# Introverted Vs. Extraverted Thinking (Usefulness)



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

WhoKnows said:


> (...)
> 
> I dunno. I guess I could be way off on all of this ... but those statements just don't seem right to me.



Yea when I read that post, I also thought it wasn't totally right though some of it was pretty good too.

I liked this part: _"then analyze the hell out of it internally using Ti/Ne-ni/Si-se. They go through each particular piece of information "internally" and think through every aspect"_. Also this one: _"A Ti-user will come to a very controlled, absolute conclusion albeit with a bit more time. They may not have tons and tons of information backing it, but they will know it inside and out and be able to rationalize it. This is good because it gives them a framework and they will tend to be an "expert" at that particular idea."_ Tbh, I think "bit more time" is key word here.  And "expert" means that deep "inside and out" understanding. The conclusion may either be absolute or not, though.

The way you describe Ti is just like mine, even though mine is not dominant and is not even paired with Ne; so I think you nailed some of the essence of the Ti concept pretty well.

Btw, I'm one such P that has patience to become an expert at whatever *really* interests me.  I won't have it any other way, I suppose that's the Ti greediness ha.

Also, a P can definitely have a proper outlined argument but it's going to come after much "running around".

So I would be careful with such black-white conclusions of how certain types can't do or like certain things, such as liking to be an expert or willing to make an outlined argument. We just get at them in different ways or for different reasons.


----------



## heron (Sep 14, 2011)

WhoKnows said:


> heron,
> 
> I really don't agree with your statements about Ti. I'm not going to debate your Te descriptions because you're obviously better versed at that function than I am. But you seem to be ignoring the perceiving functions when it comes to Ti users.
> 
> ...


You're definitely right in that I failed to quantify much of what I was writing at the time. I would think that Ti-Ne would work much in the same way of investigating causes as Ti is known for, in terms of thinking things through, with the added Ne spontaneity of quickly generating those viewpoints, and stumbling upon those viewpoints in the moment. 

The bolded part of your statement _is _what I was attempting to convey. Uh. I failed at that.



> Ti takes information you already know or have learned and then analyzes it internally, going through each part of each idea (the "mechanics") until it makes sense to you inside. Se/si or Ne/ni would help you do this.


That does sound more like Ti-Se. And in my example I clearly defined a Ti-Se preference, but Ti-Ne given interest would probably spontaneously generate what Se seeks to factually, determinedly analyze and gather. (I guess it is the nuances like this that make it difficult to tell IXTPs apart if one is uncertain about S or N.) 

Wanting not to make errors, wanting to be precise, wanting each piece of information to match up, is what makes Ti different than Te, in my opinion. Te to me (and from personal experience) is much more about grabbing the general premise or idea and then seeing how that applies across the board (compared to other information or toward various information) rather than focusing enough on individual facets to think through or analyze all information components. Having a stabilizing force like Ni helps, but I think it's still Te's weak point. (Te-Si, would probably be much more adept at this.)

I'm not an expert at JCF to say the least, it's just been my observations. The best example I can think of this is that when I meet IXTPs usually they tend to look at an argument and then begin poking holes in the information presented. Its weak spot, to me, would seem to come from becoming focused on erroneous information, and getting sidetracked (clearly a perceiving issue IMO). Versus when I look at an argument, I take the whole argument and begin seeing "how the errors arise". I may not be able to articulate this well, but I can see the systemic whole. I may miss bits and pieces in the interim, though.



> So I would be careful with such black-white conclusions of how certain types can't do or like certain things, such as liking to be an expert or willing to make an outlined argument. We just get at them in different ways or for different reasons.


To be honest, I don't really believe in black and white terminology for type anyway. Type is something I think you gotta approach knowing there's a humongous gray area. Pretty much all of my examples or statements about it should be taken as generalizations


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

heron said:


> Wanting not to make errors, wanting to be precise, wanting each piece of information to match up, is what makes Ti different than Te, in my opinion. Te to me (and from personal experience) is much more about grabbing the general premise or idea and then seeing how that applies across the board (compared to other information or toward various information) rather than focusing enough on individual facets to think through or analyze all information components. Having a stabilizing force like Ni helps, but I think it's still Te's weak point. (Te-Si, would probably be much more adept at this.)


