Ti is an "action-based" kind of logic.

[Architect]

INTP Personality

Interesting unique point I haven't seen elsewhere. I've seen this to be true with INTPs and ISTPs. I wonder if this is a characteristic of introverted functions. Is Ni more action oriented than Ne, which is more of an advisor or seeker? This seems to highlight why some functions are considered judging functions (introverted functions) or perceiving?

 

[Hadoblado]

I'm sorry, I read the linked page in its entirety, with what felt like comprehension. I don't really understand exactly what you're asking. Could you please quote the specific section you refer to?

 

[Jennywocky]

Skimmed the piece (I've read it before elsewhere), but didn't see the connection either. Clarification?

Although I do remember Lenore Thomson talking about Ti as action-based logic, I think her example involved the baseball diamond / game and tracking multiple objects in space at one time and adjusting to trajectory in the moment. I find that's something I'm good at (as well as continually shifting trajectories on the highway), despite being horrible superfluous detail. For N's, I suspect the brain is calculating behavior based on known physical law versus very specific data per se; i.e., you're less seeing the specifics of the ball and players and more seeing them as abstract objects moving in 3D space according to known laws, like "seeing" the football chalkboard with the most probable trajectories figured out and updated second by second.

I mean, that's what Ti does -- it boils things down to concepts/equations and then applies them predictively.

 

[Absurdity]

If Ti is action-based, what does that make Te?

 

[Architect]

It's a direct quote from the second paragraph of the "What does Success mean to an INTP?" section.

This is an old profile that I've seen before too, so I've probably glossed over that bit. For some reason it struck me this time because I am an action oriented kind of thinker. One reason I like engineering and programming. "Hey! there's a problem, let me find a fix" or "here's a feature we need to add, got any creative solutions?"

This is opposed to the usual idea of INTP's as being slow and broad thinkers. I knew people who did this, theoretical physicists who would sit around the department worrying some problem or another. Oftentimes it made them crazy too, they'd kill you for talking out loud in the library if they were in there working.

And INTP's do that kind of thinking too ... but I'm wondering if Ti, as a judging function, IS more decisive and action oriented, while Te (INTJ science thinking) is more broad and diffuse. Depth versus breadth (and the concept may extend to Ne and Ni, which jives when comparing my Ne to INFJ Ni).

Which, ultimately is my point. INTP's view themselves as "great thinkers" - which they are or can be - but not in the same way INTJ Te thinkers are. They (the INTJs) more often get into the sciences, which are Te systems. Ti does seem to be more decisive, inclusive, driven and in depth and thus "action oriented"*. So perhaps the icon of "The Thinker (Rodin)" is more appropriate to the INTJ as to the INTP.

* I work with many ISTP's and my brother is one too. They also share this decisive action based kind of thinking. Ours leads more toward abstraction (Ne), and theirs to the concrete (Se), which makes them even more action oriented than we are. But still in the ballpark and different from Te which is "out there".

 

[Brontosaurie]

If Ti is action-based, what does that make Te?

michael bay

 

[Architect]

michael bay

Ray Kurzweil ENTJ Te/Ni/Se/Fi

Big on breadth - too much for me (the universe becoming a vast computer??) and slips up and stays away from details (depth) too much.

 

[TimeAsylums]

It's a direct quote...

Archie, even I don't know what you're getting at with this. I read the site and all the comments here and all I can still think is J v P with "action oriented," well "closure" vs "openness" because I don't see how Ti is action-based vs Te and the other Judging functions. Ti is slow because it wants to explain to self in entirety, Te is quick because it has to extravert and be decisive in the outside world.

But I'm just saying things we already knew?

I'm with everyone else, What do you mean O_o?

 

[Architect]

I'm with everyone else, What do you mean O_o?

Did you see post #5? If that isn't clear, then let's reset and talk about what, if anything the quote

Ti is an "action-based" kind of logic.

means.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Did you see post #5? If that isn't clear, then let's reset and talk about what, if anything the quote
means.

Yes. I got the it that Ti is definitely "depth." I'm unsure about Te being "breadth" However if we go...Ti vs Ne depth vs breadth, but that's losing sight I suppose.

