# How is Ti subjective?



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

Oldlady said:


> I've heard it is. How?
> 
> Ti itself is all about objectivity. To hear this makes me feel... dirty.


Basically, someone decided that introverted functions are subjective(since they take place in the mind), and that extroverted functions are objective, because they take place outside "personal understanding."

The problem with this that in common use, subjective and objective deal with bias. So, when someone hears that Ti is subjective, they often jump to the conclusion that the person can not overcome their personal biases and that any thought processes they have will always be tainted. However, this is not the case. Objectivity is a personal goal; you have to strive at being objective. Te users are quite able to be subjective. We all are; we are human. Te users have Fi, which is a moral framework set apart from what is necessarily socially excepted. They can form strong opinions about things that are completely not related to anything in reality, but simply what they have decided searching inside themselves. Te itself, can be subjective in the fact that it can deny new information.

Its really all about perspective, so do not let it worry you too much. I hope this helps.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam (Jun 2, 2010)

This is my personal description of Ti function:




> *[Ti]*
> 
> The most accurate way I could describe mi Ti dom in simple words is something like this:
> 
> ...


Basically, Ti can be seen as a model generator which searchs constantly for "a single model of everything" (everything known by the user, of course). The subjectivity inherent to Ti is exactly the subjectivity inherent to every model you could create/use.

I will use the example of gravity. You know a phenomenon: bodies with mass attracts themselves. You could analize this phenomenon and collects all data about it that you're capable. Then you can express this "collection of related data" in a single, unified, formula. This is the model of the phenomenon. But you construct the model using your own knowledge and your own logic, which is something "internal" therefore subjective (based in the subject). The model (idea of what gravity is) is constructed by the user, therefore it's based in his own subjectivity. Later experiments could confirm that the model, although simple, unified or even beatuful, could be wrong. Because gravity is not the model of it, obviously. The more phenomenons the model could explain/predict, the more correct it would be, but it's always created "by subjectivity" because you can't ask to gravity (the object) "what's your real, true, complete formula?"

Te is objective because it's directed to the object: Te does not construct models but it focus in the fact, not in its interpretation (well, this is idealization, Ti Vs Te is not back or white but shades of grey, as happens when comparing functions). Te says: the acceleration of the falling object is X; the distance between Earth an Moon is Y, etc. Pure facts related with the external world (the object) but not its interpretations. Another supporting function in Te users will do this (like Ni).

But the question here is that being objective only means "related to the object" and being subjective only means "related to the subject". Objective is not equal to being right or subjective to being wrong. For example, measures made by Te will be wrong due to multiple factors, like a malfunctioning measuring device. Te is connected to what it interprets it's the real object. But what's perceived as a real object (or pure fact) and what's truly the real object are two different things. For example: if you ask a Te user in Ancient Times if Earth orbits the Sun or vice-versa, a Te user could say: don't you see? The Sun moves in the Sky, while Earth doesn't move! Whereas a Ti user could construct a complex model that justify that it's Earth which really moves.

This is not an argument against Te, only against its "rightness by default". If Earth really moves, then Te is wrong. If Earth doen't move, then the Ti model is only a beautful mental exercise. Earth will orbit Sun or vice-versa regardless our idea about it. Reality does not depend on particular opinions (Te, Ti or whatever).

What some Te users (only some, fortunately) seems to not being aware is that an experiment is only "a proof" of the small quantity of information it's managing. I mean, an experiment is never "a proof of the whole" but only "a proof of the part". It can manage only a limited quantity of information, so it can't describe neither it could be able of describing the whole reality. The "don't you see the sky?" sentence is an example. Another Te coud say "test which orbits, like going to the space and seeing it". True, but still this is only a solution for "what you can see/know at the moment of the experiment", limited information. More information could be still outside this "vision"... absolute certainties are an absolute illusion.