Can I guess one thing... Te also doesn't want to make errors but this issue would be considered in practice only (when it would interfere with implementation). Right?

I think any T would want to avoid logical errors in general.




> The best example I can think of this is that when I meet IXTPs usually they tend to look at an argument and then begin poking holes in the information presented. Its weak spot, to me, would seem to come from becoming focused on erroneous information, and getting sidetracked (clearly a perceiving issue IMO). Versus when I look at an argument, I take the whole argument and begin seeing "how the errors arise". I may not be able to articulate this well, but I can see the systemic whole. I may miss bits and pieces in the interim, though.


Well, I can also see the systemic whole, and it is what I always want to see. It may be just that Ti arrives at it differently than Te. But yes I can get into nitpicking too much.




> To be honest, I don't really believe in black and white terminology for type anyway. Type is something I think you gotta approach knowing there's a humongous gray area. Pretty much all of my examples or statements about it should be taken as generalizations


I did not address that part to you  but yeah.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Btw, I'm one such P that has patience to become an expert at whatever *really* interests me.  I won't have it any other way, I suppose that's the Ti greediness ha.


I did say, "If the original idea is super-duper interesting, we might keep coming back to it." There are some topics that have held my attention for a long time, typology being one of them. But I still think it's valid to say that "it's more Ni and Si that are excellent for the endless collection of information on a particular subject. Ne and Se crave novelty more than expertise." I never said that a P couldn't have the patience to be an expert, I just asked a rhetorical question about how common that is. There are topics that I _want_ to be an expert in, but I get bored with studying a single subject for too long at once. (In other words, I'm totally jealous of you. :sad::tongue



itsme45 said:


> Also, a P can definitely have a proper outlined argument but it's going to come after much "running around".


I agree with your statement, and it's something that I did not address in my previous comment. However, that's not how I interpreted heron's original phrasing. He said that Ti users will "analyze the hell out of [a topic] internally using Ti/Ne-ni/Si-se. They go through each particular piece of information "internally" and think through every aspect. They then present their outlined argument." That makes it sound like we think about it for a while and then spit out a nicely planned argument before the debate commences. That's definitely not how I work. And since his Te example used political debates as context, I also applied that to his Ti statement. It is doubly inapplicable to me when we're talking about a political debate. If you want a summary at the end, after a lot of verbal "running around," then that's perfectly fine. But it's not the same thing as having it all figured out beforehand.



itsme45 said:


> So I would be careful with such black-white conclusions of how certain types can't do or like certain things, such as liking to be an expert or willing to make an outlined argument.


I think it's really odd that you directed that at me, even though my post was liberally sprinkled with "might," "rarely," "a lot of us," etc. How was my post any worse than heron's? I even pointed out that INTPs don't like speaking in absolutes, so I don't know how I managed to sound like I was speaking in black-and-white terms. Because I made some generalizations? How can you possibly have a discussion without generalizations? It becomes difficult to preface every statement with some conditional hemming and hawing, and now I'm gonna be all paranoid about it. 



heron said:


> The best example I can think of this is that when I meet IXTPs usually they tend to look at an argument and then begin poking holes in the information presented. Its weak spot, to me, would seem to come from becoming focused on erroneous information, and getting sidetracked (clearly a perceiving issue IMO).


I agree. I've read in some profiles of INTPs (not sure if it's the same for related types) that they can become known as naysayers because they spend so much time poking holes in things. Sometimes it's because things haven't been defined or explored correctly, sometimes it's just for fun. :tongue:



heron said:


> Versus when I look at an argument, I take the whole argument and begin seeing "how the errors arise". I may not be able to articulate this well, but I can see the systemic whole. I may miss bits and pieces in the interim, though.


That sounds so much like the descriptions I've read for Ni, so it could be your aux helping out. That could also be why you have a hard time articulating it, since that inability seems to pop up in pretty much every Ni description (or, at least, it sure as heck seems like it).


