Ti

[Architect]

Sorry for the recent multiple threads, but I came across this description of Ti that is the best I've seen, while I was researching for a post. It all rings true for me, and is more precise and helpful than any of the others I've seen such as Drenth. I'd caution however that I think this applies more to the INTP use of it (Ti/Ne) and ENTP to a degree then say the ISTP (Ti/Se), just based on my observations of ISTP's (they don't seem interested in a "holistic" view of the universe)

I'd suggest studying this and comparing to yourself, if you want to "develop" Ti (you will anyhow as an INTP) then focus on these avenues.

Spoiler

For me (Si overblown walk here) ...

• I've spent my life doing the first five paragraphs
• Troubleshooting - yes I get a special thrill in troubleshooting and it's easy
• Working with existing systems easier than creating systems - yes!!!!! INTJ's seem to be better at creating systems from scratch. Even Einstein was basically "fixing" a broken theory of gravitation and space/time.
• Efficiency - yes! It's not laziness, it's perfect execution
• Reactive - yes!
• Truth - absolutely
• Holistic understanding - yes!
• I've had the faults too

Introverted Thinking (Ti) is a function that is primarily used inward.

People with Introverted Thinking want the world to make sense in a logical manner. They form an internal framework of how the world works. It is constantly being modified and improved through life experience and experiments.

Introverted Thinking’s goal is to create a web of knowledge in which everything is interrelated.

For example, someone with introverted thinking can find out how a car and all its parts work by relating it to some other system, such as a computer.

They have the ability to find commonalities in seemingly unrelated things.

Introverted Thinking is also great at troubleshooting. Someone with Ti can analyze something, figure out where the problem areas are, and fix them rather quickly.

Users of Introverted Thinking also strive for efficiency. If something isn’t working well, they can become very frustrated. They have trouble working for bosses that they don’t believe are doing their job well.

People with Introverted Thinking can be seen as wanting to do things that are “the most effective for the least amount of work.” Some people may see this as laziness, however, it’s a form of perfectionism most Ti users have.

Ti users tend to be better in a reactive environment; somewhere where their skills can be called upon to “Save the day.” Ti users can create their own systems as well, but they are much better suited for improving an already working, but somewhat dysfunctional system.

Introverted Thinking has a desire for truth.

Someone with Introverted Thinking may take a while to fully understand a concept. This is because they want to know all the components and how everything works together. A Ti user would not be satisfied with someone saying, “this is the gas pedal, you press it to go.” A Ti user would want to know, what happens when you push it, what is the pedal connected to, how does it interact with the engine, etc.

A user with Extraverted Thinking may not need this much clarification.

However, once a Ti user figures out the whole system, everything clicks. They can see how the car and motor works, and how it all fits together. They have created a map and an internal framework, which could be applied to understanding how engines in other machines work. Pieces of this framework could also be used to understand seemingly unrelated concepts, like how a plumbing system works, or how computer programming languages interact with hardware.

Introverted Thinking wants to create a holistic understanding of the world. Maybe people with Ti appear to others to always be taking “short-cuts” and getting away with it. This may frustrate others or bosses that don’t understand. But in reality, the Ti user has spent a large amount of time and energy figuring out these systems beforehand, so that they are able to see what parts are truly necessary, and which parts can be skipped or eliminated.

Problems can occur with Introverted Thinking when the person does not take enough clues from their external environment into consideration.

Ti can be very stubborn and its users tend to believe they are always right. While they usually are, there are times when they might ignore facts and just revert to thinking about what they already know. This can be very unhealthy and lead to ways of thinking that are not very productive and are possibly detrimental.

A Ti user would be wise to make sure what they are analyzing is matching up with what is being observed in the external world. INTPs and ENTPs should take their Extraverted Intuition into play to see multiple angles and possibilities. ISTPs and ESTPs should use Extraverted Sensing to observe the current environment and use facts and data that they have gathered.

Tips for budding INTP's, from this list

• Try to anchor yourself to fixing, or doing better existing systems. For example, when creating something new (a story, art work, paper or computer program) take an existing one and see how you can do it far better.
• Keep the cautions in mind, keep your Ne very close to the chest. Always explore your options as your doing anything, even when you are deciding on a course of action (by necessity) keep open to possibilities.
• Always look for efficiencies, and ways you can make something more efficient.
• Keep searching for the truth.
• However be a little careful what you study and do, because whatever it is, you'll remember it forever (Si)

 

[nanook]

this would make me think i am intp all over again

i think most of this is about Ne.

i have developed a different view.

i find that Ti is deconstructing objective systems in the favor of subjective approaches and comes up with weird statements like: a car does not exist until i drive it. this approach is not useful for car mechanics. but can be useful for skateboarders or economy exploiters or lawyers.

while i think that Te respects objects in their own right, while accepting the usual subjective aspects (cars are meant for riding) somewhat subconsciously or blindly. Te want's to be prepared for all possible decisions that you could be confronted with in every day life, if all you had to do was to react to it, as it is. that's why it wants to understand the world in terms of objective reliable systems like whatever a biology book could tell you.

Ti wants to become more creative and is interested in subjective systems of being creative, such as how to exploit situations, which includes possible disrespect for the original nature of things.

Te would say: i know what this is, it's a mule, i understand it's evolution and it's objective strengths, it's best for carrying packages. Take a horse for riding. Ti would say: i don't care, i can ride a mule if i want to.


am i confusing Ti and Te?

