. Data cannot do that.
> 
> I mean many Ti doms on here. I wish could name names. lol. They do type themselves as Ti doms too. But they just logically question you in circles with never seeing the big picture. It never clicks.




I agree, Ti is abstract with your definition here. Ti would be an _theoretical_ function in this case.

the reason you will often see Ti doms asking questions in circles is because we are focused on correcting what we see as inconsistent, incomplete or full of bad dependencies and discrepancies. As far as we concerned, our ideas are logically sound and consistent. Ti is less focused on sharing these than it is correcting and analyzing what is in front of it. We can have entire arguments without sharing our own ideas due to this, just on analyzing and helping to make another persons more sound.

Lets not forget that Ti can have it's reference points as something subjective or not necessarily consistent in and of itself. Example: You tell a Ti dom that 2+2= 476, and they can construct a system based on that despite the original reference being wrong and inconsistent with another system in and of itself. In isolation, it doesn't matter. this is where Some Ti gets really off the wall, and underground. Happens to Ti doms a lot, we probably do not share it too much. As i said, Ti doms are less concerned about sharing their own ideas as they are just correcting new ones.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Splash Shin said:


> I agree, Ti is abstract with your definition here. Ti would be an _theoretical_ function in this case.
> 
> the reason you will often see Ti doms asking questions in circles is because we are focused on correcting what we see as inconsistent, incomplete or full of bad dependencies and discrepancies. As far as we concerned, our ideas are logically sound and consistent. Ti is less focused on sharing these than it is correcting and analyzing what is in front of it. We can have entire arguments without sharing our own ideas due to this, just on analyzing and helping to make another persons more sound.
> 
> Lets not forget that Ti can have it's reference points as something subjective or not necessarily consistent in and of itself. Example: You tell a Ti dom that 2+2= 476, and they can construct a system based on that without despite the original reference being wrong and inconsistent with another system in and of itself. In isolation, it doesn't matter. this is where Some Ti gets really off the wall, and underground. Happens to Ti doms a lot, we probably do not share it too much. As i said, Ti doms are less concerned about sharing their own ideas as they are just correcting new ones.


I know how Ti works. I have spent months of my life arguing with it.

If Ti was so abstract it wouldn't have to nickle and dime people to death. Why does it have to ask so many questions? Because it doesn't see the whole, just sliced up logic. Jung said one should impose the fewest restrictions on a subject so they can answer in a fullness. Ti doesn't do that.

Jung is an abstract thinker. An example of this is him connecting ancient Greek Gods and Goddesses to present psychological states. Religion should not be looked at literally. There is nothing there. Like Oedipus for example. The literal isn't true. The psychological is true. In that mothers run the lives of sons, haunt them to the grave, etc. And seeing alchemy as a philosophical/spiritual process instead of the literal mixing of physical materials. Where most people stop examining things, Jung is just getting warmed up. These relationships cannot be grasped logically. 

The analogy I used before: time and space. Everything happens within time and space. Imagine the universe is like a loaf of bread. We slice the universe into pieces. Into temporal and spatial frames. But the universe is not "sliced". They are artificial distinctions that we created.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I know how Ti works. I have spent months of my life arguing with it.
> 
> If Ti was so abstract it wouldn't have to nickle and dime people to death. Why does it have to ask so many questions? Because it doesn't see the whole, just sliced up logic. Jung said one should impose the fewest restrictions on a subject so they can answer in a fullness. Ti doesn't do that.
> 
> ...


All you have to say to Ti is to stop using its reference as "literal mixing of physical materials" for example and I am suddenly comfortable with looking at it from a philosophical and spiritual process. 
Though if I came in from the literal angle i would have a lot of trouble even wanting to bother with that as it defies all logic based on those reference points.

Though many people with Ti would probably not bother with that notion if you said so, as they might find less interest in the new topic, as it has changed fundamentally.