----------



## heron (Sep 14, 2011)

> Can I guess one thing... Te also doesn't want to make errors but this issue would be considered in practice only (when it would interfere with implementation). Right? I think any T would want to avoid logical errors in general.


That would be correct, at least for myself anyway. I'm more concerned with the product, rather than the specifics. I have a hard time caring about specific details. Upon further research I think I've nailed what I was attempting to say in the first place: Ti notices the essential qualities about things, _("Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point")_ while Te organizes its environment _(_including external information_ - "In written or verbal communication, extraverted Thinking helps us easily follow someone else's logic, sequence, or organization.__ It also helps us notice when something is missing, like when someone says he or she is going to talk about four topics and talks about only three"_).


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

WhoKnows said:


> I did say, "If the original idea is super-duper interesting, we might keep coming back to it." There are some topics that have held my attention for a long time, typology being one of them. But I still think it's valid to say that "it's more Ni and Si that are excellent for the endless collection of information on a particular subject. Ne and Se crave novelty more than expertise." I never said that a P couldn't have the patience to be an expert, I just asked a rhetorical question about how common that is. There are topics that I _want_ to be an expert in, but I get bored with studying a single subject for too long at once. (In other words, I'm totally jealous of you. :sad::tongue


That might be a Ne thing about fleeting around so fast mentally.  I don't actually need to be that patient to become an expert, I'm just interested and so I want to explore the thing a looot and thus I don't get bored with it. Sure I like novelty too, but expertise just as much. What helps here is that I gain the expertise by actually doing, working for goals, achieving them, and learning in the process.  So that is my dominant function supporting Ti in getting a deep understanding. Either that or I just happen to be this focused goal-oriented person.




> I agree with your statement, and it's something that I did not address in my previous comment. However, that's not how I interpreted heron's original phrasing. He said that Ti users will "analyze the hell out of [a topic] internally using Ti/Ne-ni/Si-se. They go through each particular piece of information "internally" and think through every aspect. They then present their outlined argument." That makes it sound like we think about it for a while and then spit out a nicely planned argument before the debate commences. That's definitely not how I work. And since his Te example used political debates as context, I also applied that to his Ti statement. It is doubly inapplicable to me when we're talking about a political debate. If you want a summary at the end, after a lot of verbal "running around," then that's perfectly fine. But it's not the same thing as having it all figured out beforehand.


Yea I agree on the outlined argument thingie. Or if I already got a deep understanding previously then I can start with such arguments right away, but only because I already worked them out a while ago, in the "running around" way. 




> I think it's really odd that you directed that at me, even though my post was liberally sprinkled with "might," "rarely," "a lot of us," etc. How was my post any worse than heron's? I even pointed out that INTPs don't like speaking in absolutes, so I don't know how I managed to sound like I was speaking in black-and-white terms. Because I made some generalizations? How can you possibly have a discussion without generalizations? It becomes difficult to preface every statement with some conditional hemming and hawing, and now I'm gonna be all paranoid about it.


Sorry about that, I didn't mean to offend you personally with my opinion. I simply thought that you drew some conclusions that sounded too absolute especially considering that Ti is often depicted as the function that likes to be expert in subjects and as a function with well thought-out arguments. (See e.g. Lenore Thompson. Though some people criticize that Ti stuff as being mostly Se+Ti/Ti+Se.) You don't need to preface every statement like that of course.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> That might be a Ne thing about fleeting around so fast mentally.  I don't actually need to be that patient to become an expert, I'm just interested and so I want to explore the thing a looot and thus I don't get bored with it. Sure I like novelty too, but expertise just as much. What helps here is that I gain the expertise by actually doing, working for goals, achieving them, and learning in the process.  So that is my dominant function supporting Ti in getting a deep understanding. Either that or I just happen to be this focused goal-oriented person.


How old are you? I wonder if your Ni is playing a major role in your efforts, even if it's inferior (personally, I think that our inferiors are very important). I've heard Ni described like a black hole, just sucking in information that's related to its area(s) of interest and building on itself. And that would be the reason why strong Ni users are such good long-term system builders. In contrast, Ne was compared to a supernova. 