//second thought Ni vs Ne I suppose is also "depth vs breadth"

So perhaps it isn't too much of a stretch to compare it all across the I/E dichotomy

As far as I can still tell, the judging functions are "decisive." and perceiving as "open"

However, that makes sense because Introverts with your "deep" inner world and then Extraverts relating to outer objects

I'm sure you just confused us all with using "action-based."

 

[Architect]

Let me make another stab at it, these are ideas I'm trying to explore, not a developed theory ...

Ti is action oriented. Therefore it is of the form "I've got these parts, how can I put them together or tear them apart?". Thus is oriented towards building or destroying systems and is inclusive/exclusive, deciding what is "in" and what is "out". Einstein demonstrated this by developing Relativity which is unlike anything else before or since, and doesn't agree with QM in the least. Einstein himself could never admit QM to his world view, because he viewed his theories a-priori (introverted) and not from experimental evidence (extroverted).

Te is more open and diffuse. It derives from data, what is known, and leaves none of it by the side. Ti would prune data to develop a concise theory or system, where Te would develop a loose theory (such as the Standard Model) in order to account for all the data.

Hopefully that makes sense? Maybe I'm using examples from physics that might not be so clear, but comparing the Te Standard Model to the Ti General Relativity perfectly illustrates the point.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Let me make another stab at it, these are ideas I'm trying to explore, not a developed theory ...

Ok, I actually get it now, and I would say this spans across the entire I/E dichotomy

Fi vs Fe, obviously Fi is "deeper" because the deep emotions, Fe is harmony, external breadth
Ti vs Te you've already explained
Ni vs Ne Ni's singular visions vs Ne's breadth of ideas
Si vs Se Si is focused on "internal/past" and Se is concerned with breadth of ideas and objects in here and now

They (Introverted functions) are all action oriented because the user desires to explain to self. But tbh I still wouldn't use "action-oriented."

 

[Architect]

I'm sure you just confused us all with using "action-based."

Ah, good! Ti is action based. It excludes what doesn't fit, it trims to create (with Ne) a beautiful theory, system or model. It is active and drives to a goal (the finished model) by removing the non essential and contradictory.

Te is open ended, it seeks to account for everything. Look at Kurzweils theory of computation, it tries to go beyond the speed of light (which I think smells of BS - because I'm a Ti thinker). And thus it never really finishes, it just wants to go on, and on, accounting for more data and evidence. Thus it is more passive because the job is never done. Ti will meanwhile finish the model and go off to another one.

Ti drives for closure and elegance/simplicity, Te drives for comprehensiveness. A Ti dominant will tend to create many perfect theories, while a Te dominant would probably want to create one complete, but imperfect theory.

 

[Architect]

They (Introverted functions) are all action oriented because the user desires to explain to self.

Yes - partially. I think there is more to it than that as I said in my cross post above.

But tbh I still wouldn't use "action-oriented."

This is the other dimension to introverted functions, they exclude while the extroverted include.

I'll stop there and let it sync up.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Ah, good!

Could you give us a non-typological (your) definition of "action-based?"

This is the other dimension to introverted functions, they exclude while the extroverted include.

I'm sure you can see why this relates to judging functions versus perceiving functions as well, but yeah I guess you could say that about I/E too.

 

[AnnaC]

So... What this article (and you) are saying is that an INTP relies more heavily on inward thinking to take action and solve outward/perceived problems?

If so, I would have to think on that a bit... INTPs are not so abstract as some thinkers (Te-oriented), who think just for the thinking. INTPs think for the thinking (which I enjoy), but also to work toward the solving of a problem: Usually a perceived one. If there isn't a problem, they will find one, for the joy of taking action to solve that problem. As an INTP, I find myself more drawn to thinking up solutions to problems and thinking through all the smaller pieces of information as those smaller sub-problems add themselves to the original. I want to solve my problem before moving onto another, and if there wasn't another, I would think up one.

It would make more sense, though, for the Te to be broader than the Ti. Take into consideration the ENTJ's propensity in leadership positions: They use their Te function to come up with solutions to numerous problems, but won't challenge another's plans until it becomes necessary (in their eyes) to do so. Then they solve the plan, put the plan into action, and carry it through perfectly, even if it means unforeseen sacrifices. The Ti thinkers (INTP, for instance) would (I think) foresee the problem with a plan, think through that problem in advance, then point out a solution to those involved. Then they'd remain flexible and searching for problems even in the midst of the actions of the plan, solving problems as quickly as they sprang up and choosing varying courses of action to reach the ultimate goal of the plan, which they'd had their eye focused on all the while, with as few sacrifices as they can manage.