What type do you think Jung was? Didn't he self identify as an thinking type?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Splash Shin said:


> All you have to say to Ti is to stop using its reference as "literal mixing of physical materials" for example and I am suddenly comfortable with looking at it from a philosophical and spiritual process.
> Though if I came in from the literal angle i would have a lot of trouble even wanting to bother with that as it defies all logic based on those reference points.
> 
> Though many people with Ti would probably not bother with that notion if you said so, as they might find less interest in the new topic, as it has changed fundamentally.
> ...


Jung was crazy.

I'll use one more analogy: Ti does not go so far down the rabbit hole. It doesn't just fall down a hole. It is touching something at least. Or trying to. I associate Ni with depth psychology. I don't know if any "official" sources make that connection or even if it is right, but that is how I see it. Ti is more rational than Ni. Obviously. It is touching things. 

Ti is obviously capable of abstract thought in the general sense and probably the best at it. Like countless philosophers. But few go down that rabbit hole I mentioned. Ne-Ti is more abstract or creative than Ti-Ne too. There is a difference. Many people type Einstein as a Ti dom but he is a great example of somebody too flexible to be a Ti dom. Too "open". I have heard an ENTP refer to Ne-Ti as growing and then pruning. It is what I said about Ti earlier. It cuts things. Ne lets these ideas grow and perceives, then Ti prunes it. Snip here. Snip there. Ti doms start with the scissors. Einstein is not a Ti dom. lol. But he has that rigidness pretty close in his belief in "unrestricted causality". Einstein and many scientists and mathematicians want things to be beautiful. Symmetrical. The universe didn't start with some big bang, that is too messy. So is quantum mechanics. Ti does not like messy things. But sometimes the mess is the truth.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Jung was crazy.
> 
> I'll use one more analogy: Ti does not go so far down the rabbit hole. It doesn't just fall down a hole. It is touching something at least. Or trying to. I associate Ni with depth psychology. I don't know if any "official" sources make that connection or even if it is right, but that is how I see it. Ti is more rational than Ni. Obviously. It is touching things.
> 
> Ti is obviously capable of abstract thought in the general sense and probably the best at it. Like countless philosophers. But few go down that rabbit hole I mentioned. Ne-Ti is more abstract or creative than Ti-Ne too. There is a difference. Many people type Einstein as a Ti dom but he is a great example of somebody too flexible to be a Ti dom. Too "open". I have heard an ENTP refer to Ne-Ti as growing and then pruning. It is what I said about Ti earlier. It cuts things. Ne lets these ideas grow and perceives, then Ti prunes it. Snip here. Snip there. Ti doms start with the scissors. Einstein is not a Ti dom. lol. But he has that rigidness pretty close in his belief in "unrestricted causality". Einstein and many scientists and mathematicians want things to be beautiful. Symmetrical. The universe didn't start with some big bang, that is too messy. So is quantum mechanics. Ti does not like messy things. But sometimes the mess is the truth.


Yep. That is the limit of the function, absolutely. here we enter Ne and Ni realm.
The growing and then pruning description is really nice.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Splash Shin said:


> No. At least not in my experience as a Ti Dom. My Ti can be very disconnected from my Se. Ti is a judging function, and is abstract.
> I think it may be harder to explain the experience to a perceiving dominant type, as they have no way to judge the information they take in via their dominant function without their aux.


Logically I cannot see how Ti stands alone. It needs feeding, and the food comes from S or N or a combination. By the age of 20, 30, etc it must be formed from that information.

For instance, in ENFP, my Fi could not develop strongly without a filtered wealth of information coming from Ne. So I have N-Fi. In my earlier discussion, I explained that the S-Fi of ESFP friends is quite different.

The discussion with Ksara concluded that Ti-dom could be more versatile, because both N and S could be relatively active. But Ti-aux might be much more specialised, because it gets its information mostly from either Ne-dom or Se-dom. So ENTP and ESTP might have an obvious N-Ti or S-Ti.