Maybe what we're seeing here is a difference between the perceiving pairs and how they interact with Ti. The way that Si backs up Ti is going to be different than Ni's support. Si seems to have a narrower focus because it's more related to physical sensations, habits, etc., whereas Ni is ... well, it's Ni. (Mystifies me, so I'm not going to try to understand what kind of trouble a Ti/Ni tagteam would get into.) And Se would seek physical novelty, right? That seems like it wouldn't impede expertise-building like Ne does. This might be Ne's influence: "We'll research the hell out of something just until a new, shiny idea comes along." Seriously, my Ne can be like an ADD monkey.



itsme45 said:


> Sorry about that, I didn't mean to offend you personally with my opinion. I simply thought that you drew some conclusions that sounded too absolute especially considering that Ti is often depicted as the function that likes to be expert in subjects and as a function with well thought-out arguments. (See e.g. Lenore Thompson. Though some people criticize that Ti stuff as being mostly Se+Ti/Ti+Se.) You don't need to preface every statement like that of course.


Oh, no, I wasn't offended. Just confused because it conflicted with my own interpretation of what I said, so it didn't make sense to me and Ti no likey! 

As far as I understand, Ti isn't particularly interested in "subjects" ... it's after Truth, like its own theory of everything. Getting to know a few topics inside and out wouldn't allow time to collect enough information about everything else, and would be counter-productive to Ti's ultimate goal. But a lot of that might be a reflection of a Ti-dom (with the ego significantly oriented toward achieving Ti's aims) and/or a strong Ne that's like a zombie hyped up on PCP and running around trying to collect brains. "MUST HAVE INFO! FEED ME, FEED ME! MORE INFO! ARRGH!"

... Yeah, I'm way too tired to construct any well thought-out arguments, so you get weirdness instead. You're welcome.*

* And I'm sorry.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

WhoKnows said:


> How old are you? I wonder if your Ni is playing a major role in your efforts, even if it's inferior (personally, I think that our inferiors are very important). I've heard Ni described like a black hole, just sucking in information that's related to its area(s) of interest and building on itself. And that would be the reason why strong Ni users are such good long-term system builders. In contrast, Ne was compared to a supernova.


Second half of my twenties, sigh. :/ Your suggestion is interesting. Do you think by this time in life one would be developing their inferior more? Yeah, it could be an unconscious black hole, I think at a consciously level it mostly comes up when I have "eureka" moments where things click together. Like, I see them from a different and deeper perspective suddenly. This is not a logical thing, so I know it is not Ti. As dominant Ni, it would probably be awesome. ;p Don't know about the system building, that doesn't sound exclusive to Ni at all.




> Maybe what we're seeing here is a difference between the perceiving pairs and how they interact with Ti. The way that Si backs up Ti is going to be different than Ni's support. Si seems to have a narrower focus because it's more related to physical sensations, habits, etc., whereas Ni is ... well, it's Ni. (Mystifies me, so I'm not going to try to understand what kind of trouble a Ti/Ni tagteam would get into.) And Se would seek physical novelty, right? That seems like it wouldn't impede expertise-building like Ne does. This might be Ne's influence: "We'll research the hell out of something just until a new, shiny idea comes along." Seriously, my Ne can be like an ADD monkey.


How does Si back up your Ti? Yeah I think Se is different from Ne with this.




> As far as I understand, Ti isn't particularly interested in "subjects" ... it's after Truth, like its own theory of everything. Getting to know a few topics inside and out wouldn't allow time to collect enough information about everything else, and would be counter-productive to Ti's ultimate goal. But a lot of that might be a reflection of a Ti-dom (with the ego significantly oriented toward achieving Ti's aims) and/or a strong Ne that's like a zombie hyped up on PCP and running around trying to collect brains. "MUST HAVE INFO! FEED ME, FEED ME! MORE INFO! ARRGH!"