 

[Architect]

this would make me think i am intp all over again

FWIW you don't strike me as an INTP, but rather the close cousin the INFP which has Te in the inferior (and a therefore a desire for it). You really remind me of the INFP's I know, but again FWIW.

i find that Ti is deconstructing objective systems in the favor of subjective approaches and comes up with weird statements like: a car does not exist until i drive it.

I find that in immature or uneducated Ti users. Take the Tom/NFGeeks YouTube videos I posted. He comes up with shit like that. It's nonsense, but is what happens I think when Ti doesn't have something real to chew on.

while i think that Te respects objects in their own right, while accepting the usual subjective aspects (cars are meant for riding) somewhat subconsciously or blindly. Te want's to be prepared for all possible decisions that you could be confronted with in every day life, if all you had to do was to react to it, as it is. that's why it wants to understand the world in terms of objective reliable systems like whatever a biology book could tell you. ...

Yes agree

am i confusing Ti and Te?

No it sounds to me like you have a pretty good handle on the two.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I find that in immature or uneducated Ti users. Take the Tom/NFGeeks YouTube videos I posted. He comes up with shit like that. It's nonsense, but is what happens I think when Ti doesn't have something real to chew on.

so some dude who goes around discovering trivial and arbitrary corollaries of extremely well-known thought experiments is - just by virtue of his type - showing better use of Ti than, say, some more analytical INFJ off this forum? or better yet, some famous INFJ intellectual? have your niels bohr or whatever.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

about creating systems :
yes, I agree that I prefer to use existing ones, but need possibility to make change everything;
what is interesting, Infps prefer to begin from white paper, from nothing, and they also have Ne, which I think provides creativity. so then why Ti focus on something outward, when it should focus on self?

 

[Hadoblado]

I tend to work within already existent systems, but also to keep the pieces for creating my own. Generally creating my own requires more effort and more motivation, and thus very rarely happens, but it's still a crucial part of my thought process every step of the way.

 

[peoplesuck]

Someone with Introverted Thinking may take a while to fully understand a concept. This is because they want to know all the components and how everything works together. A Ti user would not be satisfied with someone saying, “this is the gas pedal, you press it to go.” A Ti user would want to know, what happens when you push it, what is the pedal connected to, how does it interact with the engine, etc.

that isnt normal for all types????
or at least if the topic interests them?

 

[Polaris]

Sorry for the recent multiple threads

Doesn't matter when they are good threads.

Someone with Introverted Thinking may take a while to fully understand a concept. This is because they want to know all the components and how everything works together

^completely relate to this.

A Ti user would not be satisfied with someone saying, “this is the gas pedal, you press it to go.”

Yes, this is something that frustrates me. In my head there's already: "What happens when I press the gas pedal, what mechanisms are causing the car to move forward when I press it, and is it fuel efficient? How can I improve fuel efficiency by driving, how do I use the gears in order to be more efficient, etc, etc..."

I seem to prefer thinking in pre-existing systems. I function best when given an area to search for errors and inconsistencies.

I additionally tend to dismiss systems that are not linked to something real because non-realistic concepts do not sit well with me unless they are well thought through and could potentially be applied to reality.

The only area I tend to enjoy for that sort of speculation in theoretical physics, but again the concepts are often so foreign that it is difficult for me to remain interested for any length of time.

Like Hado, I often use ideas from existing systems to come up with my own theories, but I have to test them, and often this is not possible, so I dismiss them. Over the years this has become a highly efficient filter that I use to sort out useless from useful information.

I'm not creative when it concerns construction of something new, but highly creative in an existing system.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

I'm not creative when it concerns construction of something new, but highly creative in an existing system.

Do you think it's because Ti or Ne ?
Or Ti-Ne combination?

 

[Architect]

I'm not creative when it concerns construction of something new, but highly creative in an existing system.

This topic is something I've struggled with for decades, and really seems to be different between INTP's and ISTP's (who are also Ti dominant). At work I excel at working in existing, huge systems and architectures. I can easily deconstruct and analyze them, but I've found it very difficult to just write something simple like an app.

But I've seen S types - ISTP's in particular, struggle with the big systems but easily write a simple app. I think the Se and results orientation helps them dig in with two feet and create something quick.

At any rate there's an easy workaround for any INTP: take the Apple approach. What Apple does is they don't create any new technologies. Everything they've done from the mouse to API's was borrowed from somebody else. They just did it better. They're always late to the market, but their product is so good that people go nuts. Given that Jobs was surely an ENTP (with the same functions as an INTP) this would make some sense that he'd adopt that kind of strategy.

I'd also say for INTP's to definitely try to create new stuff, but just play a game - if it is - with yourself where you're not really doing something new, but taking something well worn and applying your analysis and system deconstruction to make it better. That helps keep your mind from hitting the skids. Just keep it present in your mind that you're fixing existing ideas.

 

[Jennywocky]

^^ I relate so much to the above. And not even just in tech, but even in more creative ventures. I'm really damned good at taking pieces that already exist and immediately seeing how to maximize their potential (whether it's a story or something else). I see all the flaws and inconsistencies, I see the potential beats, I see what could be added and tweaked and the inherent nature of the pieces that can be accentuated and reach their system potential. In a content where everyone starts with the same stuff and has to do something with it, I could win a prize.