----------



## bionic (Mar 29, 2010)

"Adapted from Jung, C.G. “Psychological Types“:

The introverted thinking type is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object-indifference, and even aversion-characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing- element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated."

Arkham’s Eyrie » jung

This is why....


----------



## Mr.Adrian (Oct 11, 2010)

In one sentence: 

Ti is possible to create a whole new causal world internally while in this process it loses any touch with the external world (i.e. not using you extravert function anymore) and therefore creates a total subjective structure.

MO could be:
1. Person experiences something
2. Person thinks and thinks and thinks in his room about it
3. Person comes to a conclusion
4. Person shares/tries to acknowledge it with the outer world
5a. Person is right by finding external confirmation/no falsification
5b. Person is wrong by finding falsification/no confirmation
5c. Person sees his subjective finding as his truth and does not care about any other perspective

Gl


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

Oldlady said:


> Are you saying that Te will LITERALLY look at the physical object? I imagine A in my mind. Then I think, how are A and B different? The differences are kind of fuzzy, but then they become clearer. Hey, A is sort of almost like K!


This is actually very interesting.

One time I tried to convince an ENTJ that using symbols instead of concrete numbers is better for the model we were building. He didn't seem comfortable with the idea *presumably* because it was not concrete/objective - What are those symbols? Where do they come from?

I didn't feel comfortable with his idea because I thought a model with concrete numbers would be less valid since it would be too concrete for the situation and not encompassing enough. What if we need to change the numbers?

Anybody has something more concrete on this? LOL

Because several ppl mentioned Ti and Fi work on the same plane but opposite directions (I do not fully believe this but entertain it as a valid possibility), I was wondering if the same is true for Fe and Te.

I mean all four of them are some type of logic, right?

My spatial thinking just can't grasp the Ti vs Fi example. I want to imagine it but can't.

Also I find the terms used in typology texts rather irritating. They are not clear and concrete. It reads like poetry and is very frustrating!


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 14, 2010)

I believe Ti to be logical principles of sorts that one sort of brands into their head and carries with them throughout the world. This is why when in debate or any situation it is easy for me to come up with a hypothetical situation that closely mirrors the issue at hand, Bill Maher is the king of doing this. This also might be why dominant-Ti users are typically bad liars but auxiliary Ti users are notoriously good liars. We tend to be able to apply logical principles to hypothetical situations and craft a story together with Se and Ne checking that it makes sense with our Ti. It can be picked up and moved from situation to situation because it occurs within us, it isn't simply a list of facts/numbers/data (though it can present itself as an understanding of such things).

Because Ti can be improved upon with experience, Ti users (especially ENTP's) tend to start believing they are always right. Because we can apply anything to the logical framework we have in our heads and with Ne we can connect different ideas quickly that other types wouldn't think to connect, and we can also (sometimes shamelessly) fabricate stories, (make sure they make sense, as in they are a possibility with our Ne) and apply them to the logical framework in our heads(Ti) to make sure there are no lapses in logic within the story.

Fi seems to be an emotional framework that one has. Meaning they understand *their *emotions better than any other type. ENFP's tend to understand their emotions so well, that combined with their objective function (Ne) they learn to be able to recognize what emotion someone is *probably *feeling at any given time based on certain things they observe or connections they make about a person, which helps them learn to manipulate others very well at a young age. With their NeFi combination they also learn what situations would bring out what emotions, so they learn how to do things to flatter others or hurt their feelings or turn people against others. Ne is an objective extroverted process, but Jung described intuition as something that typically occurs in the unconscious, so intuitive's are consciously aware of this unconscious process.

