[MensSuperMateriam]

Well, I offer to you the description of Ti that I put in another thread. I hope this could help:

[Ti]

The most accurate way I could describe mi Ti dom in simple words is something like this:

Fractalized cosmovision.

If I explain this with some more words:

Find the simplest and uniform algorithm that could generate the whole reality that is known at every time.

And now I'll develop a bit more this idea.

At instant T sub 0, you have in your mind a concrete amount of information what constitutes "reality". Ti at work would analyze every property of "reality" and would try to find a "universal and simplest rule" that could explain this reality. This rule must be uniform in the same meaning that a continuum and derivable function has in Maths: the algorithm must be capable of justifying from the smallest portion of reality to the whole system with the same rule. No contradictions are allowed (a rule for a concrete portion of reality and another rule for a different portion, etc).


At instant T sub 1, an extra amount of information is provided, so reality expands. The algorithm is tested, if it still works, then OK. If not, it must be revised, changed, for being able to work with the increased reality. Like a bayesian inference.

The algorithm is created from what is perceived as a certainty (this idea is malleable, not inmutable) and used for evaluating ideas whose grade of certainty is unknown.

 

[MensSuperMateriam]

I can see this :laughing:.
Wow, I take it you are quite the math wiz? Thank you for the explanation, I am getting a better understanding of Ti. I don't think I will ever fully be ale to understand it but I can somewhat see what you are saying. I am getting that Ti logic is a bit more in-depth while it looks like Te logic is more breadth.

I saw in another forum (whose URL is anathema here, so sorry, I will not post it because I could get banned) a set of simple exercises for helping users to understand the point of view of their non native functions. The functions were not defined, because if they were, non native users would simply use the definition instead "trying to see and use them internally". The Ti exercise was this:

To experience Introverted Thinking:

• This is a multi-stage exercise. Give yourself at least half an hour, alone and in a quiet place where no one will disturb you.

1. Stare at this picture a while, without talking or verbalizing:

2. Draw an additional three rows and columns of lines around the ones already drawn, continuing the pattern. (You'll probably want to print out the picture.) Don't verbally reason out where the lines should go, just draw them to fit the pattern that you see. Use your hand, not your voice (even your internal voice).

3. Understand the pattern. Now it's OK to reason about it. Describe the pattern in the simplest way you can, without sacrificing any aspect of the pattern. Your description must capture everything that is going on inside the picture. It's OK to start with a vague description and/or a description that doesn't imply everything in the pattern (or, for that matter, a description that's wrong). Keep hammering away at your description to make it simpler and simpler, until it seems that you have captured in a single tiny nugget everything there is to say about the pattern. Your ultimate nugget of description should imply: all the lines that are actually there, where the lines would have to go in additional rows and columns outside the ones shown, and where the lines would have to go if you drew more rows and columns in between the ones shown.

After thinking about it, I realize how my native Ti dom function would see it and which was its real goal at the deepest level. This helped to me to improve the understanding of my own function and define it in this, in my opinion enough accurate, way.

If you're a non native user, you could only understand it in a non deep level. In fact you will never be able to see it and use it as an native user would do, because if you're not an user, you have an opposite function which is "contradicted" and annoyed by this way of seeing and managing the world. Don't worry, it's a general problem. The same for me and Ni function, for example. I can understand it reasonably well, like recognizing its behavior in other users, but I will never be able of see the world with it and use it as they do because I do not have this function.

Now what I am wondering is how would this description differentiates from Te? If Ti is about the "simplest and uniform algorithm that could generate the whole reality that is known at every time", then how does Te compare? Does it go back t the instructions example: Ti sees the whole reality at once, where Te sees it step-by-step/linear?

Te, as an extroverted function, has "pragmatical" goals, and the most important has already be pointed by you, it's linear, whereas Ti is not.

Te feels satisfied using pragmatical rules for achieving a pragmatical goal (usable truth), whereas Ti tries to see the "perfect truth" at the deepest level.

For example, in the Ti exercise, I could see a Te user trying to solve it in this way: "I compare two rows and deduce how to make the next; I compare two columns and deduce how to make the next". So the Te user solves the problem only in an inductive (linear) and pragmatical (I do not need more, this works) way: making columns based in the previous, making rows based in the previous.

A Ti user is not "satisfied" with this linear way of thinking; he/she goes further and try to find a rule that could generate every line independently of the others. Making columns from previous and rows from previous works, but they are TWO DIFFERENT RULES and do not see the problem as a single issue, as a whole. Ti user wants a perfect rule that could work for everything. Something like "I locate at (0,0) coordinates and use an algorithm that is able of drawing every line only considering distance and angle".

Of course a Te user can also find this "algorithm" but this is not the nature of Te. Ti seeks for this naturally, and Te only do it if asked... if it works, it is enough for Te.

More or less, this is the difference between Ti and Te functions at work. There are more differences, of course; Te as extroverted needs "external validation" (it trusts in others, like the opinion of the experts) whereas Ti as introverted does not need external validation (Earth is not flat regardless the whole humanity could believe this...).

An extroverted function is always "bidirectional": it is fed by the world but it also projects its nature to the world. Te uses its "pragmatical solutions" for modifying the surroundings (like ordering things), Ti does not (another function of the user, Ne or Se, could do this in its particular way).

P.S. Recognizing the picture as a vector field and mathematically solving it does not make someone being a Ti user. The quid is different.