# Why IxxJ aren't IxxP and IxxP aren't IxxJ



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

After reading Lenore Thomson's, Personality Type an Owner's Manual I think I've come to some realisation why Ji doms aren't labeled judges nor Pi doms labeled perceives.

In the book it suggested that the J/P dichotomy are a result of either being left brained dominant or right brained dominant. That is the functions Ni, Si, Te and Fe activate more areas in the left hemisphere, where as Ne, Se, Ti and Fi activate more areas in the right hemisphere.

Now the left brain looks for an explanation whilst the right brain attends to the immediate experience
That is the left brain is only aware of things that can be put into words (numbers, symbols) and the right brain is only aware in a direct immediate way. It processes in terms of images and patterns.

*So left side (J traits)*
Ideas oriented
General and abstract
Uses words and numbers
Seekers exact conclusions
Reductive and analytic
Symbolic
Temporal
Proceeds one step at a time
Little appreciation of tone
Specialises in language skills
Controls speech

*And right side (P traits)*
Event oriented
Concrete and specific
Uses patterns or pictures
Content with approximate, evolving solutions
Synthesising and insightful
Imaginable
Unaware of time limits
Perceives all at once
Evaluates intonation
Specialises in musical and artistic skills
Controls spatially related activities 

(All information above has been taken from or paraphrased from Lenore Thomson's, Personality Type an Owner's Manual, below are some of my ideas taken from the reading)



In a way this makes sense for Pi/Je to be judges where as and Ji/Pe to be perceives.

Yes Ni and Si are technically perception. But they do operate in a judgy way. Si stores details away as impressions. Details like numbers and facts. Ni is symbolic in nature' replacing the object seen with its own symbolic representation. Both seek to reduce the current experience down to an impression or symbol. (Also interesting to not that language is symbolic). In a way it is more systematic compared to Ne and Se.

And then there is Ti and Fi. Both Ti and Fi see things in its totality (like extroverted perception does). Ti is a changing logic, it sees all variables of the system and which ones to logically change to adapt to the current situation. Fi is similar here as values will change in accordance to the situation. (This is very different to the extroverted judgment where they make judgement calls before they have even come in contact with the object and expect these judgments to stand because of and external criteria). Both Ti and Fi are quite free flowing in this regard.

I found this to be an interesting concept and perhaps may help others to identify if they fall in the middle of the J/P dichotomy. Also To open up a discussion on the topic and see what others think


----------



## StunnedFox (Dec 20, 2013)

Can it really be said that "general and abstract"/"concrete and specific" correlate to J/P as well, given there's already an obvious link to S/N in concrete/abstract and a possible link to I/E and the subjectivity/objectivity side of things? It's hardly implausible that some traits could independently arise from different distinct preferences, but given concrete/abstract is one of the major aspects of S/N, it's hard to comprehend how it might also play a significant role in other preferences without undercutting S/N a little.

Evaluating the listed factors alone, I'd say I lean to the J side to some extent (hard to really quantify), and overall I'd consider myself particularly close to the middle of the J/P dimension. I would be interested to know if there's actually any reason to believe J/P does directly link into left-/right-brain dominance, or whether it's just postulated at this stage. I would be inclined to say that J/P still makes most sense understood as how a person predominantly interacts with the outside world, rather than about brain divisions, but I'm curious to know whether there's a good reason to suppose it does neatly tie in to which hemisphere of the brain is dominant.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I never bought into this aspect of Lenore Thomson's theory as she's lacking evidence to support her argument.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

I don't know why people attribute abstraction to intuition and concrete to sensation, seems to me that people haven't ready Jung:



> .“Interest” I conceive as the energy or libido (q.v.) which I bestow on the object as a value, or which the object draws from me, maybe even against my will or unknown to myself. I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. *In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido* (v. Introversion). [680]* I call an attitude (q.v.) abstractive when it is both introverting and at the same time assimilates (q.v.) a portion of the object, felt to be essential, to abstract contents already constellated in the subject. *


Abstract functions are introverted functions.