So, in effect, the Ti would concentrate on carrying through the action with as little loss as possible, while the Te would concentrate on carrying out the plan at all costs. Think of the differences between a Ti and a Te in romantic situations: The Ti would see that there could be unforeseen problems in asking someone out, while the Te would think of all solutions to problems before speaking to the someone in question, solve those in their mind, then plow on ahead.

I think they're both action-based, but in different ways: The Ti continually searches for random mini-solutions while taking action to reach their goals, while the Te finds all solutions before going in and carries out those solutions, whether they work or not. That would mean that the Ti was broader-minded in the sense that he/she would be flexible to new ideas as they come, and that the Te would be inflexible and simply charge through the situation with their chosen solutions, ignoring all other problems as they spring up.

The Ti would in effect be a tad bit slower than the Te, if only because they are solving potential problems as they go along, rather than plunging into the fray no matter the costs as a Te might. So in conclusion, I agree, but I disagree: Ti is a slower and safer action-based Thinker, while Te is a quicker action-based Thinker. It doesn't mean that the Ti doesn't like to solve problems, simply that they solve them as they go along, rather than before they even go at it. It would also fit with the Scientist stereotype of the INTJ, as scientists form hypotheses and then experiment with them to discover which is the correct hypotheses, rather than INTPs (Thinkers) who experiment within the confines of their mind to find what is believed to be the correct hypotheses before experimenting in the tangible world. At which point, they could nearly always be found to be right, because they thought through all the potential problems beforehand.

I hope that vaguely made sense, and wasn't overly repetitive or long.

 

[Architect]

Could you give us a non-typological (your) definition of "action-based?"

I mean it literally. What clicked for me was to think of the Ti dominants (INTP's and ISTP's) I know; when there's something to be done we jump right in. We are quite lazy (INTP's) except when some system needs figuring out, then we'll be absorbed and devote endless energy to it.

Te's don't do that. When there's thinking to be done, they seem to be slower, more inclusive and diffuse. It's a tortise and the hare, the Ti dominants are working away modeling, speculating, or working on it while the Te's are sitting back and cogitating on it.

Going back to the Rodin thinker, that image always bothered me as representing an INTP. We do have expansive thinking, via our Ne advisor. But even more so our thinking wants to be doing something. Developing the theory, driving toward completion, drawing models, or writing text to describe it. The Te's are sitting on the rock with their brow furrowed.

Which is how I see it presently.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I mean it literally. What clicked for me was to think of the Ti dominants (INTP's and ISTP's) I know; when there's something to be done we jump right in. We are quite lazy (INTP's) except when some system needs figuring out, then we'll be absorbed and devote endless energy to it.

Te's don't do that. When there's thinking to be done, they seem to be slower, more inclusive and diffuse. It's a tortise and the hare, the Ti dominants are working away modeling, speculating, or working on it while the Te's are sitting back and cogitating on it.

Going back to the Rodin thinker, that image always bothered me as representing an INTP. We do have expansive thinking, via our Ne advisor. But even more so our thinking wants to be doing something. Developing the theory, driving toward completion, drawing models, or writing text to describe it. The Te's are sitting on the rock with their brow furrowed.

Which is how I see it presently.

Ok, I think I see what's going on hereeee. Buttttt:

Ok the Te is stumped when it comes to analyzing the system, yeah? That's because the Ti is better that, the IxTP jump in because that's what Ti does. There's a problem? Ah Ti will explain it to you, the Te would be better at..."implementing the system." Ti is simply better than Te in those regards, right?

But c'mon action based? That's...situation-based. Say you guys were tasked with implementation of the system?

My "example" is pretty bad, because I don't know anything about programming, but my point was that "action oriented" is "situation based"

 

[Architect]

If so, I would have to think on that a bit... INTPs are not so abstract as some thinkers (Te-oriented), who think just for the thinking. INTPs think for the thinking (which I enjoy), but also to work toward the solving of a problem: Usually a perceived one.

Yes!