I imagine 4 types sound something like this when being used:

*Te*: _James just said Tom doesn't like me, I don't really have an opinion on it, but if James said it, it's possibly true, I will take note of it but the next time I see Tom I will act as if I have no idea about it, as he may be useful to me later. Come to think of it, I didn't really like Tom either..._

*Fe*: _James said Tom doesn't like me, but I like Tom and don't want to think that he doesn't like me, the next time I see Tom I will behave in a manner he may enjoy more and he will likely begin to like me again, but it may not be true because James is SUCH a liar..._

*Ti*: _James said Tom doesn't like me, hmm...this doesn't make sense, the last time I saw Tom it seemed like we were cool...AH! It may be because I fucked his girlfriend last night! NOW THAT MAKES SENSE!...Now I can get back to not thinking about Tom. *With tertiary Fe, may behave in a similar manner towards Tom as Fe user, but will have no problem manipulating Tom, Dominant Ti will just forget once an understanding is reached*_

*Fi*: _James said that Tom doesn't like me? But I don't want anyone to dislike me. Why are people so quick to form negative opinions about others? This sucks. *Forgets*_


----------



## freeeekyyy (Feb 16, 2010)

You're confusing objective/subjective with personal/impersonal. Te and Ti are both impersonal, but they are not both objective. Something which is subjective is something which is *subject* to influence. All introverted functions are subjective because they are subject to our own thought processes. Extraverted functions are also subjective, but less so. Relatively, they are objective.

Besides, be happy with Ti. Ti is logical and can figure things out. Te is just a stupid computer which puts things into boxes and has no understanding of nuance. Its objectivity makes it too hard and firm to work with anything except the most clearly defined facts. Ti figures out the rules for itself rather than having to be told what they are. Not that Te doesn't have its advantages; I'm very glad to have access to it, especially in conjunction with Ni.


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

The way my INTP brother and I understand it...

He will come to a logical conclusion internally (Ti) and look for ideas to test it out (Ne).

While I use external objective criteria (Te) to organize and validate my understanding (Ni).


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Oldlady said:


> Still do not get it. I understand that it looks within, but the term "subjective" means something else... but WHAT?! It's something I don't want to be, but I can't define it exactly.


from: Subjective | Define Subjective at Dictionary.com


> sub·jec·tive
> [suhb-jek-tiv]
> –adjective
> 1.
> ...


Maybe the third one makes it dirty for you?


----------



## Palaver (Jan 5, 2010)

Subjectivity vs objectivity is a philosophical debate. However, I do believe that Ti as a judging function is less arbitrary than Te. I will explain.

I've not found a satisfactory description of Ti vs Te. There are behavioral differences but the characterizations are too muddled. A simple explanation is the best explanation.

Extroversion encourages action. Introversion encourages reflection. Time is the essential component. Te, action oriented logical decision making, considers the present. Ti, introspective logical decision making, considers the past and the future. Ti, requires more historical input and projections. Hence, the perceiving function, Ne or Se, is extroverted or seeking.

In essence, Ti and Te is logical thinking from the perspective of different time zones. How can you say that one is more subjective than the other?


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

I had this same question: See this thread.

A key post:


nevermore said:


> All introverted functions are subjective, even thinking and sensing (any conversation with an ISJ should tell you that!) It's still bound by absolute laws and deductive reasoning, it just disregards external fact and focuses on consistency and *sees the self as the final arbiter*. Te is all abut external facts. Less logically rigorous, but more practical and in tune with how the world "really works". Te wants to align itself with fact...it is more empirical. The INTP decides whether or not something is logical according to what we see as the laws of logic, absolute logical principles, and don't care about how it "practically works" in the real world (objective). Ti is more "mathematical", more precise. More theoretical, and not as well suited for practical application by itself.
> 
> An INTP with an underdeveloped Ne is doomed to fall into subjectivity...to come to conclusions that are logically valid but not sound.


I dislike the terms "objective" and "subjective" more and more in this theory. In part, because the official Jung use of it kind of clashes with our own English vocabulary definition, and in part because it's focused, IMO, on the wrong part of the process.

It seems like we should talk about "seeking impersonal facts" vs "seeking personal facts" and "using universal standards" vs "using personal standards". "Objective" refers to the second set of descriptions in the previous sentence, but you would think it should refer to the first. That is, objectivity seems like it should be based on T vs F, not J vs P. But perhaps I do not understand it sufficiently to understand the genius at work there... I just don't get how Fe could ever be considered "objective". Meh.

