Explaining Introverted Thinking (Ti) Identity

My brain goes a little nuts when trying to explain Introverted Thinking, or Ti, sometimes. I recently did a YouTube interview with Joyce Meng which can be found here, and of course one of the things that I had to explain in depth was Ti. I’ve gotten better at that… but whenever I’m asked to contrast it with Fi, I usually start stuttering a bit, which I know seems odd. In person, I have an easy time identifying Ti vs Fi… Meeting another Ti user is like finding someone else who speaks your language. However, when it comes up in relation to identity or our personal perspective on ourselves, I struggle explaining the difference.

Ti and Fi are both individualistic functions, but as I just mentioned, they are also identity functions. This is something Ryan and I have been saying for a long time now. (We by no means are the only people who make that claim, but at a certain point, we latched onto the concept and ran with it, since it made a lot of sense.) However, Ti is a different kind of identity function, far less obvious of one then Fi, which is where it starts to twist my brain a little. I’ve been giving it some thought, and I’m going to attempt to explain my relationship with identity here to maybe clarify some differences between the Ti users and the Fi users.

Honestly, this is my third attempt at writing this article. My propensity for comparing and contrasting in order to clarify my points made the first one travel down a huge rabbit trail about Ti versus Fi values… I’ve basically scrapped the whole thing, and will perhaps broach that subject later. For now, in this article, I’m going to focus really hard on talking about just Ti identity with as little reference to Fi as I can possibly manage. We’ll see how this goes. Perhaps after I get this all written down on this metaphorical paper, I’ll be able to produce it verbally in the future. (One can dream, lol.)

Ti Introspection

First, let me start by explaining my observations of what Ti users do when they’re trying to identify their personality type. Ti users typically approach themselves in what I would define as an emotionally detached manner. (I’m not saying that the other types are not rational. Try not to take anything that I say here as an attack on another type.) Ti users will look at everything they do and think, and explain it in great depth. They then take their understanding of personality theory, and twist everything that they know about themselves into multiple different types. I’ll bridge over to Fi really briefly to explain what I mean by that…

Fi users will look at the varying personality types and struggle to accept that they fit into one “box”. They dislike the restrictions on their own identity, the external label. Or, they’ll have an image of what they want to be in their head, and force themselves to fit that box. They basically want to choose their own label, rather than have it chosen for them. It’s like that Fi idealism… they envision what they want to be and force that into reality. (This is a good thing.. It provides them an ideal to strive for.) They want to choose who they want to become, and become that. “Don’t limit who I am or what I’m capable of.”

What Ti does is a bit different. It’s never really about what they want to be. They may inflate certain attributes of themselves, but I don’t typically seem them preferring one type greatly over another, even when you, for instance, try to call them a feeler. They may seem a bit confused if what has been proposed is not something they initially deemed valid, so they’ll start asking you for your logic in coming to that conclusion. Ultimately, what I see Ti users doing is twisting the system. (Relative logic is their forte, after all.)

What do I mean by that… Well, they’ll say ‘I do or think these things’. If you look at the thing this way, it could mean this function. If you rationalize it this way, it could mean this other function. OR, it could also mean this function over here because of X, Y, and Z. Basically, they’ll take whatever data set that they’re providing me with and explain how it fits several different types based on their understanding of the system. Hence, they twist and manipulate logic within the system. Sometimes, this gives them the propensity for overthinking the system and declaring it inconsistent and thus invalid. Other times, it just keeps them in a state of overthought confusion for a while, since every action can be interpreted into so many different types that they just can’t figure out what the correct rationale or interpretation is. For a Ti user, it becomes less about the conclusion (IE: which type they are), and more about understanding the rationale behind the system.

When people initially email in to get typed, Ryan and I usually give a combined response, breaking down their email to demonstrate which functions we are seeing and why. However, with the Ti users, I frequently end up having to deal with them one-on-one, because objective facts, data, and conclusions sometimes just aren’t working. (I’ll make a crack to Ryan about how I need to go “Ti” with this person.)

Ti Identity

So, based on everything I said up above, Ti identity is ultimately based on a subjective analysis or reasoning that we feel a personal attachment to. Ti is concerned with organizing their rationale separately from their emotions. The two should not cross nor intermix. (That’s not to say that we’re always successful in separating the two.) Our rationale is far more important than our actual conclusions. Meaning, a Ti user frequently does not care if you agree with them, but what they hate is when their logic is dismissed as invalid. To dismiss their logic or brazenly poke holes in some intricately thought out reasoning is to attack their core being, since that is what has been tied to their identity. Sure, Ti users typically love to discuss their logic, but if you get dismissive of it, you’ll risk offending the Ti user or putting them on the defensive. After all, conclusions can be easily changed, but to say that our logic is not “logical” is to discredit what we take pride in, our work of art, so to speak.

Obviously, a strong Ti user is not just going to freak out if some idiot calls them illogical. It has to be done by someone that matters to the Ti user, or done in such a way that the Ti user sees the potential validity behind what the other person is saying (IE: threatens the core integrity of their internal logical framework). A strong Ti user is not typically so insecure in their own logic that they’ll accept any accusation as valid.

So, I’m going to share a personal take on some very Fi type of phrases, and see if you can glean some information distinguishing Ti identity from Fi. After my many attempts at trying to write this article, I feel compelled to transition into this next section with.. “And down the rabbit role we go…”

Ti – Who am I?