So, in effect, the Ti would concentrate on carrying through the action with as little loss as possible, while the Te would concentrate on carrying out the plan at all costs. Think of the differences between a Ti and a Te in romantic situations: The Ti would see that there could be unforeseen problems in asking someone out, while the Te would think of all solutions to problems before speaking to the someone in question, solve those in their mind, then plow on ahead.

Probably true

I think they're both action-based, but in different ways: The Ti continually searches for random mini-solutions while taking action to reach their goals, while the Te finds all solutions before going in and carries out those solutions, whether they work or not.

Perhaps, I don't mean to imply that Te isn't action based, but that it's not proactively action based like Ti is, because it doesn't want to jump to action like Ti (tortoise vs hare)

That would mean that the Ti was broader-minded in the sense that he/she would be flexible to new ideas as they come, and that the Te would be inflexible and simply charge through the situation with their chosen solutions, ignoring all other problems as they spring up.

Hmm, yes perhaps. Since Ti is more nimble and active, it can react to incoming data better and faster than Te

 

[TimeAsylums]

Hmm, yes perhaps. Since Ti is more nimble and active, it can react to incoming data better and faster than Te

Ti can react to incoming information better, yes.
Faster...? The Te will probably (has a greater chance of being wrong) be wrong, but will judge it the fastest?



/////I could be wrong about thinking how Te "thinks" seeing as I only have Ti myself, so I'm only judging off of examples/information given.

 

[Architect]

Ok the Te is stumped when it comes to analyzing the system, yeah? That's because the Ti is better that, the IxTP jump in because that's what Ti does. There's a problem? Ah Ti will explain it to you, the Te would be better at..."implementing the system." Ti is simply better than Te in those regards, right?

Yes I think Ti is better at system analysis because we want to go from top to bottom, where Te wants to go on to the next system to combine with this one, thus perhaps not fully understanding this one. Ti however might miss everything with this one because it doesn't get to the next one.

My "example" is pretty bad, because I don't know anything about programming, but my point was that "action oriented" is "situation based"

Yes, probably. Situation based is seeing in context (introverted) and diving deep.

Ti can react to incoming information better, yes.
Faster...? The Te will probably (has a greater chance of being wrong) be wrong, but will judge it the fastest?

I think faster because introverted functions as judging functions seek closure while extroverted seek expansion.

/////I could be wrong about thinking how Te "thinks" seeing as I only have Ti myself, so I'm only judging off of examples/information given.

I only know about that thinking being exposed to it by so many physics and other Te thinkers.

 

[AnnaC]

Perhaps, I don't mean to imply that Te isn't action based, but that it's not proactively action based like Ti is, because it doesn't want to jump to action like Ti (tortoise vs hare)

See... It's like the "sitting on the rock with their brow furrowed" illustration you used in an above post. The Te sits on the rock with their brow furrowed while they proactively think up a solution, which they obstinately use despite the many variables which may be introduced to the situation as they attempt to solve it. Meanwhile, the Ti senses a problem and rises tot think through it, and as the situation opens up more to them, they react to other variables that the Te wouldn't see because he/she would still be trying to carry through their first course of action, without delays.

It's not necessarily who could get something done more quickly, but who could get something done more efficiently. In the case of quickly, the Te would win, hands down: They choose paths and go down them regardless of what obstacles may present themselves. The Ti, on the other hand, would start just as quickly as the Te, but would be stalled by numerous sub-problems, which they would solve and move past, leading to a more efficient solution, if a little slower.

The Ti's reactionary action-based thinking is superior to the Te's, which is proactive action-based thinking. An INTP might have a goal, and make a plan, but change it or procrastinate about it due to unforeseen circumstances. The INTJ/ENTJ would have a goal, make a plan, and carry it out fully before tackling the other problems which might have presented themselves during the actionary stage. Would that be more accurate?

[edit]

Ti can react to incoming information better, yes.
Faster...? The Te will probably (has a greater chance of being wrong) be wrong, but will judge it the fastest?



/////I could be wrong about thinking how Te "thinks" seeing as I only have Ti myself, so I'm only judging off of examples/information given.

