[pneumoceptor]

So I'm an INFJ with strong Ti, because I've had to develop it for my career. I function through Ni and Ti all the time at work. An example I'll share is what I do when reading a scientific manuscript. Here, Ti systematically analyzes someone's data, methodically (often linearly, although not always) judging the information presented and agreeing with or rejecting the interpretation. All the while, Ni is fluttering in and out of this analysis, throwing in paradigms that I think are true, modifying paradigms based on the current data, and producing insight about some other system that is vaguely related to the results I'm looking at. They're very complementary. Take out my crazy-active Fe, and I'd probably be happy staying in academia forever .

(Oh, and 'hunkering down' with my Ti for more than about a half an hour, without some Ni bunny trail, exhausts me.)

 

[pneumoceptor]

Pneumoceptor, I may not be understanding your example, but Ti is not a linear function per Lenore Thomson. Based on Thomson, Ne, Se, Ti and Fi are right brain functions that are dynamic and view things wholistically. Te, Fe, Ni and Si are left brain functions that view things where there is a beginning-middle-end or in a linear manner.

Since Lenore Thomson is the only author that I can recall using the term linear as it relates to type, that was the only theory I could think of (refer to page 72 here).

I'm not sure that I agree with Thomsen, based on what you described, although I have not read her for myself. (However, I may just be arguing semantics here.) For example, my Fe is quite strong, and I wouldn't say it's linear. It's, for lack of a better description, less consistent than that. It's more in stops and starts, jumping around. It's strongly judging and wants to affect the world, but not from a to b to c to d. (I wouldn't say it's holistic, either...) Thomson's book doesn't have the word 'linear' on the page you mentioned, but she does talk there about processing one thing at a time for extraverted judging functions. Is this what you mean by linear? What would non-linear look like?

Still unsure I completely understand how you use Ni-Ti, but it sounds as though you are claiming to use them in tandem (or simultaneously). I use the same introverting functions, but they can’t be used in tandem. I can alternate between them, Ti then Ni, but never Ti and Ni.

I'm not claiming to use Ni-Ti in tandem; it's quite the opposite. When Ti is active, Ni isn't, and vice-versa. But I switch between them readily enough. That's what I meant by 'Ni fluttering'... especially since I'm Ni-dominant. I don't think our conscious minds can employ more than one function at a time... Is this what you're saying?

 

[pneumoceptor]

For some reason, this totally rubs me the wrong way:

Now if you are the typical INFJ, an expected answer may be forthcoming which will be exactly why your Ni can never be completely suppressed.

That said , thanks for the examples and the clarification. How would you apply the wholistic vs linear reasoning to Ti and Fi versus Te and Fe?

Also, you said in a previous post that you can't use two functions in tandem/simultaneously, but in your most recent post, you say that one cannot suppress one's dominant function. Does lack of suppression equal constant use? If so, how would we ever use anything but our dominant function? I guess my argument is that you can go back and forth between them, flitting from one to the other and back. That's how I would describe my Ni-Ti at my job. This is an example of a positive back and forth... a less positive one would be the Ni-Ti loop that both your type and mine can fall into.

I think we're actually on the same page here, based on:

I can alternate between them, Ti then Ni, but never Ti and Ni.

On a related note, have you thought much about how your Ti-Ni looks different than my Ni-Ti, both in our musings and in our subsequent choices/actions?

 

[pneumoceptor]

This is hijack central, baby.

OK, here goes...

Your linear/wholistic examples of Te and Ti in the grocery shopping example make sense to me. I would be interested to hear similar examples of Fe and Fi.

Let me clarify something first. I did not say you can’t use two functions in tandem, because that’s incorrect. You use Ni-Fe, Ni-Se and maybe Ti-Se, as do I for my type make-up. However you can’t use two extraverting or introverting functions simultaneously or in tandem (i.e., Se-Fe, Ti-Ni).

Thanks for the clarification; I understand now that you're specifying two functions of the same attitude. Beyond this, though, we really need to define what you mean by 'in tandem'. It is my experience/proposition (and pretty Ni, I admit) that I cannot use more than one cognitive function at the same time consciously. Either I'm Fe-ing or I'm Ni-ing. I might Ni for 500 milliseconds and then Fe to interact in some way, and then go back for another short Ni to evaluate, but I'm not doing both at the same time. I have no empirical evidence for this, and this observation certainly wouldn't hold water in Science magazine . (And neither would MBTI, but I love it.) What is your observation here?

Oh, and my Ni just piped in that, maybe while we're dreaming, we're using many cognitive functions at the same time. Crazy!

When I use my Ti, I am always looking for the basic principles of how something works. If I do not understand or need additional information, I use my Se to look for facts and then make my decisions based on the principles as I understand them. I am not even sure that I use my Ni in this process, but if I did I would still revert back to my Ti because it’s the basic principles of type and how the system works that is most important.

I like your explantion of Ti-Ni. It highlights what's different between Ti-Ni and Ni-Ti. For me, Ni-Ti, I am also always looking for the basic principles of how something works. But I start with a model and then tweak it iteratively based on what I've judged through Ti and Fe. And I care strongly about the meaning/reasons behind why it works the way it does and how to apply them to other systems.

Going back to your response, you may or may not have used your Ti to consider the basic principles before responding, but what you did indicate was a polite disagreement on whether Lenore Thomson is correct in her assessment (Fe).

Yes re: being polite (thanks for noticing), but I'm saying that I'm not sure about her assessment, not that I disagree with it. I'm not convinced either way. That's the reason why I asked above about a description of Fe versus Fi. I'd also like a description of linear versus wholistic perception, as I can't really imagine linear intuition, at least the way I understand your definition of 'linear'. I don't know that I'm ever perceiving one thing at a time. I'll have many models going and be tweaking and inter-relating them whenever I'm lost in Ni 'thought'. Clarification?

Instead you went directly into how you see your functions used. Not based on information or a principle of type, but because “you know”. That is exactly how I see Ni working and it indicated to me that when all else failed, your Ni superseded your use of Ti at least in your response. If I attempted to use my Ni, my response will be typically based on Ti-Se. In contrast you pretty much admitted that you were unwilling to take in information, but was sure you disagreed with Thomson. That came from nowhere but your Ni.

Ah, but I did not say "I know". I purposely stated "I'm not sure that I agree." That is a far cry from saying I know something. And as far as taking in information, pages 88 through 415 (i.e. 3/4) of the book you linked to are unavailable online. I scanned through the table of contents, since I can't search terms like 'linear' in this google book, and saw that the actual type descriptions fall within this missing 3/4. So I decided that, barring specific MBTI type examples of her wholistic versus linear model, I probably wouldn't be convinced either way with the resource you provided. Instead, I asked you for information, because you have read the book. I invited facts and arguments from you.

There are two more basics question here, though:

1. Are you saying that arguments based on first principles (in this case, a small set of basic knowns that are more foundational than MBTI or Thomson's addendum to MBTI) don't use Ti as much as arguments based on larger amounts of information?

2. I see MBTI as a very descriptive, empirical view of personality. I don't take every dichotomy as perfectly correct. It's useful as a model, and it's quite fun, but I don't believe its infallibly accurate, even as a broad-stroke description. Would your argument be that this is inherently an Ni take on MBTI, rather than a Ti take?