But that blank page... unlimited number of possibilities, and hence nothing to work with. I work best with a limited sandbox. Constraints. ("What can I do with x, y, and z?")

 

[Architect]

^^ I relate so much to the above. ...

Yeah, I think it's the cause of most of when INTP's stall out.

I think there's a related example which would be instructive, which is that of writers or painters. I think most creative writers and artists are S types. Looking at famous examples bears this out (my wife is an artist and was a writer so we've spent a lot of time analyzing the personality types of them). Anyhow, assuming this is true, how can you explain the difficulty writers have with the blank page or artists with the blank canvas?

The solution is to look at their personal lives. It's well known how much famous writers drank, and painters? There's a lot of sensory activity going on. I think they over compensated from the highly N activity (writing or painting - N in the sense of low sensory input) with heavy drinking, eating, partying and the like. Christopher Hitchens was a good example. His friends were amazed at how he would get loaded, party all night, and do his best writing around 3AM after everybody went home. I think his Se got satisfied and then he could think. His friend Salmon Rushdie (surely an INT) wasn't at all like that, quite the opposite).

Anyhow our problem is that Ti-Ne is deconstructive, whereas Te (Ni-Te as in INTJ's) is constructive. Se is a constructive function too I think, which is what helps ISTP's.

 

[Black Rose]

Anyhow our problem is that Ti-Ne is deconstructive, whereas Te (Ni-Te as in INTJ's) is constructive. Se is a constructive function too I think, which is what helps ISTP's.

analyze(T) and synthesize(N) are affected by attitude I/E

Ne wants to know everything
Ni is selective refinement

Te is outwardly experimental
Ti is rectifying internally

Ni-Te constructs solutions by narrowing the scope of investigation to specific areas where Ti-Ne expands the scope by finding new solutions in the system by deconstructing it. Both accumulate solution but one by creating them and the other by discovering them?

 

[Architect]

Ah ha! This is puts a light on the recent discussion about what a function is exactly. We made the mistake of comparing the same function in two different types in two different positions. Better is to compare the same function, with two different types where it's in the same position, namely ISTP and INTP. Now the playing field is more level.

Let's look at one specific trait - analysis, because it's easy to detect and measure in the two types.

Assumptions:

• Propensity to analysis comes from Ti or Te only. Obviously anybody has the cognitive ability to analyze, but only Ti/Te types do it on a regular basis.
• A function is a hidden variable, meaning it's something in the brain. Could be a motivation, a behavior, or something else, we are trying to figure that out.
• A function is a singular "thing". Meaning it's not a collection of behaviors, or motivations, we assume it's something distinct (one behavior or one motivation).
• This implies that a function is essentially the same across types, but may be expressed to various degrees (key assumption)
• The only thing we can measure is behaviors.
• We can extrapolate. We all recognize that if we look at a sample of 10, or 100 of a type and see a characteristic, we assume it holds for the Type as a group, even though there is variability. This simply is the assumption that MBTI is a statistical science.

With that preface let's consider Ti for the INTP and ISTP, I'll put down my observations you can add to

INTP

• INTP Ti prefers large systems thinking (analyzing how an oil refinery works) instead of small systems thinking (analyzing how a watch works)
• INTP Ti prefers modeling (analyzing the problem with a model (blueprint, diagram, etc) versus analyzing by doing (getting your hands dirty and seeing what structure comes out of it).

ISTP

• ISTP Ti prefers small systems thinking (analyzing how a watch works) instead of large systems thinking (analyzing how an oil refinery works)
• ISTP Ti prefers doing (getting your hands dirty and seeing what structure comes out of it) instead of modeling (analyzing the problem with a model (blueprint, diagram, etc).

I picked these examples on purpose because they make the point, a function isn't a behavior, because what we're looking for (the function) results in highly different behaviors in different types.

If you grant the (quite reasonable) assumptions then the conclusion is adequately proven.

 

[nanook]

>only Ti/Te types do it on a regular basis

would you say only T dominant types do it on a regular basis?
it's a possibility. anyone know how inclined INTJ are to let go for a moment?

i analyse things for a good reason only. for instance i despise analysing most movies (few movies are intended to be analysed, to be symbolical).

analysing a plot to test it's consistency is a complete waste of neurons. and reading about it. damn movie critics.


btw i think a movie plot is a better example for what TiNe would analyse, than an oil refinery because an oil refinery is actually just a watch, trust me, i have the blue print in my mind (kidding). but a plot is often about possibilities in time, about tracking process. the only process that is exciting about oil refineries is understanding earth quakes and similar. and how long it will pay out. i prefer zero point energy XD

btw, there is actually some fascinating time shit going on in clockworks. but not in modern watches.

 

[Black Rose]

F is more to do with motive and derivation of the other or the self I/E.
T is more to do with systems that need to be analyzed not people.

The aspects T or F tells you how the information gathered is to be used not that it is generating possibilities N or is triggering associations S but J and P work together and will let you know what how a person focused their cognition on.