> *Concretism sets too high a value on the importance of facts and suppresses the freedom of the individual for the sake of objective data.* But since the individual is conditioned not merely by physiological stimuli but by factors which may even be opposed to external realities, concretism results in a projection (q.v.) of these inner factors into the objective data and produces an almost superstitious veneration of mere facts, as is precisely the case with the primitive.


Concrete functions are extraverted functions.

Also Ti doms don't change logic to adapt to the current situation, actually they do the opposite and barely let's the outside influence him, therefore Ti Dom's along with other introverts don't adapt to the current situation since current situations are a product of objective reality, not subjective:



> *However clear to him the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where or how they link up with the world of reality*. Only with the greatest difficulty will he bring himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is cluttered with all sorts of adjuncts, accessories, qualifications, retractions, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which all come from his scrupulosity. His work goes slowly and with difficulty.





> With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. *Outside influences are shut off*; as a person, too, he becomes more unsympathetic to his wider circle of acquaintances, and therefore more dependent on his intimates.





> . The counterbalancing functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation are comparatively unconscious and inferior, *and therefore have a primitive extraverted character that accounts for all the troublesome influences from outside to which the introverted thinker is prone.*


Ne and Se on the other hand do adapt themselves to the current situation because they are both focused on the concretet present moment through perception, therefore every change in the present moment induces a change in Se and Ne.

Also it says that J's are focused on ideas but IxTPs and ExTPs, along with IxTJs and ExTJs, are all focused on ideas due to Ti/Te being idea oriented:



> .*The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in developing ideas *which approximate more and more to the eternal validity of the primordial images.





> He has only to be convinced of a person’s seeming innocuousness to lay himself open to the most undesirable elements. They seize hold of him from the unconscious. *He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way if only he can be left in peace to pursue his ideas.*





> . *Like his extraverted counterpart, he is strongly influenced by ideas, though his ideas have their origin not in objective data but in his subjective foundation.* He will follow his ideas like the extravert, but in the reverse direction: inwards and not outwards. Intensity is his aim, not extensity.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> IAlso Ti doms don't change logic to adapt to the current situation, actually they do the opposite and barely let's the outside influence him, therefore Ti Dom's along with other introverts don't adapt to the current situation since current situations are a product of objective reality, not subjective:


Exactly. Ti doms make the data fit the logic they are creating. Te doms (types) change their logic based on the situation i.e. when discussing a logical framework such as cognitive types and a person whose cognition seems unidentified compared to the known model, the Ti dom will seek to make the unidentified cognition fit within the model that exists at the expense of dismissing that it may not actually fit, whereas the Te dom will alter the model to fit the new data.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

FWIW, according to Dario Nardi in Neuroscience of Personality (NoP), he noted that perceiving doms tended to favour the right pre-frontal lobe region and judging doms the left (though both regions are highly active in general).

EDIT: I also tend to favour the right side according to the list of characteristics in the OP.

Interestingly, according to NoP, focus on tone seems to be more of an FP thing. All FP types have a heavy focus on it while most TP types have a heavy focus on content, with the exception of INTP. It seems they don't seem to care much for the content or tone of what people say. XD

Correction**: IFP types were even on both sides with high activity. EPs highly favoured one side to the other. For that matter, ISJs were equal on both sides, while INJ and all EJ types favoured the left.

With that said, I tend to focus on tone to content in general, but I am more concerned with logical consistency.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Exactly. Ti doms make the data fit the logic they are creating. Te doms (types) change their logic based on the situation i.e. when discussing a logical framework such as cognitive types and a person whose cognition seems unidentified compared to the known model, the Ti dom will seek to make the unidentified cognition fit within the model that exists at the expense of dismissing that it may not actually fit, whereas the Te dom will alter the model to fit the new data.