Ok, I was going by Lenore Thompson Ti definition, that's the one that mentioned the tendency to know things inside out as an expert and I could see myself in it. Truth as the main goal does sound like dominant Ti. For me Ti just serves my interests (Se), I'm not trying to get A Theory Of Everything developed. Though I do have some generalized rule of thumb viewpoint that could be called that if it was not so generalized and simple; the purpose of this viewpoint of mine isn't to provide a comprehensive theory of everything.




> ... Yeah, I'm way too tired to construct any well thought-out arguments, so you get weirdness instead. You're welcome.*
> 
> * And I'm sorry.


Don't worry about weirdness, I understood you.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Second half of my twenties, sigh. :/ Your suggestion is interesting. Do you think by this time in life one would be developing their inferior more? Yeah, it could be an unconscious black hole, I think at a consciously level it mostly comes up when I have "eureka" moments where things click together. Like, I see them from a different and deeper perspective suddenly. This is not a logical thing, so I know it is not Ti.


I'm 28, and I know that my inferior is pretty active. It trips me up all the time, so I'm not saying that I use it well or anything (I hope that changes as I age). But when it comes to an underlying current in my personality and my life goals, Fe definitely plays a role. So I don't think that it would be outside the realm of possibility that your Ni is playing a behind-the-scenes role. It might be harder to notice because it's an introverted perceiving function, and I know that I have trouble recognizing my tertiary Si. 



itsme45 said:


> As dominant Ni, it would probably be awesome. ;p


One of the things that I'm jealous about with Ni-doms is how Ni will work in the background and then give you a complete answer. That just seems like it would save so much time from having to consciously work through everything. ... At the same time, I kinda feel gypped by Ni because I'm so used to Ti-Ne. For example, my Ni recently helped solve a coding problem that my boss said couldn't be done. A few days after that conversation, I was working on something else when the complete answer suddenly jumped into my head (that'd be Ni, right?). I tested it, and it worked perfectly. I was very glad to have the problem solved ... but I felt like I had missed out because I didn't get to be a part of the creative process. I'm guessing that you don't feel that way when your Ni hands you an answer on a silver platter? (And maybe other Ne users don't feel that way, either. I dunno.)



itsme45 said:


> Don't know about the system building, that doesn't sound exclusive to Ni at all.


Nah, I didn't mean that it was exclusive to Ni, just that it's a reason why strong Ni users are so good at long-term system building. Different functions can accomplish the same thing through different methods. ... I think that all of the introverted functions build systems and frameworks for their area of specialty, like Fi wants a framework for values, Si wants a framework for sensory information, and Ti wants a framework for _everything_. New information is either integrated into the framework or it's rejected. ... Or, at least, that's my opinion at the moment. I'd have to think it through to see if it has merit.



itsme45 said:


> How does Si back up your Ti?


Umm ... I don't really know. Tertiaries are the most inaccessible for me because they're not strong like the dom/aux, and they're not as noticeable as the inferior. Or I could have issues recognizing Si because it's an introverted perceiving function. ... Or maybe I'm just ignorant of all the ways in which Si is helping out, and other INTPs are more appreciative of their Si. 

A very narrow example might be how I could quote books in exam essays to back up my arguments. I could literally see the whole page and "zoom in" or something on the sentence that I wanted, and then write it verbatim with a full citation. So I guess that would be Si, with sensory recall. And when someone asks me how to spell something, I suddenly see the word in my mind and then just read out the letters that I see. I've always said that I would be a moron if I were blind, because I can only remember things that I see. Don't ask me to remember how something smells, tastes, or feels, because for the life of me, I can't dredge that information up. Hearing is hit or miss ... it depends on whether I've integrated the information through a discussion/debate. But if I'm trying to remember exactly what someone said, it stills comes to me visually because I see their words rather than hear them. ... I have no idea if any of that is related to a tertiary Si, but it's the best that I can offer. :/



itsme45 said:


> Ok, I was going by Lenore Thompson Ti definition, that's the one that mentioned the tendency to know things inside out as an expert and I could see myself in it. Truth as the main goal does sound like dominant Ti. For me Ti just serves my interests (Se), I'm not trying to get A Theory Of Everything developed. Though I do have some generalized rule of thumb viewpoint that could be called that if it was not so generalized and simple; the purpose of this viewpoint of mine isn't to provide a comprehensive theory of everything.