This is NF, NT, SJ, SP

 

[nanook]

let's not underestimate the degree to which Si is helpful with engineering. if intp digg blueprints it's only due to Si. Si isn't "memory", it's working with static shapes and static properties for the sake of doing so, for the sake of the subjective factor of it. of course this is not limited to primitive shapes like objects, it includes hyper complex shapes, like wondering about the ecosystem in the times of dinosaurs. animating imaginations of history, inspired by little objective data (archeology) and adding in fantastic archetypes. inventing alien science fiction worlds.

i believe you are right in that Se types are not so good at understanding blueprints or visual manuals. they are not good in building something without visual manuals either. my father asks me to do it for him. he puts toys together on a playground, even though they have different scales. it does not hurt his sensibilities at all. he just likes the idea of it (Ni) and it's possible (Se) so why not?

Se is good at doing hard simple work. or many simple tasks. they will always find a new task everywhere, they get lost between different concrete projects/broken things that need fixing, etc. they are weakly timed by their Ni shadow. they will often loose time and do many unimportant little things, they are the only type who is actually chronically late, accidentally, not to demonstrate independence, NP types are not like that, i am always punctual because i have fucking manners and i am fully focused on the possibilities that will open up in a new situation, so changing a situation is a big deal for me and it gets all of my attention. my father is different, to him carrying out the trash at home and in office is sort of the the same type of task, so why come to office in time when there are more trash cans at home? because it's a possibility that people in office need your help! but he doesn't know about it, it's not inside of his Se experience right now and his Fe is safely dissociated as well.

however Se types do learn through doing. but not even through experimenting. i am the one who does the most trial and error. i believe Te likes sequential trial and error. i don't know, perhaps Ti allows for some other kind of experimenting, but i haven't seen my father constructing anything unique. he did a good job at building some replica of know objects. not precise replicas, just symbolic replicas without aesthetic qualities, but functional. like a cross bow or a sword.

pure Se would ask you to show them how something is done and imitate it. on the outside, not in a visual manual. make them do it. they will memorize that the round pegs go into the round holes.

unless of course i am mistyping people and observe the opposite functions. but this is the duality that i observe.

so what is Ti doing for my father, who appears to be TiSe in my mind?

conspiracy theories!!! he is analytical about how the economy works, which requires total overuse of his intuition, which is subjective and inferior (okay tertiary but same thing), which means his understanding is severely fucked up. but tied into objective facts (se) in his mind. his conspiracies are paranoid in a personal manner and they express themes of his suppressed extroverted feeling. we are not talking about something like inside jobs, we talk about everyone being the mafia and trying to drag him down, because he is the last honest man standing, against the rest of the world. man, am i happy, that my own social alienation, which i have inherited, is just the harmless infp kind of interpretation of it. as i see it right now, Ne delivers the best grip on "reality" in so far it involves understanding what people really do and don't do. they don't fucking spy on me, they are busy having sex. btw, i am not saying that the employers of him were not actually the mafia

apologies to istp, if i mistype my old man.
sometimes i have wondered if he might be INTJ instead.

in both cases, i hope i have added some clarification about the two pairs of perception.

 

[TheManBeyond]

just rape these walls, diggin it

 

[Polaris]

Do you think it's because Ti or Ne ?
Or Ti-Ne combination?

Architect summed it up:

Anyhow our problem is that Ti-Ne is deconstructive, whereas Te (Ni-Te as in INTJ's) is constructive.

Which is why I struggle with this image of being overly critical by some people's definition. I naturally deconstruct and pick things apart, but it is never meant as a personal attack. I just see something that doesn't add up and jump on it, forgetting in my single-mindedness that ideas and stuff are made by people.

 

[nanook]

Architect summed it up:

Which is why I struggle with this image of being overly critical by some people's definition. I naturally deconstruct and pick things apart, but it is never meant as a personal attack. I just see something that doesn't add up and jump on it, forgetting in my single-mindedness that ideas and stuff are made by people.

same thing with introverted feeling.

It's accused of being so judgemental, but it never judges anything or anyone. it perceives the nature of things factually and positions itself relative to it, retreats or approaches it from different angles, according to it's own subjective criteria, what it wants to explore or doesn't want to explore.


judgement about what the thing on the outside is like requires involvement of extroverted thinking and extroverted perception in the case of Fi. it mostly shaped by the thinking.

if i tell someone they are stupid or smart it tells them nothing about how i feel about them. it's all Te and Te isn't even as important to me, than it is to Te dominant people, so please don't feel so fucking bad, if i curse at you.

Fi is: i feel safe around more stupid people, i like how they appreciate my contributions and they make me feel purposeful. i need to be around them all of the time. i feel intimidated by smarter people, i feel useless, displaced and out of my depth, i must avoid them.

i don't communicate this, i do this.

what i communicate is: ken wilber is brillant. my girlfriend. not so much.

likewise Ti is like: "this serial killer is interesting (Ti), i will spend all of my time studying his moves (Ne). this doesn't mean i don't value what i have with (Fe) my loved one - but sorry no time".