[edit again]

Hmm... Hold on a moment. The Te reacts so quickly that it has a greater chance of being wrong, but they carry out their plans anyway. According to that conclusion, my father would be a different type than I originally suspected, which may rule him out of the Te category altogether, which would nullify my use of him as a Te example. I'll have to think on this some more.

But essentially, yes: The Te judges quickly and proactively, but because of that has a greater likelihood of being wrong, whereas the Ti (who is slower but more flexible in their thinking) thinks through things proactively and in the process.

 

[Brontosaurie]

any introverted function will be more cautious and holistic. in a way, extraversion IS action.

the depth/breadth axis just adds confusion. it's about temporal scope and the trade-off is flexibility and readiness (E) vs. long-term perspective, thoroughness and meta-analysis (I). E is directly concerned with here and now and potential actions at the expense of internal consistency while I is concerned with big-picture at the expense of practical application.

me and an ExTJ friend talked about bribery contra lobbyism and while he made decisions and conclusions and tangents based on established definitions, i got stuck at trying to precisely distinguish between the two phenomena. felt like a sack of jelly but knew it was all just Ti churning its conceptual analysis with minimal respect for the facts and concrete issues at hand.

 

[TimeAsylums]

E is directly concerned with here and now and potential actions at the expense of internal consistency while I is concerned with big-picture at the expense of practical application.

Ne?

 

[Jennywocky]

If Ti is action-based, what does that make Te?

michael bay

Uggh. Shoot me now.

(Actually if Michael Bay is involved it's more like, "Shoot me now with the entire crate of .30 mini-gun ammo, trigger a few missiles, lay down suppressing fire with napalm, knock over the Eiffel Tower, blow up the surrounding retention walls so the entire area is flooded by 100 yards deep of sea water, and then nuke the site from orbit so that nothing, repeat, NOTHING will be walking away... let alone swim.")

I mean it literally. What clicked for me was to think of the Ti dominants (INTP's and ISTP's) I know; when there's something to be done we jump right in. We are quite lazy (INTP's) except when some system needs figuring out, then we'll be absorbed and devote endless energy to it.

Interestingly, that would explain the bent I typically experience for troubleshooting, and how I tend to learn what I need to learn on the fly. It's very much a "scan the horizon, look for something either interesting or get something done / figured out because it's currently relevant" approach. It also tends to stay very conceptual; I only hammer in details where necessary because of the task, typically i want it to stay loose and flexible to be able to handle any kind of input.

 

[Architect]

Because of this, the Introverted perceivers tend to be the least spontaneous, as their access to the outer environment is contingent upon their inner perceptions which are remote from the immediate environment.

I'll take this snippet. This is absolutely true and I see your confusion. I'm not talking about overall decisiveness or proactivity, but just the action orientation of Ti versus Te in isolation. Here's an example. Take a Ti dominant INTP and a Te dominant ESTJ and put them in a room (me and my father for example). The ESTJ would sit, alert and attentive at the table (action oriented demeanor) while I would lounge and look bored.

Then, put a puzzle in front of the two of us and the roles reverse. My father would take his time, maybe try to figure it out or more likely laugh and make a case for why he doesn't need to and joke around. So now he is the lounging one.

Meanwhile I'd jump on it like a cat, would become attentive and focused, and would solve the puzzle. Ti is engaged and active, while his Te is not willing to grasp on the details of this problem to be solved.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Spoiler

I'll take this snippet.

Last thing:

I still disagree with "speed" of introverted functions, Architect, reasons being:

