Examples of Ti Conversations

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Hello,
For those more keenly interested in studying Ti psychology, I wanted to post a few videos. These are high level academic conversations, meaning it doesn't describe an average Ti user necessarily. But just as we might extract iconic examples of other types displaying their functions, we can do something similar to give some visibility to Ti.
But also, please note that these are not conversations in which the entirety of the dialogue can be attributed to Ti (far from it), but the imprint of Ti's mode of processing is evident in the sort of trajectories the conversations take.

Robert Lawrence Kuhn & David Bentley Hart

Robert Kuhn is an FeSi (with a Ti obsession/muse/myth) that is in conversation here with PiFe David Hart (who I believe has Ti development).
The conversation focuses heavily on the question of proper definition, but more than that, it tries to elucidate on what are the properties of definitions. And the sort of things (or non-things) that are spoken about relate to elements of phenomenology that are sensed as being there.
In this sense, the entire conversation is a kind of investigation into how we might go about knowing what that 'something' is, that we feel is there by necessity, insofar as it makes sense to talk about existent things.
This is one variation of the sort of conversation two Ti users may have. (Once again, I must say there is no topic that any type cannot discuss, but these are examples of the manifestation of Ti's metabolism)

Sam Harris & Jordan Peterson (Waking Up Podcast #62)

And here we have FeNi Jordan Peterson and TiSe Sam Harris discussing definitions of truth.
You can skip to around 33 minutes, but also, I don't expect anyone to watch it unless you have nothing else to do. ;p This was infamously a very difficult conversation to listen to, because of how it went in circles and got stuck on disagreements over how one can define truth in the first place. In my opinion the problem was to due with the ontological priority of Peterson (Je>Ji) and Harris (Ji>Je) when it comes to their shared Ti/Fe axis. But the entire conversation is an elaboration on how to synthesize both poles together. Both of them do so from their own starting premise.

Takeaway

But what is relevant in these two videos is not the logic these people use or how much of it. It's not the degree or level of analysis they employ (all types can apply analysis to this level and even more). What I am aiming to elucidate is the style and manner in which they choose to investigate questions using their logic (J), and where they end up taking the conversation due to the implicit assumptions embedded in the Ti/Fe axis, and how it treats the world.
This is very difficult to articulate but the qualia of Ti thoughts becomes quite obvious once you've listened to enough Ti users have conversations about topics. I'm sure many of you on Discord know what it's like, too, when our Ti members start burrowing into a philosophical hole. ;p

[EpicEntity]

If Ti users don't dominate science and technologies. Then are there at least a good amount of Ti users in this industry based on the estimate global or national number of Ti users. Are there estimates of a TeFi to TiFe ratio and a Alpha to Beta ratio yet? When it comes to technologies can we guess a percentage dominance or per capita for each category, if we wanted to? I preferably want to know a Beta Ti estimate for now?

This video makes me think that Ti has it's own way of dealing with science and technology. Let say Te is the system builder then could Ti be the systems refiner? Elon Musk seem to be using physic as his ultimate Ti premise.
This makes wonder if Te is bottom-up. Making a blueprint of hierarchies and building until near completion focusing on effectiveness. While Ti might be Top-down taking one or more existing processes to rebuild or merge as they make many turns, twist, and tweaks until near perfection focusing on efficiency.
Personally I do feel engaged thinking about in a top-down kind of way. Adversely, I feel drain thinking about things in a bottom-up kind of way.
So I very much want to know if anyone else notice any of the same or similar patterns above.

[Cedar]

Here's Ezra Klein in an interview about the polarization of the U.S. politically. Regardless of leanings, I think he's a good example of someone using Fe and Ti well. When I use the Codifier, he's lands in the Beta quadra, but I could be wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZXb2pKcU5k He has a podcast and interviews people of all political leanings, though he is definitely on the left. He is fair in his communication and not into treating people with "gotcha" questions. He does come across as healthy and not terribly offensive. If you listen to many of his interviews, you will hear him speak often on idealizing and his intentions to not slip into it.
The problem with Jordan Peterson is that he is unhealthy and shows up in an offensive way to many women, transgender, minorities populations, enlightened men, etc. Also, he makes up cookie cutter systems, without research, which isn't a healthy use of psychology.
 

[Author]

Posts