 

[nanook]

i am the most forgiving person i know. this doesn't mean i forget about how i don't care to position myself near a particular person though.

see, this keen confidence makes projecting judgement onto others entirely irrelevant. i just protect myself, i don't have to destroy other people.

the more dominant Fi is, the less judgemental the person.

there is a reason i'm so unassertive i can't survive in the real world, i can only retreat from it. you often have to destroy the subjective bubble of other people, if you want to get anywhere, except if you want to become a guru (i'm sort of joking).

but Fe confuses my positioning my with values because it projects it's own logic onto Fi. for Fe relationships are objects (let's call them constellations, or coordinates of approaching) that have values attached. but my evaluation of constellations is of logical nature.

and the more i think about how stupid and inefficient all cooperation in reality is being designed (Te is often annoyed about the influence of Fe and Ti in politics), the more Fi looses it's dominance and Te takes over, so what i have said above about me being the most forgiving becomes less true temporarily.

so for me shadow thought (Te) leads to harsh cold judgement without a feeling of it's consequence. i say "we should just shoot those stupid morons who hold this or that political view." this is extroverted thinking that has dragged Fi into the unconscious. it is stone cold sentiment. i may not even experience conscious anger, when i think like this. in fact it can be relaxing to have a break from feeling so i may laugh. want to see the most funny video? i share it, but only if you continue reading.

and if i find back to Fi, i will become completely forgiving of the inefficient ways of the political world and i will also loose all interest in working myself up over the stupidity of real world politics, but what remains is an interest in calmly teaching or exploring how more novel ways might be possible and what sort of reasoning would back them up, philosophically, ethically. no interest in arguing about it.

likewise for intp shadow feeling drags Ti into an inferior position, where it looses it's ability to be concerned with it's self interest. this means that things that are not interesting to you will feel disgusting and redundant to you. i get this a lot from entp and their vampire clubs, but also from the intp vegan nazis. their drive to explore social power and connection (Fe) leads to Ti becoming evil, manipulative, destructive and entirely unconscious and dishonest. they begin to find fault even where there is no fault just to justify the exclusion of this thing from their ethnocentric value circuit, their scene, their little world of good people who act in just ways (like vegans). unlike dominant Ti which is absolutely interested in inner honesty and coherency and the correlating Fe expression is a strong sense of honor, or obligation, to appear reliable and self sustaining. Ti would say the whole problem of veganism and how to teach other people is most interesting, let's figure out the best way of communicating it. some scientific facts over here, an advertising campagne over there. pure strategies of thought. all emotional hot rage against ignorant people would be forgotten.


so you see, we are equally annoying dumbfucks, once we loose our introverted center.

let's all be more introverted then and change the world, so it becomes a more accepting and interesting place.

there, as promised, the most funny video. i'm laughing my ass of.

Spoiler

This Land Is Mine on Vimeo

 

[Oddity]

I find that in immature or uneducated Ti users. Take the Tom/NFGeeks YouTube videos I posted. He comes up with shit like that. It's nonsense, but is what happens I think when Ti doesn't have something real to chew on.

What did he say that was like that?

i get this a lot from entp and their vampire clubs

What is that?

I've never seen any "INTP vegan nazis"

 

[Architect]

Which is why I struggle with this image of being overly critical by some people's definition. I naturally deconstruct and pick things apart, but it is never meant as a personal attack. I just see something that doesn't add up and jump on it, forgetting in my single-mindedness that ideas and stuff are made by people.

Ha ha ... yes exactly! I'm highly ironic - or used to be - but people can't seem to distinguish between irony and sarcasm. Irony is deconstructing too - implying that something isn't what it appears. But good irony is a lost art in our ES culture, and people wrongly complain I'm being overly critical and sarcastic.

What did he say that was like that?

When he talks science (especially quantum) its pure nonsense. I can't point to a squared off example but I really clearly see Ti that wasn't directed and honed by education, so it just kind of sprays around and is uncontrolled.

 

[nanook]

@oddity

a chatbox is a vampire club. any area of unconstructive socialization that is designed to be nothing but an opportunity for pick up or competing in social status.

> I've never seen any "INTP vegan nazis"

INTP are everywhere. what i am saying is that INTP can become too passionate about a cause for their own good. whether INTP are frequently smart enough to discover the truth about the life stock industry, science, health is an unrelated subject. they would have to suppress their Fe to go beyond the world of propaganda. but once they are in a scene of fellow rebels, their Fe can sneak in through the back-door, while they think they are still rebelling against it. it can lift Ti out of it's depth.

 

[Oblivious]

INTP

• INTP Ti prefers large systems thinking (analyzing how an oil refinery works) instead of small systems thinking (analyzing how a watch works)
• INTP Ti prefers modeling (analyzing the problem with a model (blueprint, diagram, etc) versus analyzing by doing (getting your hands dirty and seeing what structure comes out of it).

ISTP

• ISTP Ti prefers small systems thinking (analyzing how a watch works) instead of large systems thinking (analyzing how an oil refinery works)
• ISTP Ti prefers doing (getting your hands dirty and seeing what structure comes out of it) instead of modeling (analyzing the problem with a model (blueprint, diagram, etc).

I picked these examples on purpose because they make the point, a function isn't a behavior, because what we're looking for (the function) results in highly different behaviors in different types.

If you grant the (quite reasonable) assumptions then the conclusion is adequately proven.

I personally would attribute this behaviour not as a different flavour of Ti, but an interaction with the secondary function of Se in the ISTP and Ne in the INTP. The differences you mention seem to line up quite well with the differences in the sensing and intuition functions in any case.

Due to the introversion of the ISTP and the INTP, they both have a judging function as their dominant despite being perceiving types. I would posit that this leads to a rather balanced use of their dominant and secondary functions, as opposed to extroverts, who would be completely comfortable just using their dominant.