Through these filters the outer world is incepted for us. Thus, an Extroverted Perceiver tends to be flexible in his perceptions, yet the Extroverted Judger tends to incept the environment in terms of the pre-existing concrete symbols. As we notice that the Extroverted Judgers tend to rely much more on the pre-established terms for their understanding of ideas. As for instance, it is very common for a Judger to say that they could not imagine the concept of yellow without the word yellow, yet very uncommon for a dominant Extroverted perceiver to make the same claim. For this reason, we shall argue that the Extroverted perceivers, with a slight exception in favor of Introverted Perceivers, tend to collect the soundest information. The Extroverted Perceiver is different from the Introverted Perceiver in the respect that he confronts the external environment directly, whilst the Introverted perceiver must first filter the environment through the apparatus of his own inner perceptions and then shift onto the Extroverted Judgment in order to make a decision. And only at that point he will be able to interact with the outer environment. Because of this, the Introverted perceivers tend to be the least spontaneous, as their access to the outer environment is contingent upon their inner perceptions which are remote from the immediate environment. Yet, the Extroverted perceivers, by contrast, which could be rightly deemed as an animus to the Introverted Perceivers tend to be the most spontaneous. As aforementioned, the reason for this is that they do not require contemplation for direct action, as their perceptions are always in tune with the outer world. In this regard they are even more action oriented than the dominant Extroverted Judging types, who require a plan of action, or external decisions in order to turn their wheels. Yet the Extroverted Perceiver deals with the outer world unconsciously, as the perceiving functions are by definition unconscious. Thus, here again we notice that the EP type requires least contemplation to prepare for action of all 4. This leads to the sense of quickness the EP types tend to be renowned for. We should note that Extroverted perception can very easily be misunderstood for hyperactivity and inherent inability to focus because information tends to be incepted into the mind of an EP in a torrential fashion. As there is no grid of extroverted judgment in the outer world of the EP.

I highlighted a portion, but the whole thing is important.

Double post, but I deleted the other one...Same quotes,

//ignore it <--this post

 

[Architect]

Interestingly, that would explain the bent I typically experience for troubleshooting, and how I tend to learn what I need to learn on the fly. It's very much a "scan the horizon, look for something either interesting or get something done / figured out because it's currently relevant" approach. It also tends to stay very conceptual; I only hammer in details where necessary because of the task, typically i want it to stay loose and flexible to be able to handle any kind of input.

Yes precisely, Ti is a better troubleshooter. Again it's a judging function and drives toward closure which requires action.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Ne?

good point. perhaps i'm talking J/P rather than E/I.

hard to view functions in isolation.

i tend to think, however, that Ne responds well to the environment like Fe, Te and Se. maybe it doesn't yield obvious practical results but it effectively transports ideas. ain't that (inter)action?

 

[TimeAsylums]

I'll take this snippet. This is absolutely true and I see your confusion. I'm not talking about overall decisiveness or proactivity, but just the action orientation of Ti versus Te in isolation.

Ah, okay.

 

[TimeAsylums]

good point. perhaps i'm talking J/P rather than E/I.

hard to view functions in isolation.

i tend to think, however, that Ne responds well to the environment like Fe, Te and Se. maybe it doesn't yield obvious practical results but it effectively transports ideas. ain't that (inter)action?

Yeah, E = interaction with the environment (Regardless of physical or mental)
I = introversion = INTRA-Action (like intrapersonal v interpersonall) (regardless of physical or mental) (intra-action OF the environment)


This is too generalized, so take it at the drop of a hat but:

E (interpersonal)
I (intrapersonal)

but I'm getting off topic

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yeah, E = interaction with the environment (Regardless of physical or mental)
I = introversion = INTRA-Action (like intrapersonal v interpersonall) (regardless of physical or mental) (intra-action OF the environment)


This is too generalized, so take it at the drop of a hat but:

E (interpersonal)
I (intrapersonal)

but I'm getting off topic

u so cute

would you say E perpetuates action while I originates it? can that be tied in with architect's OP claims/musings?

 

[TimeAsylums]

u so cute

would you say E perpetuates action while I originates it? can that be tied in with architect's OP claims/musings?

That will probably confuse a lot of people, but yes. External Extravert, Internal Introvert, makes sense. And yes, everything so far pretty much goes off of his posts, nothing contradictory as of yet.


--> He's pretty much right, just "action-oriented" confused us a tad, but I think he explained it well now.

 

[Architect]

just "action-oriented" confused us a tad, but I think he explained it well now.

Right, action purely in the context of thinking, such as problem solving. This is how I see it play out with Te's and Ti's in real life at least.

Now moving on, I think I see a similiar dynamic with INFJ's Ni versus my Ne. With my INFJ Ni dominant I see a pouncing on ideas. We'll be discussing something, and she'll jump on an idea - Eureka! Where as I'll want to go slow, generate more ideas and look at it broadly (Ne). I'm not prone to action ideation but rather more passive ideation.

This also may be confusing, because you see ENTP's (TimeAsylums) jumping from idea to idea, which is pouncing but still is wide ranging. It goes from one idea to another, where a Ni will jump on one idea and tend to stay there to explore it fully.

