Ti vs Ni searching for truth and 'whys'
This is a lot of questions, dude. :P
I saw that last Te vs Ti post and it remind me of something Iâve been wondering for a long time: how can Ti and Ni be differentiated when it comes to looking for the why of something?
The âwhyâ is shorthand / a lazy way to explain what Ti seeks. The reality is: Ti desires to form an internal framework, or theory of reality; it will sometimes ignore or devalue facts which contradict its internal framework.
For example, I often have run-ins with Ti-using typists who are convinced a character is a certain type and will consistently make the same arguments for the type they have concluded he/she is, and ignore any external evidence / examples that prove them wrong, because their interpretation of functions differs from the system someone else is using. The idea that Ti-users are âopen mindedâ is wrong; they are often unwilling to change their internal system of logic and will have a meltdown when forced to contend with something that does not âseem to fitâ their system. A friend quoted a passage to me, from Stephen Kingâs IT, which embodies Ti precisely, when the character says it was not that he was âfrightenedâ by the monster, but OFFENDED by the monster; because âthose things SHOULD NOT EXIST.â
If you want another example, Sherlock having a total meltdown when he encountered a âghost houndâ in the series is a perfect example of a Ti-dom faced with something that DOES NOT FIT his logical framework of how reality works, so he is flat out rejecting it and/or trying to find a rational reason HOW it could exist, but in a different form than others believe (no ghosts!). Or, the Twelfth Doctor meeting Robin Hood, and batting about insane theories about how heâs a robot, or a hologram, or a puppet, because his foregone Ti-dom conclusion had categorized Robin Hood AS A MYTH, so⊠that canât be Robin Hood, Hood is a myth and does not exist. There must be another explanation.
Ni is symbolic perception, by contrast; it wants to get to the heart of something. It can translate something into a personal symbol (a Ni-dom watching Doctor Who and forgetting heâs a character, instead seeing him as the embodiment of intellectual exploration, so which body he is in doesnât matter that much; heâs still an embodiment of intellectual exploration or whatever); or it can draw an intuitive perception from reading unseen connected threads (to get at someoneâs motives), with the result of the high Ni having total faith in their intuitive conclusions and acting on them (and losing face if they are WRONG).
So, how to distinguish between them, when dealing with the âwhyâ; Ni is the why of a motivation; Ti is the why of existence.
Usually you see Ti as defined by mental curiosity divorced from a necessary purpose for the information, so we have IXTPs, ENTPs and INFJs as examples of people who easily go into rabbit holes for fun. But since Te is supposedly only interested in knowledge for its use, does that mean xNTJs and ENFJs only try and figure things out to serve Te/Fe purposes?
Iâve known plenty of Ni/Ti users who donât give a damn about something unless they are interested in it already; thatâs the human condition. ;)
The rabbit hole thing typically comes into play when the Ni or Ti (usually, a combination of both) is seen as over-analyzing by a Te-type, who reaches the end of their interest and wants to know WHY THAT MATTERS? ENXJs tend to be as intellectually curious as any other type, but at the end of the day, being dominant judging types, they want to DO SOMETHING with the information, either with Te or Fe. Te will put it into practice, Fe will attain greater understanding of human nature with it, which will help them with people.
Why are INxJs credited as having a lot of intellectual flair and not ENxJs? I see a lot of talk about how ENFJs who are very into knowledge doing it to compensate for their inferior Ti insecurity. And ENTJs not bothering to know more than the absolute necessary since their only interest seems to be âachieving thingsâ. 24/7. This has always confused me because I happen to have known quite a few ENxJs in the academic field who are not in it for the accolades, but for finding personal fulfillment in learning itself. Can it be said then, that this is possible but more an exception to the rule?
Because some (immature) INXJs think they own intellectualism; they donât. And I doubt Neil deGrasse Tyson (ENFJ) is compensating for inferior Ti. ;)
Is it just because Ni is abstract while Te/Fe is objective, and therefore changing its position from Dominant to Auxiliary makes that much of a difference? Iâm thinking of how ISTPs are much more commonly intellectual than ESTPs though both have high Ti, while xNTPs are into it because its coupled with Intuition.
It does make a difference, yes, but not an enormous once â hence why so many people are confused as to whether they are the introverted or extroverted versions of their type.
origamiaround
romaincrisis
blakekathryn
ellievsbear
annaxmalina
turnnoffyourmind