This is getting quite hypothetical, but I'll mention my thoughts anyway. In the case of an introverted perceiver(IxxP) or judge(IxxJ), their dominant function is always introverted, but opposed to their decision/perception preference. An introvert's use of their dominant function would therefore lead to cognitive hunger. In order to relieve this hunger they must rely on their secondary because it aligns with their decision/perception preference.

Ergo, an INTP's Ti is always tied to his Ne, an ISTP Ti is tied to his Se, and INTJ's Ni is tied to his Te and so on. This might explain the differences you have observed in the INTP's and ISTP's usage of Ti.

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

[*]Try to anchor yourself to fixing, or doing better existing systems. For example, when creating something new (a story, art work, paper or computer program) take an existing one and see how you can do it far better.
[*]Keep the cautions in mind, keep your Ne very close to the chest. Always explore your options as your doing anything, even when you are deciding on a course of action (by necessity) keep open to possibilities.
[*]Always look for efficiencies, and ways you can make something more efficient.
[*]Keep searching for the truth.
[*]However be a little careful what you study and do, because whatever it is, you'll remember it forever (Si)
[/LIST]

To be honest I'm not sure if I'm Si or Ti dominant (And I've spent so many years thinking about it now that I don't care anymore.) But I know I have Ti Ne Si and Fe in some order.

I'm a writer/scientist-in-training right now and as far as the writing goes, I totally suffer from this (the first thing on your list) as a problem. I love my story and am very close to finishing the first book but good god is it hard to push through the finish line. I would say that the 'new' ideas I've gotten for my book have been few and far between but when I do get a hunk of text to play with, its easy to shape. The book is a series, likely 7 books long, and I have a general idea of how it will all come together. Actually pulling together all the components and making into a cohesive something though has been taking forever. And when I say forever, I mean about 3 years since I started this book as a serious work. I just have to get this thing done but it has been excruciating because I won't let myself put it out until its at least 95% of the truly awesome book I know it can be (and most importantly, it serves as the foundation of the series and must be done right). My life in physics hasn't been nearly as frustrating and I'm sure to most people that would seem a significant statement.

Now that I think about it, this is probably the main thing that sends me to "procrastination mode".

 

[scorpiomover]

I picked these examples on purpose because they make the point, a function isn't a behavior, because what we're looking for (the function) results in highly different behaviors in different types.

If you grant the (quite reasonable) assumptions then the conclusion is adequately proven.

I found that one of the biggest problems that INTPs face, is that Ti can make castles out of nothing but hot air. We can construct almost any potential theory using logic. Half the time, they are reality, and we are spot on. The other half, they could be true in some universes, just not this one, and thus, they are miles away from the truth. However, when we use Ne to observe general patterns of experience, we can then see which Ti theories fit with our Ne observations of reality, which don't. The Ti theories that fit with our Ne experience, are the ones that apply to this reality, and hence, are "true". Once I started using my Ne to figure out which Ti ideas were likely to be true, I went from being scatter-brained, to finding that most people agreed with what I thought. Massive improvement, and I think, what the development of auxiliary is all about.

 

[scorpiomover]

I think there's a related example which would be instructive, which is that of writers or painters. I think most creative writers and artists are S types. Looking at famous examples bears this out (my wife is an artist and was a writer so we've spent a lot of time analyzing the personality types of them). Anyhow, assuming this is true, how can you explain the difficulty writers have with the blank page or artists with the blank canvas?

The solution is to look at their personal lives. It's well known how much famous writers drank, and painters? There's a lot of sensory activity going on. I think they over compensated from the highly N activity (writing or painting - N in the sense of low sensory input) with heavy drinking, eating, partying and the like. Christopher Hitchens was a good example. His friends were amazed at how he would get loaded, party all night, and do his best writing around 3AM after everybody went home. I think his Se got satisfied and then he could think. His friend Salmon Rushdie (surely an INT) wasn't at all like that, quite the opposite).

Let's test your Ti theory with Si and Ne.

1) First, let's look with Si, i.e. by looking at specific facts that most people would accept, and use them to figure out if Ti matches this universe or not:

Your wife is an INFJ, yes? That's an Ni-dom, yes? Didn't Jung say that Ni-doms were cranks, crackpots and artists?

Wasn't the late Christopher Hitchens typed as an INTJ, yes? That's an Ni-dom, yes? Didn't Jung say that Ni-doms were cranks, crackpots and artists?

2) Now, let's look with Ne, i.e. by looking at general patterns of experience, and use them to figure out if Ti matches this universe or not:

Sensors are the majority, yes? Intuitives are the minority, yes? Artists are a minority, yes? Artists inspire us, yes? They create NEW works of art, ideas that have never been seen before in quite that way, put into paint and canvas, because the artist has such an introverted and deep vision, he can't express it easily with just words, yes?

 

[scorpiomover]

This topic is something I've struggled with for decades, and really seems to be different between INTP's and ISTP's (who are also Ti dominant). At work I excel at working in existing, huge systems and architectures. I can easily deconstruct and analyze them, but I've found it very difficult to just write something simple like an app.

Me too. Been that way for decades.

Howver, one thing that I do, and I suspect, that you'll recognise, is that when someone says something, then it sparks me off to invent a wholly new idea. E.G. I was chatting with a colleague at work one day. We happened on the topic of seatbelts. We joked about how they were uncomfortable. I then had the idea of a slight change to seatbelts, that would make them much more comfortable. I then realised that the design would also make them much, much safer. My colleague's response was that if I would have such new ideas, why don't I go do them? For me, it was just part of our conversation, and what happens naturally. But he seemed to be quite amazed, and quite taken aback.