Hmm. I wonder if an ISTP would be more like you or more like me with that. Like you said, "For me Ti just serves my interests (Se)," so that's your aux supporting your dom goals. Maybe an ISTP would use sensory information to help Ti create a theory of everything (well, everything related to the physical world, at least). And I would think that ENTPs would use Ti to backup their Ne's interests, so it makes sense that this could be a difference between Ti-Pe and Pe-Ti. Sometimes people are confused about their E/I ... it seems like a useful method for figuring out the difference would be to determine which function the ego is serving. I think that's a Jungian perspective more than an MBTI one, since Jung focused on the dom functions. 

... I went back to _Psychological Types_ to see exactly what Jung had said. I found this:


> This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden. This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function.


So, yeah, our dom orients the ego because "it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence." Then our aux will support the dom's goals as a complementary function. An Se-Ti type would be quite different even from a Ti-Se type because the guiding aims of the dom function would different. What do you think?



itsme45 said:


> Don't worry about weirdness, I understood you.


Thank you.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Rayos said:


> From my understanding, Ti is better at creating ideas, but it doesn't really care whether anyone else can understand it, and flaw finding. Te's better at coming up with ideas everyone can use. So basically, Te is a good scientist trait while Ti is more for the next Einstei-type ideas.


Let me translate what you said so that you know how ridiculous it is: Te is a good scientist trait while Ti is more for the next scientist-type ideas.

Thinking is good for scientific pursuits regardless of which one is being used. The extraverted attitude is simply an orientation towards pragmatism and real-world efficacy rather than simply understanding.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

WhoKnows said:


> I'm 28, and I know that my inferior is pretty active. It trips me up all the time, so I'm not saying that I use it well or anything (I hope that changes as I age). But when it comes to an underlying current in my personality and my life goals, Fe definitely plays a role. So I don't think that it would be outside the realm of possibility that your Ni is playing a behind-the-scenes role. It might be harder to notice because it's an introverted perceiving function, and I know that I have trouble recognizing my tertiary Si.


Ah, interesting. Yah I think it's hard to notice Ni... Usually when I introvert it's just Ti, at a conscious level anyway... The Ni stuff is more subconscious most of the time and when it enters the conscious that's just weird too. :=) I'm not sure if that's really Ni that I'm thinking of here, but it's something abstract, introverted and is not logical, but perceptual. The great thing about it, it does support my Ti process well, makes the understanding deeper. 




> One of the things that I'm jealous about with Ni-doms is how Ni will work in the background and then give you a complete answer. That just seems like it would save so much time from having to consciously work through everything. ... At the same time, I kinda feel gypped by Ni because I'm so used to Ti-Ne. For example, my Ni recently helped solve a coding problem that my boss said couldn't be done. A few days after that conversation, I was working on something else when the complete answer suddenly jumped into my head (that'd be Ni, right?). I tested it, and it worked perfectly. I was very glad to have the problem solved ... but I felt like I had missed out because I didn't get to be a part of the creative process. I'm guessing that you don't feel that way when your Ni hands you an answer on a silver platter? (And maybe other Ne users don't feel that way, either. I dunno.)


I, too, like to work through certain things consciously and this would definitely be Ti, maybe a bit too compulsively at times; but I equally like having my thought process working automatically to get to a conclusion, and that feels "intuitive" to me. I like it so much that I often play with making the conscious process (Ti) change itself into this more intuitive process. This is still something introverted, but I don't know if it is intuitive in the jungian sense. Wish I could decide this (whether it is Ni or something unrelated to functions). So, overall, I often work in this abstract half-conscious way internally. 