This is not a question that I ask. It seems kind of irrelevant to me. (Honestly, what does that question even mean?) I think people typically ask the question as a predecessor to “who do I want to be?” which is also not something I typically ask myself. Honestly, I rarely use “I am” type of statements either. They seem very… absolute to me. The IXTJs, or tertiary Fi users, tend to be champions of the phrase “This is just the way I am.” Honestly, I think on the rare occasion that I use that phrase, it’s more out of laziness or hesitancy to commit, rather than an absolute denial to act outside of my typical self. I do on rare occasions say it in the heat of anger, when I feel like someone is attempting to compel me to act in a manner that is completely contradictory to what I know myself to be capable of. I liken it to someone trying to tell you to act outside of your own programming. No one can become a different person tomorrow and expect to maintain it in the long term… without breaking apart psychologically anyway.

Getting back to the title question, I have watched Fi dominants ask the question “who am I?” I’ve watched them analyze something in their life or approach a decision with a primary factor being “is this me?” or “is this who I want to become?” Sometimes, it’s a critical decision, and other times it’s something small like a piece of clothing. In the case of the clothing, I would just respond to the Fi user by saying, “if you like it, it’s you.”

I once bought a dress and asked the question, “Is this me?” That was kind of an odd thing for me to do, but I wasn’t really asking the question in the more literal sense. I didn’t care if the dress was accurately demonstrating my image or desired persona. What I actually was asking was… do I objectively look good in this dress? Is the color okay? Does the style work on my body type? Etc. I needed that Fe validation to understand if that dress was physically flattering on me… so I could update my parameters for future fashion possibilities. It can just sometimes be easier and quicker to say “Is this me?” Although, once again, I rarely use that phrasing.

Fi is interesting, because it’s a combination of identity and values. What I mean by that is… Well, most people are aware that the feeling functions are the value functions. Now, the word “value” tends to be used too broadly in the typology arena, because ultimately every cognitive function has values. However, what the feeling functions do is determine the “value” or “worth” of something. They are “value-driven”, and being such, they will place labels on things based on their value or worth. Ti is not concerned with values in this sense… For them, that’s the job of Fe.

This is why I don’t really care if people place labels on me, but I don’t typically place labels on myself. (Maybe I’m wrong, but this seems like the opposite of what Fi users do.) When someone tells me that I’m kind, I hear this value-based judgement, run it through the database in my mind against my data on myself, and determine if the judgement is consistent with how I know myself to act. I’m not by default placing labels of worth like that on myself. I will rationally recognize an individual action of mine as “kind” or “mean” but I don’t by default place that type of label on my person as a whole. I leave that up to the rest of the world (Fe). Once the world labels me as kind, I go “Okay, I guess I am kind.” Once again though, something in me struggles to make “I am” statements like that. I keep wanting to rephrase them into, I usually act kind, or I do kind things, or I tend to be kind… Perhaps this is my internal fight against the absolute Te-esque nature of the “I am” statement.

I know this all probably sounds very odd, because I’m saying that Ti is about identity, yet at the same time saying that feedback from others helps me define myself. So, I’ll go ahead and use a couple “I am” type of statements to explain my mentality.

I am what I do

Well, first off, as I’ve kind of stated earlier, I am what I do, and what I do defines me. Ergo, as I get feedback from others (Fe), I am further defined. I’m not going to make a decision based on “who I am” or “who I want to be”. I’m not going to determine or judge my own worth (Fi). (Side note: this is why Fi users are so prone to being so hard on themselves :/ ) I figure out what I like or what I’m good at, and I do that. I figure out what I think, and act in accordance with it. The question for me is not “who am I?” but “what do I think?” or “what makes sense?” What’s realistic? What’s rational? What’s possible?

I’m personally going to make decisions based on “what makes sense” (Ti), “what’s realistic” (Se) and “where do I want to end up?” (Ni) Obviously I’m speaking specifically from the perspective of an ISTP, but you understand my point, right? Who I am is only going to be a factor in the sense that obviously I can only act within my default, inborn or learned parameters (my capabilities), but it is not a question that I’m consciously asking. (Sounding like a robot, right?)

I am what I think

I know my thoughts… my emotionally detached thoughts. (I don’t really know my emotions.) I know my rationale. I know the way I think. Like I said earlier, the question for me, is what do I think? When I form a Ti judgement, I’m judging how logically consistent the act is with everything related to it. I know that seems vague, but I have to make it that broad. For instance, someone makes a statement. The first question is, does it line up with what I already know? If it does, is it adding anything else? If it doesn’t, am I wrong or is the person wrong? If the person is wrong, what does that mean about them? Are they flat out wrong or is there a truth to be gleaned from their perspective? Etc. I don’t feel the need to form a value judgement on another person, unless they tick off my Fe. However, I do need to verify a consistency between the individual’s words and actions so that I’m able to understand their rationale and check it against my own. I don’t care who they are as a person because I do not feel the need to label them based on my own personal values. Ti is known for being apathetic, right? From my personal perspective as an ISTP (I’m not sure if the INTPs relate here), I do like to understand someone’s rationale behind their actions so I can determine how they might affect me in the future, but that might be my Ni speaking.

In conclusion…

I really really hope this made some inkling of sense, because attempting to explain it really hurt my brain. I’m very open to feedback from other Ti users or even a completely different personality type who may have some insights on us Ti types, since I’m completely aware of how woefully bad I am at putting this subject into words. (It wouldn’t have taken me 3 full length drafts to produce this mess if I wasn’t, lol.) Anyways, let me know what you think in the comments!