That flow of information has been going on hour after hour, day after day, for years or decades.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> Logically I cannot see how Ti stands alone. It needs feeding, and the food comes from S or N or a combination. By the age of 20, 30, etc it must be formed from that information.
> 
> For instance, in ENFP, my Fi could not develop strongly without a filtered wealth of information coming from Ne. So I have N-Fi. In my earlier discussion, I explained that the S-Fi of ESFP friends is quite different.
> 
> ...


I thought that I explained something similar in my post, probably wasnt too clear. I agree with you! Only when talking from an ESTP or ENTP point of view though. As an aux function.

When Ti is dominant, it changes the game. Ti, like Fi, is a _judging_ function. It judges information. Ne and Se are of course perceiving functions. They do not judge, they simply gather. I believe Ti can judge via it's own process before any Se or Ne or perceiving function comes into play and puts a spin on things when it is in the dominant role.

As a Ne dom you probably use your Fi to understand a lot of what your Ne sees. Like Fear and trembling said, It is a grow, then prune relationship. The Ti is pretty much a slave to the dominant function, so it is _more likely_ to be used the same way over and over in tandem with the dominant function. Of Ti becoming specialized? I'm not sure I agree with that. Ti just does it's thing with whatever you feed it. If you always feed it some Se, its gonna judge Se stuff. If the ESTP somehow got good Ne out of nowhere and fed it Ne, Ti would be just as good with Ne for them. If they have crappy Ne, Ti would be at the mercy of what it's judging.



hope that made sense! I am in a hurry and cannot clarify too much right now. I will post some more later!


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Splash Shin said:


> If the ESTP somehow got good Ne out of nowhere and fed it Ne, Ti would be just as good with Ne for them. If they have crappy Ne, Ti would be at the mercy of what it's judging.


That's the issue though. Ti, like Fi, develops and grows and gets good at certain things. It can do at birth, only a tiny fraction of what it can do at 20. So whatever it grows on, is what it becomes good at.

My Fi is already very strong and fine-tuned for intuitive data. It is an advanced, complex and reliable system. If it starts getting sensory data, the ability to judge that data (S-Fi) will initially be very ropey. Although there is plenty of machinery, it isn't tested or wired up for that, and the data coming in might be full of biases and gaps. The S-Fi judging might improve very quickly. But probably, that will never happen.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> That's the issue though. Ti, like Fi, develops and grows and gets good at certain things. It can do at birth, only a tiny fraction of what it can do at 20. So whatever it grows on, is what it becomes good at.
> 
> My Fi is already very strong and fine-tuned for intuitive data. It is an advanced, complex and reliable system. If it starts getting sensory data, the ability to judge that data (S-Fi) will initially be very ropey. Although there is plenty of machinery, it isn't tested or wired up for that, and the data coming in might be full of biases and gaps. The S-Fi judging might improve very quickly. But probably, that will never happen.


I have no experience with Fi, so i can't know for sure. My Ti experience tells me that it is not specialized at all just like your Ne is not specialized at the roll of another function. in reality we have no way to measure this because everyone has a function stack and _most_ people use the dom-aux pretty much constantly.

Ti as a function just wants consistency and logical sound and reliable data. It's reference for what fits into that is flexible. I believe that once the Ti reaches a certain level of proficiency at say age 20, it can and does work independently without the aux function. At least for me it does. The process of Ti doesn't necessarily need to come from my own data gathering. 

I can look at a logical problem on a computer screen or test paper(like the ones you get in IQ tests) and solve it with my Ti using pure logic. The pure Ti process of checking consistency in a system. I wouldn't bring me Se into it in the slightest in this situation.