 

[Brontosaurie]

That will probably confuse a lot of people, but yes. External Extravert, Internal Introvert, makes sense. And yes, everything so far pretty much goes off of his posts, nothing contradictory as of yet.


--> He's pretty much right, just "action-oriented" confused us a tad, but I think he explained it well now.

i'm not convinced but will re-read.

btw, did i use "originate" incorrectly? in retrospect it seems to describe the object not the subject of origin... i suppose "generate" would be more fitting.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Now moving on, I think I see a similiar dynamic with INFJ's Ni versus my Ne. With my INFJ Ni dominant I see a pouncing on ideas. We'll be discussing something, and she'll jump on an idea - Eureka! Where as I'll want to go slow, generate more ideas and look at it broadly (Ne). I'm not prone to action ideation but rather more passive ideation.

This also may be confusing, because you see ENTP's (TimeAsylums) jumping from idea to idea, which is pouncing but still is wide ranging. It goes from one idea to another, where a Ni will jump on one idea and tend to stay there to explore it fully.

Oh, no I understand. It definitely is that way. Disregarding the negative connotations of "open-minded" and "close/narrow-minded" you can see how it comes into play.

The Ni's singular-uni-long-range-deep vision vs Ne's super-broad-expansive ideas

 

[Architect]

Oh, no I understand. It definitely is that way. Disregarding the negative connotations of "open-minded" and "close/narrow-minded" you can see how it comes into play.

The Ni's singular-uni-long-range-deep vision vs Ne's super-broad-expansive ideas

Right.

Really I'm echoing Drenth's work here that contests the idea that INTP's are passive. We are in most ways you think - Se, in the world. But our dominant function Ti is a judging function which seeks closure through action. So we are quite intentioned and active when using that, which is most of the time since its our dominant.

This is why INTP's can be mistaken for INTJ's, because we're quite intentioned people in how we think. I have a well developed dominant Ti and that is what you mostly see through my writing, which explains why I've been called an INTJ. Bill Gates also is an INTP I'm pretty sure, and he is often called an INTJ too for the same reason.

We're just older INTP's who have developed and matured. Look at early videos of Bill Gates and you'll see what I mean, especially that mug shot when he got arrested. He is highly likely a wild haired INTP with a well developed Ti that he honed in the software business world, as I have.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Really I'm echoing Drenth's work here that contests the idea that INTP's are passive.

Er, I fully agree, but why was this mentioned? (Thus far relating to the thread/posts) Seems like an Ne tangent lol

Spoiler

The only connection I see is that you are directly relating to thread's title/purpose
"Ti (INTP) is...action-based." In which case we just reached the end, and you have said it yourself that they may not necessarily be Se physical action based, but definitely mental/thought action-based

However, idk, just guespeculating

 

[Architect]

Er, I fully agree, but why was this mentioned? (Thus far relating to the thread/posts) Seems like an Ne tangent lol

Spoiler

The only connection I see is that you are directly relating to thread's title/purpose
"Ti (INTP) is...action-based." In which case we just reached the end, and you have said it yourself that they may not necessarily be Se physical action based, but definitely mental/thought action-based

However, idk, just guespeculating

Well after all the fireworks I realized that I'm not making a fundamentally new point but just a different angle on an existing point, so I might as well come clean. Oh well

 

[TimeAsylums]

Well after all the fireworks I realized that I'm not making a fundamentally new point but just a different angle on an existing point, so I might as well come clean. Oh well

BUAHAHAHAHAAHAH->>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw5ZxfHWMes

Ne.

...I do it all the time...lol.

[http://youtu.be/PNNmf0yyILs

http://www.socionics.com/prof/entp2.htm

Although ENTps are widely acclaimed for their originality, there are two sides to this coin. Just as ENFps, ENTps are very curious and process a lot of information, similar to a gold digger washing out the soil looking for gold. And ENTps know where the "gold" is. They are often well aware of some new and unusual discoveries. Such information is usually available to everyone who is interested enough to look for it, but not many people are that bothered. ENTps ideas are often based on these discoveries and for someone who didn't know that these findings are already in existence, ENTps ideas may look very radical and original.