Using my descriptions: Ti looks for impersonal facts but uses a personal framework to get it; Te looks for impersonal facts but uses an impersonal framework to get it. An over-simplification, but it conveys the general point.

Anyway, when you hear "Ti is subjective", it almost assuredly doesn't mean what you think it means. Bad vocabulary choice, IMO.


----------



## nevermore (Oct 1, 2010)

B-Con said:


> when you hear "Ti is subjective", it almost assuredly doesn't mean what you think it means. Bad vocabulary choice, IMO.


I'm assuming it had something to do with the translation of _Psychologische Typen_. I'm guessing they used it because it sounds similar to the German word and probably even has the same etymology, but without the personal connotation it's taken on in English.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

Harley said:


> While Ti does strive do create a logical framework to examine things, it does this by looking inwardly and hence subjectively, since inwards reflection is dependant on the individual's mind and thought process, and not the objective outside world.


How would this intrinsically make it subjective.. if Ti is logical than it's just a series of truth claims. There is nothing subjective about it. If I use my individual mind and thought process to arrive at 2+2=4, that doesn't make it subjective. It just makes it individually produced. Subjective suggests it isn't truth.
@Vaka same for your post.


----------



## TB_Wisdom (Aug 15, 2017)

Ti is very subjective.
I use Ti, it's my second strongest function (oh, yes it is, not Te but Ti, I don't agree with Isabel Myers here at all).

My Ti mixes in a helluva lot of intuition, like trying to make sense out of all those images and thoughts that Ni paint in my brain. So my Ti tries to make sense of my irrational Ni, and it never works, so my brain is on a constant thought-loop.

From Carl Jung (Psychological Types): 
"External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so. It begins with the subject and leads back to the subject, far though it may range into the realm of actual reality. [...] It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. [...] Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake".

Explains my thinking in a nutshell.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Bhathaway said:


> How would this intrinsically make it subjective.. if Ti is logical than it's just a series of truth claims. There is nothing subjective about it. If I use my individual mind and thought process to arrive at 2+2=4, that doesn't make it subjective. It just makes it individually produced. Subjective suggests it isn't truth.
> @*Vaka* same for your post.


My understanding of Jung's idea about introverted functions, which is reflected in what TB_Wisdom posted, is that they are subjective in the sense of being oriented towards the self, driven by very individual concerns rather than by external (group, cultural, practical, etc.) concerns.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

It's subjective because it hinges on a framework that isn't the real world (Te). Ti may mirror the real world depending on the user, but it doesn't need to. An internal logical framework doesn't need to match objective reality so long as it has an internal logic that is consistent throughout.
Fi also has an internal logic, just like Fe, the difference is Ti isn't based on emotions, but individual understanding of concepts.


----------



## Ermenegildo (Feb 25, 2014)

Carl G. Jung: Recapitulation of Introverted Rational Types said:


> The laws of logic are not necessarily deflected, since its onesidedness lies in the premise. The premise is the predominance of the subjective factor existing beneath every conclusion and colouring every judgment. Its superior value as compared with the objective factor is self-evident from the beginning.
> 
> As already stated, it is not just a question of value bestowed, but of a natural disposition existing before all rational valuation. Hence, to the introvert rational judgment necessarily appears to have many nuances which differentiate it from that of the extravert. Thus, to the introvert, to mention the most general instance, that chain of reasoning which leads to the subjective factor appears rather more reasonable than that which leads to the object.
> 
> ...