This sort of thing happens often to me, where I am chatting with someone, and my Ti will try to solve a niggling problem, and then realise that the solution will actually allow for massive improvements.

Ti can do this, because Ti is a consequentialist, i.e. "if A, then B". That's what Ti does all day long, "if A, then B". Your wife says something, and Ti says "but if she's right, then such-and-such would also be right". Your son remarks about his school day, and Ti says "but if he's right, then such-and-such would also be right". So you have good ideas, but as a follow-on from what was there before. Hence the ability to enhance existing systems, but not to invent new systems by themselves. Logic only brings deductions from axioms. You need to have to the axioms there in the first place, to draw deductions from them.

Hence also why Sherlock Holmes would get into a funk until someone came to him with a case. He was not inventive on his own. He needed some case to puzzle over and solve, to have something to take his focus.

 

[Architect]

Actually pulling together all the components and making into a cohesive something though has been taking forever. And when I say forever, I mean about 3 years since I started this book as a serious work.

Ha, I've spent five years on a programming project I've been trying to pull together. Got ya beat. One of the problems is I keep changing the technologies I want to use (platform, libraries, and such.) Ti over-analysis no doubt.

Let's test your Ti theory with Si and Ne.

1) First, let's look with Si, i.e. by looking at specific facts that most people would accept, and use them to figure out if Ti matches this universe or not:

Your wife is an INFJ, yes? That's an Ni-dom, yes? Didn't Jung say that Ni-doms were cranks, crackpots and artists?

Wasn't the late Christopher Hitchens typed as an INTJ, yes?

That's a debate, but I don't think he was an INTJ. Somebody was confusing being an intellectual and smart with INTJ. One small point, he's highly charming, whereas I haven't met an INTJ at least a little socially abrasive. Two he drove himself hard physically, and socially which implies ES. That's certainly an unlikely INTJ, every single one I've met was normal to thin and a bit of an ascetic.

Anyhow I'm sorry but I don't follow where you're going with this point.

Ti can do this, because Ti is a consequentialist, i.e. "if A, then B". That's what Ti does all day long, "if A, then B".
...
Hence also why Sherlock Holmes would get into a funk until someone came to him with a case. He was not inventive on his own. He needed some case to puzzle over and solve, to have something to take his focus.

Excellent, this is another angle of Ti to add to the list, good work.

 

[cheese]

I relate very much to working best within an existing system, but feeling stumped when faced with open possibility. (I have thought this about myself for many many years, but other members were always going on about INTP creativity.) Same reason I hated essay questions, even though I was very good at them. I sort of can't imagine something can be real until I see it in front of me - a deep-seated inability to comprehend how something can go from the mind/realm of possibility to something concrete in reality. How things go from not-real to real is a mystical and profound mystery; having to generate material myself feels almost painful sometimes. Yet troubleshooting, analysis and maximising are so fun and natural. I even loved editing other people's work. I felt like an uncreative robot designed to love its pedestrian, small-scale tasks. Almost like a house elf.

I'd say we have a lot of inertia in some ways. It's very hard to get started, but once we have it's not that hard to keep going (at least until we get distracted). Once I started writing, I'd see structure starting to form and my anxiety would drain away as I saw more and more of the material I needed before me. When the juices start flowing, they just sort of keep going. I find I'm the same with socialising. I almost never want to go out - I dread the thought of it, I can't imagine enjoying it - but once out I can go for much longer than others. Whatever state I'm in is the preferred state, and switching to another is difficult.

Hence also why Sherlock Holmes would get into a funk until someone came to him with a case. He was not inventive on his own. He needed some case to puzzle over and solve, to have something to take his focus.

Yeah. I've found that if I don't have something to think about, my mind's pretty quiet. It's very much a reactive, not proactive mind. It gets switched on when presented with things.

I very much agree with your comments on Ti's consequentialist nature too - though I think of it more as apprehending the principle inherent in what's said, and immediately globalising. This is how I think, and for most of my life it's informed my ethical outlook too. When I see this kind of thinking in others, I instantly peg them as a very likely Ti candidate.

----------------------

Archie,
I also like some of Lenore Thomson's description of Ti. When I first read it, it made no sense to me at all - Ti is 'body-based, holistic thinking'? But when I saw the same thoughts echoed in podlair's more easily accessible language (Ti and Fi have an instinctive 'yuck' reaction to something which doesn't jive with their judgement), I understood it, and instantly recognised it in myself. Analysis for me does usually start with an internal reaction which tells me whether the information is internally coherent. If it isn't, it feels 'wrong' and *I* feel wrong until I can articulate the problem exactly to myself and 'fix' the information I've been presented with, after which I feel satisfied and peaceful. Usually I can sense instinctively where the problem is - and it does feel like I have a spatial representation of the concept/argument I can move around in. I can also feel what needs to be done to resolve it. Afterwards all that's left is to articulate the problem and resolution in words by verbally laying out the conceptual map I already have in my head.

"When we use Thinking in an Introverted way, we get a mental image of the logical relationships in an entire system.

"Introverted Thinking is a right-brain form of judgement that makes us aware of a situation's many variables. When we use it, we recognize our power, as individuals, to exploit some variables at the expense of others."