Their true originality is in their ability for lateral combinatory thinking. ENTps are mostly interested in improvements, modernizations and innovations of something that already exists and is well known. James Dyson gave birth to a cyclone action vacuum cleaner. The cyclone effect is based on physics and has been known for centuries. Applying this effect to the household vacuum cleaner was an act of lateral thinking. Did Dyson invent something radical? He just made a better vacuum cleaner. In retrospect, it would probably be fair to say that ENTps are better classified as inventive-modernizers.

Ne lol

 

[Brontosaurie]

if Ne isn't originality then what is? everything is causal, duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh


fucking socionic bullshit. i am hereby enraged.

 

[TimeAsylums]

fucking socionic bullshit. i am hereby enraged.

Yeah, although Socionics and PL have their huge problems, each of them has something good to offer actually.

But going back to Ne - we just reinvent(improve) the wheel over and over and over. lol. We see pre-existing patterns. Who then, is the actual inventor? Hell if i know.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yeah, although Socionics and PL have their huge problems, each of them has something good to offer actually.

But going back to Ne - we just reinvent(improve) the wheel over and over and over. lol. We see pre-existing patterns. Who then, is the actual inventor? Hell if i know.

no beginning, no end.


Ni is also inventive, perhaps more so as it relays any deliberate analysis until a unified Vision is formed.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Ni is also inventive, perhaps more so as it relays any deliberate analysis until a unified Vision is formed.

This would actually further Architect's idea about I vs E

They give an important example with Dyson and the vacuum and physics. You really have to look at if it was really something new or just lateral thinking.

 

[Architect]

That's an interesting idea about Ne. If true it would imply that Ni is more original. This smells intriguing and I'll think about it. On the other hand I'll note that nearly all invention occurs by simply varying and combining what has gone before, so if it is true then that would mean that Ne types do invent more. Which seems about right, Ni doesn't seem to be as inventive AFAIK? Have to think about it.

 

[TimeAsylums]

That's an interesting idea about Ne. If true

there's nothing..."new." Might it seem "new" to people because there is a combination of very different concepts? Yes. I verify this, also THD agreed with me on my "ENTP" thread when I posted the same link. Sorry for using Einstein as an example, but he just combined a bunch of others people stuff right? (probably a gross generalization on my part but w/e for now), but seeing the patterns and just combining them.

it would imply that Ni is more original. This smells intriguing and I'll think about it. On the other hand I'll note that nearly all invention occurs by simply varying and combining what has gone before, so if it is true then that would mean that Ne types do invent more. Which seems about right

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, just like Socionics said, "inventive-modern."

 

[Brontosaurie]

This would actually further Architect's idea about I vs E

They give an important example with Dyson and the vacuum and physics. You really have to look at if it was really something new or just lateral thinking.

yeah sure, if you accept invention/originality and action as synonymous. seems a bit skewed to me though.

i'm undecided as to whether Ne or Ni is more inventive, but quite confident that talking strictly about technological advancements is limiting and obfuscating.

dismissing Ne as unoriginal because it's lateral and combinatorial makes no sense since nothing is truly new, as in: causally independent.

 

[TimeAsylums]

yeah sure, if you accept invention/originality and action as synonymous. seems a bit skewed to me though.

i'm undecided as to whether Ne or Ni is more inventive, but quite confident that talking strictly about technological advancements is limiting and obfuscating.

I'm sure we can side-step any arguments about anything actually being "original" yada yada yada, the overall point being that Ne merely sees pre-existing patterns.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I'm sure we can side-step any arguments about anything actually being "original" yada yada yada, the overall point being that Ne merely sees pre-existing patterns.

and what does Ni do?

the metaphysical aspect is relevant because your socionic source depends on the notion of "true" originality as contrasted to Ne combination.

 

[TimeAsylums]

I'm not making a fundamentally new point but just a different angle on an existing point

See, when i saw that I instantly referred back to the socionics profile.

You know when someone says "thinking in fun and different new ways!"

(Ignoring any arguments about if something is actually "new" or "original")

Most of the time it's actually something that wasn't "mainstream" or "popular"

Look at my interpretations on Jung and ENTP, there's really nothing new at all, I've said it before in different places, Ne is capable of holding many different viewpoints at once.

So yes, it might seem "new," but it was always there.