Please note this is an undiluted description of the function, so it's a bit more concentrated than how it may exist holistically in a given person's hierarchy. And not all behaviors will apply to each person, however I believe the essential nature of Ti is captured here, as differentiated from previous definitions I have found online. I'm trying via this article to distinguish the phenomenology and essence of Ti... and how it ends up obsessing over info/etc. Especially as many seem to relate to buzzwords like "inner logical consistency" and it's one of the things that confuses a lot of Fi users I've known. Naturally, everyone will feel theirs have inner logical consistency, and rightfully so they should. But Ti is... different -- or something else atop of that.
Let me know what you think! And/or feel free to discuss!
edit: This will also help determine whether the Ti function is conscious in an individual.
Wow, I learnt a lot of things there, this article is really helpful to understand how my mind works, and help bring my internal processes into awareness.
"it tends to be far better at identifying what things are not, than what things are." "When the right inputs (deductions) are received, suddenly the gates of their thoughts reconfigure and allow for a completely new mental trajectory to be possible and new actions to emerge from them. But without this reconfiguration, they may remain deadlocked in certain conclusions " And castles of course - I'm sometimes really afraid when something comes to shake them, very afraid that they may collapse. But if the shaking destroys only a wing of it, and I can build a better one instead, yeah that's cool (but phew!)
Only one criticism about this article is that it was quite difficult for me to read and understand, but my English is probably not at that level.
I could not really understand the 2 first sections Search for universal axioms and Reductionism. And it's interesting the coincidence that chuck had posted a video about Ti in another thread, I came back to it and watched it, and then everything fell into place.
Really, I exactly see myself here when I speak with Te users. This ability they have to completely destabilize me by asking for facts. I love to be conscious now of where this is coming from. Thanks chuck !
Auburn Don't you relate as well to Ben Shapiro when watching this video? He had been typed TeNi in the database, may I ask for a re-evaluation of his vultology? Feeling my heels sunk in the ground right now, apologies for that
@auburn Ben Shapiro had been typed TeNi in the database, may I ask for a re-evaluation of his vultology? Feeling my heels sunk in the ground right now, apologies for that
Sure! ..and no problem. I'd be happy to.
But first maybe I should ask what you feel is indicative of Fe/Ti in Ben? I just watched a couple more videos and vultologically he still seems clear TeNi. I'll see if I can do a signal breakdown in a bit, too.
Really, I exactly see myself here when I speak with Te users. This ability they have to completely destabilize me by asking for facts. Don't you relate as well to Ben Shapiro when watching this video?
However, I think this is an incorrect criteria to use. We cannot rely on personal resonance as an adequate gauge of another person's type. Also, agreeing with someone is not equal to having the same functions. And it goes without saying but, someone being right does not have anything to do with using a certain function.
To do any of the above is to suggest non-Ti users cannot make convincing rational arguments or appeal to Ti users via the shared T dimension. I like Ben too, and relate to his thinking but I see sharply articulated "T" rather than "Ti" specifically.
Speaking of wings falling off the castle, I remember I had a bit of a paradigm collapse when I found out Richard Dawkins and Richard Feynman were Te-leads because their logic was so on-point. They are a bit like idols to me. But I realized I was expecting Te users to not "make sense" to me, and for anyone with beautiful, self-consistent logic to be a Ti user just like me. It was so presumptuous of me at the time considering their articulation (including Shapiro's) far exceeds my ability. To say "they're like me" is to lump myself into a star group.
Instead, what I realized was that Te-leads have this incredible capacity to acutely and straightforwardly (and expediently) communicate Logic and externalize ideas that Ti users like myself can scarcely get out of their heads. Due to Ti's introverted nature, it's difficult to express what is felt as right. But Te users give it immediate form, which makes it possible for Ti users to "see themselves" in Te users, even though it's a type of super-ego projection.
That's really interesting, seeing this response and the other thread you opened, I think we have very different perspectives - you are in J-mode whereas I was in P-mode. When I asked if you didn't relate to him, I was not speaking about personal resonance. I had actually barely listened to what he said. I was speaking about identifying to this feeling of losing it when getting these specific questions. Being very comfortable when explaining a concept, but struggling when giving concrete facts. I experience this regularly. When I watched chuck's video, I could completely relate to Ben in the sense that I feel I have similar difficulties in a conversation with a Te user. I had a look at Richard Dawkins and I don't have the same impression with him at all.
But first maybe I should ask what you feel is indicative of Fe/Ti in Ben?
Honestly I cannot tell specifically. I think I should watch chuck's video again and try to use more Ti. Maybe I identified in this way because of chuck's interpretations rather than Ben Shapiro's reactions. (heels getting to move a bit, but only slightly )
But what I could say is that my understanding of typing is very much based on perceiving Ti in another person. That's how I type people (used to do it together with using MBTI, and now with using vultology): I identify when people use their thinking process in a similar way as mine. I found a very high correlation between my typing of Ti users and vultology, that's why I liked it so much. But I know very little about the nature of the Ti process, and I could not define or explain it.
I think I spent 2 hours on your article ("oh, ok, so that's how it works!") But as I said, it is hard to understand for me. Chuck's video was for me a very good illustration of Reductionism and Search for universal axioms, and helped me understand them. Maybe you have other examples/illustrations?