I can't agree with this because Te has the tendency to force everything into its formula, where if something doesn't fit the formula they see it as corrupted, or flawed, rather then blaming their own formula, therefore they tend to force everything/everyone around them to follow this formula. Anything that disagrees with their formula they either see as an accident, or wrong, so they tend to stick to their formula over everything else:



> This type of man elevates objective reality, or an objectively oriented intellectual formula, into the ruling principle not only for himself but for his whole environment. *By this formula good and evil are measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. Everything that agrees with this formula is right, everything that contradicts it is wrong, and anything that passes by it indifferently is merely incidental.* Because this formula seems to embody the entire meaning of life, it is made into a universal law which must be put into effect everywhere all the time, both individually and collectively. *Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for their own good, everybody round him must obey it too, for whoever refuses to obey it is wrong— he is resisting the universal law, and is therefore unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience.* His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must under all circumstances be realized, for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and therefore must also be a universally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of mankind.





> Although reason itself tells us that every intellectual formula can never be anything more than a partial truth and can never claim general validity, in practice the formula gains such an ascendency that all other possible standpoints are thrust into the background.* It usurps the place of all more general, less definite, more modest and therefore more truthful views of life. It even supplants that general view of life we call religion. Thus the formula becomes a religion, although in essentials it has not the slightest connection with anything religious.* At the same time, it assumes the essentially religious quality of absoluteness. It becomes an intellectual superstition.





> . Magnanimous as he may be in sacrificing himself to his intellectual goal, his feelings are petty, mistrustful, crotchety, and conservative. *Anything new that is not already contained in his formula is seen through a veil of unconscious hatred and condemned accordingly*. As late as the middle of the last century a certain doctor, famed for his humanitarianism, threatened to dismiss an assistant for daring to use a thermometer, because the formula decreed that temperature must be taken by the pulse.


Their formula isn't completely stagnant though, if outer circumstances or inner dispositions start to become antagonistic to the formula then the Te user starts to downplay a part of their own formula in order to modify it, but this isnt something a Te user does naturally, it happens when their formula is proven to them to not be as absolute as they once thought:



> Doubtless there are exceptional people who are able to sacrifice their entire life to a particular formula, but for most of us such exclusiveness is impossible in the long run. Sooner or later, depending on outer circumstances or inner disposition, the potentialities repressed by the intellectual attitude will make themselves indirectly felt by disturbing the conscious conduct of life. When the disturbance reaches a definite pitch, we speak of a neurosis. *In most cases it does not go so far, because the individual instinctively allows himself extenuating modifications of his formula in a suitably rationalistic guise, thus creating a safety valve*.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Shadow Logic I think when you speak of such formulas you are referring to them in a more generic sense. The context I mentioned is more specific to how Te vs Ti orients itself when understanding say, theory.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I think Jung defined "abstraction", with Kant. The less you notice the differences in things. I used the example of showing a caveman and a computer. The caveman could not get past the differences, to see how he is made of the same stuff as the computer. He thinks it is from another world. 

Just look outside. Everything is different, but you can abstract things, and see they have things like mass and other properties. There is something in common. Ti can take this too far of course. Where they can make nearly anything true. Until everything is one unified whole, with no cracks. There is nothing even to abstract anymore. It is just one big fuzzy picture. It is like tossing a huge salad. You have two tiny specks of salt and pepper. Toss that thing around forever, and those grains will touch somehow. 

Jung said our society is totally dominated by Te. I think he meant the Western world. Here is an interesting quote by him:

"The truth of the East is not in the Eastern way itself, but in the demonstrated need for a balance between intellect and intuition, between thinking and feeling...To be overbalanced in any one aspect of consciousness is a sign of immaturity and "barbarism", to use Jung's word for it. Consequently, it is not the case that the modem West should give up its highly developed scientific intellect-only that the intuitive and feeling aspects of psychic function must achieve an equally high development in Western consciousness so that a creative balance can be achieved, and a widening of consciousness result. While Jung openly admired the Eastern yoga principle of inclusiveness and balance between the opposing aspects of psychic function, it is clear that he felt that the East had overstressed the intuitive, just as the modem West had over-developed the scientific."