I'm sure an ESTP or ENTP can use their Ti like that too if they did the same problem.
This demonstrates Ti being independent. IMO, in the example of not being used to using sensory data, that is a matter of being a dominant Intuitive type rather than anything to do with the Fi or Ti specializing!
It'd be like a Ti dom not being used to using Fi with their Se. I have no idea how to do that... I am not an ISFP. my dominant function is the core of my type everything is based upon.
so i would think that if an ENTP were to suddenly use Se instead of Ne and find the experience ropey it would be due to having no idea or experience with Se, not that their Ti isn't used to Se. they have plenty of Ti experience still, doing it's thing.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Splash Shin said:


> they have plenty of Ti experience still, doing it's thing.


If a person has a natural aptitude with languages, and grows up learning English and French, that doesn't mean they know German.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> If a person has a natural aptitude with languages, and grows up learning English and French, that doesn't mean they know German.


It is an unfair comparison to make that to this context in Jungian theory imo. Personally i do not see the likeness either.

Anyway i think that this topic has either become way off base, or that it has started to show once again, the limitations of Jungian theory at large.

Ti is a function.
Se is a function
Ne is a function
Ni is a function
Fe is a function
ect.

There is no sub-function for any of them. they are all independent and do their job. The only time another function will effect your degree at using a function is the Inferior one, as the dominant suppresses it.

We have had quite a few Ti doms in this thread comment that they Use their Ti without aux influence, or rather that they do not feel their aux has shaped their Ti. That alone should be sufficient enough.

I find the idea that any function works differently when working with another particular one a bit nonsensical. Ne will Ne. Ti will Ti. they are single processes. They are not mixed into one thing.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Splash Shin said:


> Anyway i think that this topic has either become way off base, or that it has started to show once again, the limitations of Jungian theory at large.


No, it hasn't. That comparison illustrates my original point. You seem to have learnt the theory and see no reason to extend or improve on it.

My reasoning is simple: when Fi is described, I notice that some people only have some of the features, while others have more of them.

This might be the reason for it, and if true, is a valuable refinement of the theory. If you can say someone has N-Ti (or whatever), you can say with more confidence what traits they have.


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

> If you can say someone has N-Ti (or whatever), you can say with more confidence what traits they have.


Not really. 

As has been said before, there is no N-Ti type.. there is however interaction between N and Ti... in every single XXTP and XXFJ type.... why? Because the 8 types that fall within those constraints have Ne/Ni and Ti in their Myers-Briggs conceived 4 function stack. 

_"Intuitives" and "Sensors":_

Since both INTP and ISTP are primarily thinkers, with Ne being second in command and Ni being third in command, respectively, you can't really refer to either as an intuitive type... they both use intuition in a way that is subordinate to Ti. The difference is that an INTP has a relationship between Ne and Si, where Ne is dominant to Si and is therefore fed a series of deep (usually semantic) associations and crosses their wires to illicit the typical Ne "brainstorm". But because Ne and Si are more closely paired, they interlocute a bit more cooperatively than antagonistically (see: Primary Versus Inferior function) this causes less differentiation between Ne and Si in the case of INxP types... which is interesting.. because when I think of people who collect sentimental nick-nacks, I think of a stereotypical FeSiNe-old woman with a mantle of porcelain clowns, and I also think of a stereotypical TiNeSi type with a bunch of Star Wars bobble heads from Loot Crate... manifestations of the reversibility of the functions surround you in life. 

_Abstraction and Ti:_

Abstraction means pulling the generalized aspects of an object out of its particular form... words are abstractions..."chair" is understood by considering the most universal commonalities of a chair, not by obsessing over a particular type of chair, although you might have a favorite example that the word connotes for you personally. Ti is most definitely an abstracting function... too much misleading emphasis in put on Ti being defined by separating, tearing apart etc.* ***Ti pulls apart in order to understand the unifying principle****. If you just define Ti based on half of it's role, then that sounds like a definition being exclaimed by someone with a _fractured Ti _process themselves. *Ti dissects, examine, modifies, edits and molds according to a subjective framework... it is both constructive and deconstructive*. Te also is capable of examining, according to an external framework, or implementing for maximal efficiency. 