Let’s have a look at two scientists turned businessmen who are introverted thinkers:

*Introverted Thinker A * 

His countless offline projects always start too early, to put it mildly. He is time and again fascinated by his latest idea, but his childlike enthusiasm only causes furrowed brows. He earns his money online; for his latest project he spent a lot of money for the development of new websites but never checked the qualification of the programmer, who must also be an introvert because these websites don’t meet any standard. He doesn’t ask friends or family for an assessment of his websites – which aren’t impressive – even though his friends are potential customers. Nobody volunteers to criticise his projects except for his siblings who believe that he is only good at losing money with his quixotic projects. 



Carl G. Jung: The Introverted Thinking Type said:


> In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality.


*Introverted Thinker B* 

He develops his projects mostly by thinking about them, making up some numbers and calculating with them. If he is convinced of his own conclusions he knows everything he needs to know and doesn’t spend his resources for research or consulting experts even though his projects involve sectors and countries he isn’t familiar with. He can easily afford these rather experimental projects because his successful projects are so successful. In the beginning of a new project he doesn’t invest much and carefully monitors its progress before investing more. Even if it ends in nothing he gains new experiences and meets new people that can be useful for the next projects of his business empire. Due to his success his childlike enthusiasm is infectious.


----------



## SoulScream (Sep 17, 2012)

Nell said:


> It's subjective because it hinges on a framework that isn't the real world (Te). Ti may mirror the real world depending on the user, but it doesn't need to. An internal logical framework doesn't need to match objective reality so long as it has an internal logic that is consistent throughout.
> Fi also has an internal logic, just like Fe, the difference is Ti isn't based on emotions, but the individual understanding of concepts.


But at the end of the day, all cognitive functions are dependent on the phenomenological experience of the individual which makes them all by definition subjective. This is further complicated by the fact that objective reality ain't that objective and both the internal and external frameworks that one might engage with are usually complex systems and these do are not so easily explainable by the normally employed logical rules. Anyway, point is - it is your mind so it is subjective. Claiming anything else is silly, really. I am not sure why this question is debated on so many pages.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

SoulScream said:


> But at the end of the day, all cognitive functions are dependent on the phenomenological experience of the individual which makes them all by definition subjective. This is further complicated by the fact that objective reality ain't that objective and both the internal and external frameworks that one might engage with are usually complex systems and these do are not so easily explainable by the normally employed logical rules. Anyway, point is - it is your mind so it is subjective. Claiming anything else is silly, really. I am not sure why this question is debated on so many pages.


It's subjective in the sense that it is internally consistent, but I would also say that in a vacuum it would be considered objective. This means the experience of the user wouldnt be able to tell that they are thinking subjectively(they dont have access to better information). I.e. when anyone thinks about politics everyone thinks they have approached it objectively specifically because they don't know the difference between reality and their internal model of understanding.

What causes a Te user to seek a general concensus to check in their understanding. Is it an Fi value that they have?


----------



## Conscience Killer (Sep 4, 2017)

The difference between Ti and Te isn't objective or subjective, in the actual sense of the terms. Yes, one is internal and one is external. But it's objective _facts_ versus objective _sense_. The functions are both concerned with what is _true_, but Ti prefers to reason and Te prefers to research.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Bhathaway said:


> How would this intrinsically make it subjective.. if Ti is logical than it's just a series of truth claims. There is nothing subjective about it. If I use my individual mind and thought process to arrive at 2+2=4, that doesn't make it subjective. It just makes it individually produced. Subjective suggests it isn't truth.
> @*Vaka* same for your post.


We're all subjective creatures. Like it or not, you can't escape your own subjectivity. We can't say for certain what exists outside our minds or bodies. All we know is our perception and we can't say with certainty that our perception is actually adequate for understanding anything at all. Truth is illusory. All we have is subjective truth


----------



## NipNip (Apr 16, 2015)

Because we say No to generally accepted data and ideas. The information we perceive is reworked in our heads, using our own formulas and models.

We tend to slow down and focus on errors more than success. For a Te, 90% is an overwhelming victory - perhaps even a _fact_. We settle for no less than 100,00% before calling it an objective truth - and even then we like to mess with the elements...


----------