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I don't know why people attribute abstraction to intuition and concrete to sensation, seems to me that people haven't ready Jung:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. Introversion is abstraction. It is slicing a piece off. I think it was Keirsey, and probably many others, who said that N is more imaginative, and S is more observant. Like how the East can still blend weird superstitions with modern science. That is imagination too. They don't have to see everything, or be totally empirical. I think that trait of their culture is something that Jung was talking about when he said it favored intuition. Or even NF. At least the religious and philosophical roots. He talked about how Christianity and Western religions are more extroverted. There is a lot of concrete symbolism. It is very communicable. Eastern religions are more abstract and personal. I mean, Western guys literally sit down, and say, "Alright, this is exactly why God exists logically." The West has been trying to prove'/disprove God in clearly defined terms forever. It is a major hobby of the greatest minds. Jung says that everything is true, if you read it like it was supposed to be read. The West has trouble balancing those things.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I agree. Introversion is abstraction. It is slicing a piece off. I think it was Keirsey, and probably many others, who said that N is more imaginative, and S is more observant. Like how the East can still blend weird superstitions with modern science. That is imagination too. They don't have to see everything, or be totally empirical. I think that trait of their culture is something that Jung was talking about when he said it favored intuition. Or even NF. At least the religious and philosophical roots. He talked about how Christianity and Western religions are more extroverted. There is a lot of concrete symbolism. It is very communicable. Eastern religions are more abstract and personal. I mean, Western guys literally sit down, and say, "Alright, this is exactly why God exists logically." The West has been trying to prove'/disprove God in clearly defined terms forever. It is a major hobby of the greatest minds. Jung says that everything is true, if you read it like it was supposed to be read. The West has trouble balancing those things.


Keirsey doesn't endorse the functions in the first place, so, and made N and S mean something different from their Jungian roots where he blended colloquial understanding and them choose to redefine according to how he saw them. Made things more marketable and easier to understand, but his idea of N vs S has led to this aristocratic thinking where N is smarter/better than S. I mean, N and S both being perceiving functions therefore got observation in common. What differs is _what _they observe. Keirsey seems to ignore this. I also think the MBTI/Keirsey as a whole has pigeonholed N to mean more akin to Ne than it is Ni, also. I think Ne types (regardless if Ne or Si ego) are more likely to actually relate to descriptions such as "I'm imaginative".

And Western philosophical tradition is heavily Ti. I agree that Eastern tradition is Pi. Much more focused on archetypal concepts such as duality in themselves as residing universal forces. Western tradition always tried to put such things into a logical framework. With that said, there are various Western philosophical traditions that seem more perceiving e.g. phenomenology. Overall, however, Western philosophy is heavily biased towards Ti or in the very least, rationality.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Entropic said:


> @Shadow Logic I think when you speak of such formulas you are referring to them in a more generic sense. The context I mentioned is more specific to how Te vs Ti orients itself when understanding say, theory.


If the theory is part of the formula then they won't (initially) change the formula because someone doesn't fit it. They are more likely to consider the person an accident, or an incident before changing their model, if the model is part of their formula. Everything, including theories, are subject to the Te users formula though, if the Te user thinks a theory isn't "empirically" sound, or if it has no practical application then they'll dismiss the theory altogether because it goes against this formula they have created which only allows intellectual studies that are "empirically" sound or has practical application. 

