An ISTP’s Perspective On Ti Accuracy
There are so many buzzwords associated with Ti, to the extent that sometimes it feel like the function departs from reality into some distant idealistic realm. Since I am a dominant Ti user (ISTP, specifically), I feel somewhat responsible for dragging it back down to earth, hence the reasons why I keep publishing Ti-specific articles. I want to help people understand what Ti actually is, and what it is not.
Now, perhaps you’re feeling a bit concerned that I’m about to say that Ti isn’t concerned with accuracy. Don’t worry. I’m not… But I’d like to further define what that actually means. By itself, the term is actually rather general, which can create a problem. Slapping a general term onto a single cognitive function ultimately results in that term getting applied far too broadly.
Generalities can be a tricky thing. I have an off and on relationship with them myself. See, when someone asks me a question that I’m not actually interested in answering, I give a general answer. I don’t typically refuse to answer the question. I’m not interested in embarrassing the person, or making a scene. I simply find a way to answer the question without actually relaying any meaningful information, which ultimately results in me giving a vague or general answer. Do you see what I’m getting at? Of course, I’m not here to bash generalities entirely, but I just want to point out the flaw in them. Being too general creates a tendency to relay unhelpful information that results in people drawing incorrect conclusions, while being too specific runs a greater risk of relaying straight up bad information. It’s best to strive for a balance between the two.
So, let’s return to Ti accuracy. What does that actually mean? I’ve seen and read so many things about Ti, and I’ve noticed one main flaw in how this term is applied, which has been caused by the fact that most Ti descriptions come from the perspective of INTPs. In other words, there’s a bit an NTP skew on Ti, and there are a few reasons for this, which are all pretty interconnected now that I think about it.
- Intuitives are on average more likely to be into typology (or so they say).
- INXX types are primarily writing the information, possibly due to the above point.
- INTPs, since they have Si, have an easier time explaining what’s going on inside their mind, so in one way or another, the data is often sourcing from them. On the flip side, ISTPs tend to be less willing to provide information related to the inner workings of their mind, simply because they struggle more to do so. Their Ni provokes them to be more brief and to the point.
Naturally, there’s nothing wrong with INTPs, but the ISTP perspective is missing if that’s the primary source of the information. However, I’ve said all of that to say this: the main problem I see in the explanations of Ti is the assumption that Ti, in the process of being accurate, will also be precise, as a rule.
Why is that a problem?
Because precision tends to be an attribute of Si, and which types have both Ti and Si? Oh yeah. The NTPs. (I obviously haven’t forgotten the SFJs, but focus here is high Ti.)
Ti has been given this reputation of getting hung up on semantics and terminology, being hyper-specific. Ti accuracy essentially gets described as having a certain level of detail-orientation that it actually doesn’t possess. Si, by nature, is detail oriented and extremely precise. Ni is far more general and vague. Now, I’m aware that the relevant type here is the ISTP, and they can’t exactly be called extremely general or vague, being high Se users. However, Se is not like Si, and that lower Ni is still coming into play.
As I mentioned earlier, I have a mixed relationship with generality. It can serve a purpose, but it can also create confusion. Out of a desire for accuracy, when I am asked a vague question, I will probe deeper as to the meaning or intention behind the question. (Of course, this is assuming I’m actually intending to answer the question. Otherwise, I’ll give an equally vague answer and walk away.) I’m not going to guess at the meaning behind the question, and run with it. (1) What if I’m wrong? (2) If I don’t think I understand the question, my mind usually can’t produce an answer anyway.
I was recently in a panel with Joyce Meng where I felt like I spent most of the video asking her to clarify the questions. I’m a sensor. Vague leaves too much open for interpretation. However, the exact wording doesn’t matter to me either, and I’m not one to correct someone when they say something wrong. I’m not overly specific, and I don’t care for semantics. I have Ni. I tend to cater how I explain something to the person that I’m explaining it to. (Ni-Fe, maybe?) I will intentionally explain something inaccurately if I know that the person will walk away with the correct understanding of what I am trying to relay. I often can’t find the right words, but if the person gets my meaning, I don’t care. I only start hyper focusing on wording when I know the correct meaning is at stake. So many times, I’ve had people interrupt me to correct my wording, when they clearly knew exactly what I was trying to say, and it’s extremely frustrating to me, because it derails my entire thought process. But anyways…
This all comes down to one very clear distinction between INTPs and ISTPs: INTPs tend to be more specific, striving for accuracy partially by way of precision. They’ll typically provide a lot more information overall. ISTPs strive for accuracy, but they tend to fall into being more brief, general, or vague, depending on the context. (ie: a specific question tends to provoke a specific answer, while a vague question will provoke a vague answer.) Ultimately, neither the INTP nor the ISTP is actually more accurate in and of themselves. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes being too precise creates inaccuracy, while being too general leads to inaccurate assumptions. They’re two different approaches for trying to achieve the same thing.