Oh, and yes, you guessed right, when I get the "eureka" moments, I don't feel the need to see how I got to the new viewpoint/idea because it just so totally makes sense. =) Btw these eurekas I usually get while working on the issue, not when I'm doing something unrelated. What was your reasoning for guessing this (that I don't feel missing out on it)?




> Nah, I didn't mean that it was exclusive to Ni, just that it's a reason why strong Ni users are so good at long-term system building. Different functions can accomplish the same thing through different methods. ... I think that all of the introverted functions build systems and frameworks for their area of specialty, like Fi wants a framework for values, Si wants a framework for sensory information, and Ti wants a framework for _everything_. New information is either integrated into the framework or it's rejected. ... Or, at least, that's my opinion at the moment. I'd have to think it through to see if it has merit.


Ti - Everything? Haha. Niiice.




> Umm ... I don't really know. Tertiaries are the most inaccessible for me because they're not strong like the dom/aux, and they're not as noticeable as the inferior. Or I could have issues recognizing Si because it's an introverted perceiving function. ... Or maybe I'm just ignorant of all the ways in which Si is helping out, and other INTPs are more appreciative of their Si.
> 
> A very narrow example might be how I could quote books in exam essays to back up my arguments. (...) I have no idea if any of that is related to a tertiary Si, but it's the best that I can offer. :/


I'm jealous of your detailed visual memory. Mine just plain sucks. I'm skeptical if it is because of the lack of Si for me, but I'm totally this abstract impressionist (if you've ever read Dario Nardi's EEG studies on cognitive functions), this means that when my brain is being visual it just sees the whole picture without all the details; and thus I'm useless with recall of many concrete details. I can recall some but not all. E.g., I'm very good at spelling but I don't see the word the way you do, I see a more holistic visual impression missing some details... so I just somehow know how it's spelt but don't ask me how I know, ha. I guess my memory overall is this abstract impressionist kind too. Whatever I remember is not coded in a sensory way much, nor verbally. It's either abstract and/or spatially coded (Ti?). I once played with remembering a lot of random data (and I mean it when I say "a lot") and I recalled them mostly by these impressions and to a lesser degree spatially. Lol this is going off topic. 




> Hmm. I wonder if an ISTP would be more like you or more like me with that. Like you said, "For me Ti just serves my interests (Se)," so that's your aux supporting your dom goals. Maybe an ISTP would use sensory information to help Ti create a theory of everything (well, everything related to the physical world, at least). And I would think that ENTPs would use Ti to backup their Ne's interests, so it makes sense that this could be a difference between Ti-Pe and Pe-Ti. Sometimes people are confused about their E/I ... it seems like a useful method for figuring out the difference would be to determine which function the ego is serving. I think that's a Jungian perspective more than an MBTI one, since Jung focused on the dom functions.
> 
> ... I went back to _Psychological Types_ to see exactly what Jung had said. I found this:
> 
> So, yeah, our dom orients the ego because "it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence." Then our aux will support the dom's goals as a complementary function. An Se-Ti type would be quite different even from a Ti-Se type because the guiding aims of the dom function would different. What do you think?


I'm guessing the ISTP would be more like you.  Some ISTP could chime in here. e.g. nonnaci. ;P And yes I totally agree, if you can determine which function is serving which, then it can help with the E/I issue... beyond asking if you know yourself more or know the world more.  But yeah, I verified my E-ness by checking if I'm more motivated by the goals of Ti or by the goals of Se. 

Though my Ti can sometimes start living its own life, that's when I'm really set on understanding something properly on my own terms. In those moments Ti feels almost like it's the dominant function but this feels compulsive too; it is better when Se feels to be in dominant position. When it is mainly Ti, I get drained fast-ish, with Se or Se+Ti I can go forever. 

Btw hope you don't think I'm crazy when I talk like this about Ti getting into dominant position. It truly feels that way: I'm striving to satisfy myself by understanding, and not because I want to get/achieve something in the physical world (Se). Just to understand, no more than that. I think this can happen when I'm not busy enough with whatever I'm doing in the moment, that is, it doesn't take my full attention (because it's too easy etc).

Ah, hope that made some sense about the Ti stuff... :O


----------