Now this doesn't mean that Ni-Te doesn't change their model to fit the new data but this is more derived from the cooperation of Ni with Te that produces such a process (Ne-Ti does the same but in a different way). Te by itself though, or as a dominant, forces all things, including theories, how they learn the theories, objective facts, and all objective data to follow or fit this formula. Everything that goes against the formula is met with unconscious contempt, so if the theory is accepted within the formula, then anything that goes against the theory will be met with this unconscious contempt rather than changing the model/formula to fit the new data. Only if the Te user is forced against their will either through outer circumstances or inner dispositions will they alter or change their model/formula but never is it a natural process for them to change their own model for new data, not without a fight at the least.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> If the theory is part of the formula then they won't (initially) change the formula because someone doesn't fit it. They are more likely to consider the person an accident, or an incident before changing their model, if the model is part of their formula. Everything, including theories, are subject to the Te users formula though, if the Te user thinks a theory isn't "empirically" sound, or if it has no practical application then they'll dismiss the theory altogether because it goes against this formula they have created which only allows intellectual studies that are "empirically" sound or has practical application.
> 
> Now this doesn't mean that Ni-Te doesn't change their model to fit the new data but this is more derived from the cooperation of Ni with Te that produces such a process (Ne-Ti does the same but in a different way). Te by itself though, or as a dominant, forces all things, including theories, how they learn the theories, objective facts, and all objective data to follow or fit this formula. Everything that goes against the formula is met with unconscious contempt, so if the theory is accepted within the formula, then anything that goes against the theory will be met with this unconscious contempt rather than changing the model/formula to fit the new data. Only if the Te user is forced against their will either through outer circumstances or inner dispositions will they alter or change their model/formula but never is it a natural process for them to change their own model for new data, not without a fight at the least.


Ok, touché. 

@Ksara I don't relate to being left-brained, for what it's worth. Always related more to being right-brained, which I also think shows itself in my poor ability to actually organize my physical space.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Keirsey doesn't endorse the functions in the first place, so, and made N and S mean something different from their Jungian roots where he blended colloquial understanding and them choose to redefine according to how he saw them. Made things more marketable and easier to understand, but his idea of N vs S has led to this aristocratic thinking where N is smarter/better than S. I mean, N and S both being perceiving functions therefore got observation in common. What differs is _what _they observe. Keirsey seems to ignore this. I also think the MBTI/Keirsey as a whole has pigeonholed N to mean more akin to Ne than it is Ni, also. I think Ne types (regardless if Ne or Si ego) are more likely to actually relate to descriptions such as "I'm imaginative".
> 
> And Western philosophical tradition is heavily Ti. I agree that Eastern tradition is Pi. Much more focused on archetypal concepts such as duality in themselves as residing universal forces. Western tradition always tried to put such things into a logical framework. With that said, there are various Western philosophical traditions that seem more perceiving e.g. phenomenology. Overall, however, Western philosophy is heavily biased towards Ti or in the very least, rationality.


I honestly don't know a good definition for intuitive or sensor. They are probably the hardest to understand. The mistake I made, is thinking that Ti is the main cause of further abstraction. But Ti does not actually do that. It stays within that framework. Abstracting would be removing that framework, or letting a wall down. By perceiving, and letting other things fit in. Letting nature take its course. And a lot of Eastern thought like mindfulness and meditation is all about that. Perceiving events or thoughts is never a problem. Judging them is when you start to have problems. Rationalizing them. Feeling them. Thinking them.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Ksara said:


> After reading Lenore Thomson's, Personality Type an Owner's Manual I think I've come to some realisation why Ji doms aren't labeled judges nor Pi doms labeled perceives.
> 
> In the book it suggested that the J/P dichotomy are a result of either being left brained dominant or right brained dominant. That is the functions Ni, Si, Te and Fe activate more areas in the left hemisphere, where as Ne, Se, Ti and Fi activate more areas in the right hemisphere.


The first thing when I see something like this is:

Why do these people expect this







instead of this, from our brain??








The function descriptions (especially Ti) really seem like first there is this expectation and then the definitions are changed to fit it.



Ksara said:


> *So left side (J traits)*
> Ideas oriented
> General and abstract
> Uses words and numbers
> ...


Abstract, general, symbolic is not in the same group like imaginable, synthesising, insighful and both are often ascribed to N. I like this because it loosens labels that you have when you read too much cognitive functions and MBTI.

But as already said, N=abstract is not in line with Jungian definitions. If I had to apply Jungianterms to this list (whether or not this makes sense) I would say left side is similar to introversion since it sounds like avoiding too much contact with actual outer objects (and right a bit like extraversion for the same reason). Also the left hemisphere attributes seem to be a requirement for thinking (analytic, symbolic, conclusions) and the right ones seem to be a better basis for feelings. Intuition and sensing both seem more like right hemisphere because it involves both perception in general and synthesising, approximating etc. and also the definitions of rational and irrational are similar to left and right (one is more like assimilating to the own world model, looking for good explanations and the other sounds more accepting whatever comes).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them.