_The SeNi Imaginative Loop Of ISxP Types:

_As I mentioned and others have mentioned, *ISXP types are not sensors, they're introverted judgers*. Their Sensing and Intuition is too tightly bundled together to really see one as being as polarized into "sensing" in the way that a primary Se or Si type is... it's a less severe level of polarization in those that perceive within their second and third functions in some combination or another. 
True, ISxP types honor the object first, and then consider the symmetrical conceptual possibilities that unfold around the object second... A ENXP type may in fact be seen as less creative or artistically skilled in some ways compared to ISXP types, because ENXP types seem to evidence their thought process as being their achievement. Since ENXP polarize Sensing to the inferior function, it would follow that ENXP type are less likely to have commitment to molding their ideas into shapes that anchor and explore the dreams that ISXP types readily carve into reality with their SeNi focus. But of course, _ask an ENXP about it, and they'll wave you off with some loquacious gibberish about being entrepreneurial visionaries who are too busy with the big picture to worry about initiating anything themselves. _

_Se has little to do with concrete skills_

The biggest, yet perhaps most subtle, misunderstanding of Se is that those with Se are SURELY better at physical skills than anything else, even if we're just talking about their relative skills. 

No.

*Se types don't necessarily perceive concrete reality more than abstract reality*... that's not the point.
_Se types use concrete perception to absorb that which is external to them via a prioritization of flexible, sensory intake_ tethered by the insights, hunches, laterality of Ni subserving a preference for hands on, perception of limits, information, reliability etc. 
*
The reason why this difference is so fundamentally crucial *is because all this jack-assery of trying to defend the idea that Se types are going to be better at "physical things" (even just relative to their other skills) is to completely misconstrue process/preference from content/skills... Se is a preference, and regardless of what piques an Se types interest, their preference is going to be digesting that interest by focusing on *Se's* *exquisite attention to immediate facets of a thing backed up sudden internal visual insights orbiting the object (abstract or concrete) via Ni. 
*
With SiNe on the otherhand, introverted sensing represents an attitude of subjective valuation of objects (abstract or concrete) and their details which then feeds into a myriad of bastardizing possibilities via Ne, branching outward instead of orbiting around like with Ni. 

Si types of anykind, regardless of where in the stack, might be more prone to feeling committed to book knowledge in order to find fuel for their Ne creativity, seeing as though Si seems to appreciate the cherry picking of facts and perceptions that defines literature and even forms of non-fiction.


----------



## SilverFalcon (Dec 18, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I know how Ti works. I have spent months of my life arguing with it.
> 
> If Ti was so abstract it wouldn't have to nickle and dime people to death. Why does it have to ask so many questions? Because it doesn't see the whole, just sliced up logic. Jung said one should impose the fewest restrictions on a subject so they can answer in a fullness. Ti doesn't do that.





FearAndTrembling said:


> I'll use one more analogy: Ti does not go so far down the rabbit hole. It doesn't just fall down a hole. It is touching something at least. Or trying to. I associate Ni with depth psychology. I don't know if any "official" sources make that connection or even if it is right, but that is how I see it. Ti is more rational than Ni. Obviously. It is touching things.
> ...


If I would use analogy, Ti is like technical drawing while Ni is like impressionism combined with surrealism and symbolism. Impressionism does not struggle to be precise, but it is better at displaying the mood/atmosphere of the scene. But with the symbolism and surrealism mixd in it requires a proper interpretation.
In technical drawing, it's often impossible to depict the whole object in one view - it would be mess. Instead a parts are precisely drawn, than how those parts integrate from several views. It's easy to interpret and it's precise, but it cannot translate how would the final product look in sunset light etc.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

SystemEater said:


> If you just define Ti based on half of it's role, then that sounds like a definition being exclaimed by someone with a fractured Ti process themselves.


Are you saying I have a fractured Ti, and is this your understanding of the reason behind my proposal?