"This kind of awareness is not only impersonal: it's graphic, immediate, and wholistic. It prompts no predetermined categories of good and bad. Variables that have unusual or perverse potential are accorded the same consideration as variables that assure a socially appropriate outcome."

 

[Architect]

I also like some of Lenore Thomson's description of Ti. When I first read it, it made no sense to me at all - Ti is 'body-based, holistic thinking'? But when I saw the same thoughts echoed in podlair's more easily accessible language (Ti and Fi have an instinctive 'yuck' reaction to something which doesn't jive with their judgement)

Damn, that's interesting! I've been reading Lenore recently too, and that sentence skipped through my brain. But as you say it's entirely true. I have "feelings" about things, and my analysis usually ends up in a holistic body feeling of what's right. I told my boss that recently about a critical decision on technologies for a future direction. I said I couldn't explain it rationally, it was a judgement call, but this direction felt right. He had no problem with that.

 

[Jennywocky]

I also like some of Lenore Thomson's description of Ti. When I first read it, it made no sense to me at all - Ti is 'body-based, holistic thinking'? But when I saw the same thoughts echoed in podlair's more easily accessible language (Ti and Fi have an instinctive 'yuck' reaction to something which doesn't jive with their judgement), I understood it, and instantly recognised it in myself. Analysis for me does usually start with an internal reaction which tells me whether the information is internally coherent. If it isn't, it feels 'wrong' and *I* feel wrong until I can articulate the problem exactly to myself and 'fix' the information I've been presented with, after which I feel satisfied and peaceful. Usually I can sense instinctively where the problem is - and it does feel like I have a spatial representation of the concept/argument I can move around in. I can also feel what needs to be done to resolve it. Afterwards all that's left is to articulate the problem and resolution in words by verbally laying out the conceptual map I already have in my head.

Right.

I mean, sometimes if an argument or detail is blatantly "off," i can immediately zero in and determine an argument/scene to be unstable/wrong just be that explicitly bad line or detail; but often there's an immediate "BLARG" response to some overall picture. I've also heard of this referred to as a gyroscope effect (which is actually a "physical" response in itself -- it's a sense of being "balacned" versus falling over with no orientation), as much as if you were trying to juggle or balance something and could "feel" it wasn't in flow, that SOMETHING is throwing everything off and is liable to make it all collapse.

The fact I know it's off means I start scanning the pieces quickly, looking for the offender(s).

I resonate strongly with crime shows (documentary or shows like "Hannibal") where you're walking through the room scanning the overall scene and getting vibes off it, that lead to further discovery. If something isn't right as you "move through the space," you can pick up on it and then focus your efforts.

 

[Teax]

(Ti and Fi have an instinctive 'yuck' reaction to something which doesn't jive with their judgement), ... Analysis usually starts with an internal reaction which tells me whether the information is internally coherent.

nicely put, the essence of Ti.

 

[cheese]

Teax,
Gotta give credit - that's from this thread:
http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=6582
Cognitive Functions 100: Basic Functionality Revised

It's excellent, as are most of the other threads by the OP. It clarifies both the individual functions and the structural connections underlying them. This stuff eventually became podlair, which is a bit suspect socially/ethically, but it has a lot of good content. You can youtube it for a lot more stuff (if you're interested in what you see in that thread, then don't be put off by the weirder stuff in the vids - the content is good).

 

[ENTP lurker]

I have great problem at (detailed) forcefulness. This is where Se shines. I bet there are plenty of ISTP crackers and hackers.

I can get inside people thought processes to some level just by seeing different connections in their speech etc. I have been called as a psychic many times. I freak out people. My sister's daughter is an ENFP she is great at deciphering people actions and motivations beforehand. Ne-doms can be bit creepy. We see through normal stuff but miss the normal stuff at the same time.

Creating new system without details is me to the core. Unfortunately. Programming in terms of batteries included: joggling from abstractions to another is freaking easy. Which is kind of problem when I keep on adding new (too many) features and then hit on wall where I have to go beyond abstraction. I mean of course you have to have clipboard program where the contents are heavily encrypted in so many levels etc . This is why I find programming hard. On the other hand just look at Java code and then lay your eyes on Python code. I mean wtf. How can someone program in Java without blasting their brains to the walls?
Mathematics and science are so much easier.

[I think Jobs was an ENTJ. Businessman instead of conceptualizer. His speeches oozes Ni. He is not going towards theoretical directions but there are lots of visions [Ni] and we can do it attitude [Se] and extraverted logic is very apparent. If you want to see an ENTp see this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo
Pretty much anti Jobs.]

 

[nexion]

I relate to almost all of the description presented in the OP, so I have to wonder exactly how TiNe and NiTe differ. Especially with regards to forming mental frameworks, using associations to master understanding of systems, creating a web of knowledge where ideas and information is interrelated, holistic understanding, et. al. This methodology comprises easily over 75% of how I learn new things, so is it possible that this description is speaking more of NTs as a whole?

EDIT: One way I would say NiTe and TiNe differs heavily is in its motivations for its search of truth. Ti seeks truth merely for the sake of truth, and it is this that fuels its compulsion for internal ideological consistency. Truth is more mutable in the Te user's mind, or, in other words, just because something isn't true doesn't mean it isn't useful.

 

[QuickTwist]

Architect, how do you feel about your Fe? Do you think its coming into fruition? What it a violent transformation or very subtle?