Jung was a strong believer in the scientific approach, and Briggs and (especially) Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. And among the things that Myers discovered was that, as discussed at some length in this post, Jung had been wrong to believe that concrete/abstract — in the sense of whether a person tended to be more focused on (and interested in) concrete facts or abstract theories — was an extravert/introvert thing.

Decades of MBTI data have firmly established not only that there are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), but that there's _no significant statistical correlation at all_ between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N. An extravert is no more likely than an introvert to choose the S side of test items like "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?" and "Which word appeals to you most? (S) facts or (N) ideas" and "Which word appeals to you most? (S) concrete or (N) abstract."

And this is not a _dichotomies vs. functions_ issue. Virtually all the leading MBTI theorists — including function-centric theorists like Thomson, Berens and Nardi — are in agreement that the concrete/abstract, fact/theory aspect of personality is part of S/N, _not_ E/I. For example:


Lenore Thomson notes that "Sensation gives us an appreciation for objective facts and circumstances, as perceived by the senses, [and] excellent powers of observation," while "Intuition gives us an appreciation for the larger picture or underlying pattern, beyond the reach of the senses," with the result that N's tend to be uninterested in "facts and details."

Linda Berens explains that sensing "is a process of becoming aware of sensory information and often involves responding to that sensory information without any judgment or evaluation of it. ... In the Sensing process, the focus is on the actual experience, the facts and the data," while intuition "is a process of becoming aware of abstract information, like symbols, conceptual patterns, and meanings."

Berens and Nardi associate S with "tangible information" and N with "conceptual information" and specifically associate Ne with "Interpreting situations and relationships" and "becoming aware of patterns, implications and meanings," and Ni with "current perceptions sparking insights into complex situations," "becoming aware of universal meanings and symbols" and "noticing whole patterns or systems."

And again, for anyone's who's interested, there's quite a lot more in the linked post.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

With so many different ideas from theorists, which to follow?


Interesting that people say Ti is stubborn and somewhat so far removed from the world.

"As a right-brain function, Introverted Thinking is not conceptual and linear. It's body based and wholistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experimentally rather than analytically." - Lenore Thomson

It isn't just responding to external stimuli.
"It's a decision-making process. When we're Thinking in an Introverted way, we're coordinating our behaviour with the variables in a situation related to our intended effect" - Lenore Thomson

Perhaps written more in context to Ti/Se?


----------



## Dedication (Jun 11, 2013)

Ksara said:


> Interesting that people say Ti is stubborn and somewhat so far removed from the world.


In a way, you could say the very same about Fi.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Ksara said:


> With so many different ideas from theorists, which to follow?
> 
> 
> Interesting that people say Ti is stubborn and somewhat so far removed from the world.
> ...


Seems so. Nothing of that seems to follow a theoretical definition of thinking + introversion. If Ti is more aware of the current situation than Te and 'body based', even not conceptual, not analytical but experimental, it actually seems more extraverted.

Do you remember on what the connection of Ti and right-brain attributes is based, in the book? Is it just the P-letter?

Maybe it is this reasoning, originally: 
- dichotomy-typed T+P or maybe S+T+P show these attributes (mainly because of the P)
- TPs are supposed to have Ti (this is the insecure part)
- therefore Ti has to do with these attributes...

So the sense of "Ti" got lost on the way.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Dastan said:


> Seems so. Nothing of that seems to follow a theoretical definition of thinking + introversion. If Ti is more aware of the current situation than Te and 'body based', even not conceptual, not analytical but experimental, it actually seems more extraverted.
> 
> Do you remember on what the connection of Ti and right-brain attributes is based, in the book? Is it just the P-letter?
> 
> ...


So the book really didn't explain what Ti is...

So what parts of the book can I take away as generally accepted?
What parts should I be skeptical about?


----------