Also, you don't mention ExTP, which has been under discussion mainly to illustrate the issue.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Pangelicus said:


> Are you saying I have a fractured Ti, and is this your understanding of the reason behind my proposal?
> 
> Also, you don't mention ExTP, which has been under discussion mainly to illustrate the issue.


i think that is exactly what he is saying.

You have made your ideas of Ti from your own experiences with your Fi. In the proposal for your theory of S-Ti and N-Ti, you compare it to your perceived ideas about your Fi's relationship with your Ne.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

Splash Shin said:


> i think that is exactly what he is saying.
> 
> You have made your ideas of Ti from your own experiences with your Fi. In the proposal for your theory of S-Ti and N-Ti, you compare it to your perceived ideas about your Fi's relationship with your Ne.


Nah. I have never said I have a fractured Ti. He is trying to attribute my argument to a personality defect on my part, instead of addressing the issue.

He also latches onto the false example of Ti-doms, when we had decided Ti-aux was likely to be most affected, and uses that as a straw man.

On the basis of those two misapprehensions, he has done a big data dump on me. He states categorically that there is no N-Ti, how silly of me! He also states a load of nonsense as if beyond doubt, eg. that Se has nothing to do with concrete skills. None of it advances our understanding of the OP.

I think this thread might be fucked now.


----------



## SystemEater (Aug 5, 2012)

Pangelicus said:


> Nah. I have never said I have a fractured Ti. He is trying to attribute my argument to a personality defect on my part, instead of addressing the issue.


Lol, why would you not admitting you have fractured Ti be a basis that someone is using to evaluate your inadequacy at using it. Written like a true feeler. 



> He also states a load of nonsense as if beyond doubt, eg. that Se has nothing to do with concrete skills. None of it advances our understanding of the OP.


Load of nonsense? Like jumping to wild conclusions of the existence of a non-existent concept like N-Ti?

Se doesn't have anything to do with concrete skills because Se is a psychological function preference, not a learned set of discrete procedurally memorized actions that lead to outcomes, which is a what a skill is. 

I advise you learn what a Jungian function is and then learn what a skill is before responding to such things in an unhinged manner and derailing the possibility of rational dialogue.

I'm done here.


----------



## Pangelicus (Mar 26, 2015)

SystemEater said:


> Lol, why would you not admitting you have fractured Ti be a basis that someone is using to evaluate your inadequacy at using it. Written like a true feeler.


I said, I have never said that I have a fractured Ti. You wrote that I said I had. I hadn't.

That does not mean I don't have one.

If I do have a "fractured Ti", in your words, does that mean I have N-Ti or S-Ti, in your opinion?

I did say I have N-Fi. Is that what you mean by "fractured"?

And after that endless stream of logical inconsistencies and mis-remembered attributions, you hit me with a personal insult.

Do you think you needed to make that insult, to bolster up your lack of argument?

If I were to return the insult, I might say you think you have strong Ti, but you are a typical example of a thick person with Ti, trying to use Ti, and not using well.



> Load of nonsense? Like jumping to wild conclusions of the existence of a non-existent concept like N-Ti?


Wrong again. I proposed N-Ti as a tentative idea.

No wild conclusions.

No existence or non-existence.

Does it make you feel strong and powerful to deliberately misinterpret my posts, and then pretend you have all the answers?

- which don't even make sense?



> Se doesn't have anything to do with concrete skills because Se is a psychological function preference, not a learned set of discrete procedurally memorized actions that lead to outcomes, which is a what a skill is.
> 
> I advise you learn what a Jungian function is and then learn what a skill is before responding to such things in an unhinged manner and derailing the possibility of rational dialogue.
> 
> I'm done here.


More data dumping. You haven't even read the read the OP correctly, read the thread, or shown any ability for logical debate.

I'm glad you're done here.

I am just writing this reply, as a heads-up for other people who might mistake your over-confidence for being right.


----------