Another key thing to realize here is that for someone with Si, precision is much more of a way of life. They take it home with them. They like things a specific way. They tend to have specific preferences. If they’ve done something in the past that turned out well, they usually take care to make that process repeatable. (Lower Si may struggle with this, but the desire will still be there). ISTPs, on the other hand, while they can get precise when necessary (all types can), it’s not typically something they take home with them. Se desires a wide range of experiences, generally speaking, rather than recreating very specific experiences that they enjoyed in the past. Se doesn’t desire precision, as a rule. I heard an explanation once about Ti, that basically likened it to wanting your morning eggs a very specific way and accurately recreating those eggs the same way every morning. That’s Si, not Ti. NTPs relate to that stuff. As an ISTP, I’m just happy if someone makes my eggs for me. As long as they’re not gray with pepper or burnt, I don’t really care exactly how they’re made. Free food. 🙂
In conclusion, accuracy does not always encompass precision. As usual, it’s a matter of context. Ti may desire accuracy, but that does not mean the Ti user will be extremely precise or specific in the way they relay information or do things in their daily life. This confusion or misconception is something I see often, so I’ve spent the last few days mulling over how to explain the flaw. I hope that made sense. If you have any thoughts, let me know in the comments!
Hi there, reader! If you enjoyed that article, leave us a quick comment to encourage us to keep writing. In addition, if you've found our content helpful in some way, please consider Buying Us A Coffee to support our efforts and help keep this website running. Thank you!
This was an article that needed to be written. Considering Ti in isolation has probably caused many ISTPs to mistype as INFJs. It took me a long time to figure out that I was not an Ni dominant because of this misunderstanding. Si wants to pin things down to dampen down the crazy Ne (kidding). But Ni wants to absorb what’s relevant and let Ti come up with a ‘motif’ to apply to different contexts, like a tool. Couldn’t tell you what it looks like, but it seems pretty basic.
Thank you! Honestly, I didn’t realize that ISTPs mistyping as INFJs was that common until recently. Someone else brought it to my attention as well. Your reasoning makes sense though. I can see it now that I think about it.
Great article, I want to add something about the “Intuitives are on average more likely to be into typology (or so they say).” part
Also feel free to reply if there is something wrong in the comment.
I kind of agree with this part since typology is a theory about the way people think/feel about something, therefore, it could have a “hidden meaning” in it and intuitive types, especially the Ni Types, as far as i know emphasize on understanding the “hidden meaning” of something and make a personal conclusion/interpretation based on an impression about that “hidden meaning”.
Maybe this could be the reason why typology can be misunderstood, especially with stereotypes about the types based on a personal conclusion/interpretation.
That’s pretty much it
Thank you for reading this comment
I agree that this can definitely be a contributing factor. Although, a catch (that I think about occasionally) is that since it’s common for sensors to mistype as intuitives, I do sometimes wonder how imbalanced the interest really is… meaning, to what degree intuitives are actually more interested than sensors, given the fact that the intuitive bias online provokes there to appear to more intuitives/less sensors interested than there are.
Hi Mara. Nice article. Im ISTP and agree with what you wrote. Yes that panel with Joyce did not bring out your answers well.
I often need to be precise and accurate, and sometimes i need to do this in explanation to people, answering something – but to be precise and accurate i need to firstly explain back to them what they are really asking, and then go round and round bringing in all the contributing factors, so that in the end when we reach a final conclusion, they understand exactly why i have answered as i have, and to me the ‘WHY’ is the most important, Though often they glazed over or wandered off 1 minute into the answer – lol. when faced with the need for fast answers – the ISTP is likely to be vague – not due to lack of Ti but because to be most accurate i can only answer vaguely unless you allow for the full answer.
INTP may lack the real world Se part of the explanation and appear more theoretical and the ISTP may appear less theoretical and more practical. At first, i would imagine many people taking the INTP answer as more correct but in the end i would like to think the ISTP is the better answer (I may be biased – lol)
I have – for a long time – noted that in video/audio chats – you do not get the real demonstration of Ti. You certainly explain way better in text than in video, but maybe thats just the nature of the videos so far. I might ask you to join on a video about Ti, and grab an INTP as well.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, Deon. To be honest, the over-explaining tendency that you’re describing sounds more like Si/Ne than Se/Ni to me.
That’s a very interesting article, thank you for writing it. It may bring some light on the confusion.
I’m an ISTP woman (If my study of the cognitive functions is correct) and a part time dancer and musician. As people say I’m very disciplined with my practice but when it comes to explain the way I’m doing what I do I struggle to be precise. I totally relate to the Ti + Ni process.
Your article made me think of something so here’s a personal example of what I think can be related to this difference between INTP and ISTP, Ni vs Si.
Since I was very young I’ve been into figuring out how songs are composed (Ti dominant). That’s why I play mostly by ear and on the fly learning patterns on the instruments. When I make songs I’m like obsessed with the rhythm (Related to the fact that I’m a dancer I guess) even through the words I choose to sing. For the melodies I imagine how to combine chords and notes that sound good together and envision what would be pleasant to hear related to my own past experiences with music (Auxiliary Se). I try to pick up a subject that matches the general harmonious atmosphere sometimes inspired by a current situation also using my passion for astronomy and natural disorders as symbols (Tertiary Ni). My INTP friend is also into composing and studying pieces of music (Ti dominant) but when it comes to making a song he is more like ‘What about a song that would disturb the audience, it would have like only one chord all along and then an unexpected instrumental part that would carry out the manic phase of a tortured genius trapped into a restaurant crowded with fools eating salads of bills while this man simply orders something that’s not on the menu as a symbol of escapism and let’s call it ‘Manunaka’ because it means nothing just like human existence so it will leave people wonder about this strange name as a form of escapism too, see the genius in here’ (Auxiliary Ne) . He is bothered when I’m not slapping the chords with the right precise position of my arm and fingers even though I’m correctly playing the melody, he asks me tons of questions like ‘Is that a D minor you played at the 6th measure?’ (And I’m like ‘maybe’, lol) and he likes to wait two full minutes before drinking his decaffeinated coffee making sure it is at the right temperature (Tertiary Si), lol.
For him, my way of making music is never precise enough even though the result just sounds as good as his. ‘You’re just lucky the note is correct anyway’ he keeps on saying.
We both crave for improvising even on stage and jam sessions with him are just fantastic.
I would be glad to hear from other ISTP artists/musicians, I haven’t met many so far, and it was somewhat difficult to guess my type right, especially being into this field. But many of the people I know from the artistic world don’t share my creation process so I’ve come to realize I was more of a Ti + Se. Plus sharing my creations I think is a way to deal with my inferior Fe, to deliver something from me as I’m not the most talkative person and not very at ease in the emotional realm.
I will keep on reading your articles, thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts.
Hey a fellow composer! I have Si with a Ti tertiary, so in my experience, composition gets SUPER bogged down in “trying to write the final draft on the first go”. It’s quite difficult to just slap notes down and correct them later, because the exact way said notes are slapped down opens up very specific possibilities (inferior Ne) moving forward. If I go back and change something, I’ll end up rewriting the rest of the song.
Similarly, Ti being tertiary, it’s hard for me to capture what exactly the procedure is. And to my Si chagrin, there is no “manual” for composition. Their are guides, but it’s mostly individual taste. But like you, I have observed rhythm to be the true foundation. It would bother me writing or playing music that “gets by” rather than being perfect. Mostly, it’s just the way it would be truest to my intention.
Music is really healthy for inferior Ne due to sight reading and improvisation, but they are both so intense for me. And I avoid getting better at them, honestly.
Yes! Thank you Mara for distinguishing between Ti and Si. I got hung up on an INTP mistype for so long because of the “accuracy” term. This article fascinated me; I don’t know many ISTPs but you gave great examples as to how accuracy works in a different way—almost a more functional accuracy than just nitpicking.