# You Know You're Using Te When...



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

WSidis said:


> Indeed... ya'll like your lists...


I think this is absolutely true for all Te users. While Ni+Te may not particularly be a fan of making to-do lists, schedules, etc. -- I'm sure we all have our own ways of materializing and storing thoughts/facts/plans. 

For instance, I have pages of self-notes of my long-term plan for the next 7 years, with drawings, diagrams, facts, figures, things I want to remember & reference to later.

Similarly, whenever I come up with an interesting thought or a new strategy I like to write it down (I have separate notebooks for each of these). Something about forcing myself to put it into tangible words fires off that transition from an Ni idea to a practical Te method.

Cool stuff.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

When you saw all of these CF threads, figured they would spread misinformation, and went around posting in them trollingly to get Thanks anyway =P


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

> Originally Posted by WSidis
> 1. You like to make lists.
> 
> 2. You like to make lists.
> ...





L'Empereur said:


> You put "You like to make lists" twice. :dry:




........... How... _terribly_... inefficient of him *steeples hands under chin and slides back into shadowy profile view*


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

You know you use Te when words such as "probably, maybe, kind of, sorta" aren't in your vocabulary.

You know you use Te when in a group scenario the bedazzled and dumbfounded approaches of the others in your group irritate you like no tomorrow and have you laying your foot down in about 5 seconds.

You know you use Te when "I've heard this product is pretty good", "People have told me this is a good way", and other such socialpass-ons have little value to you until you have the facts lain down before you.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> You know you use Te when words such as "probably, maybe, kind of, sorta" aren't in your vocabulary.


Woa, that's funny, because these are like the dominant words in my vocabulary, although the "probably" line of thinking likely comes from dominant Ni, which is strong with probabilistic reasoning.


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Woa, that's funny, because these are like the dominant words in my vocabulary, although the "probably" line of thinking likely comes from dominant Ni, which is strong with probabilistic reasoning.


I was referring to the thinking/expressing pattern. It's certainly more definite and concluded than the thinking of an INFP, for example. Similarly, it's more succinct and cutting. 

The reason is because Ne enjoys thinking out loud, exploring ideas with the group to get to a final understanding, so they're more likely to speak in indefinites. 

Whereas Ni draws conclusions on its own. Perhaps, internally, your thinking process is like that (I can identify with that), but upon expression Te users are more likely to have a 1 or 0 approach; "I either completely know or I don't know at all". Would you agree?


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Lol Dictator said:


> For instance, I have pages of self-notes of my long-term plan for the next 7 years, with drawings, diagrams, facts, figures, things I want to remember & reference to later.


That sounds... terrifying. The world of Te is like another planet...


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Lol Dictator said:


> I was referring to the thinking/expressing pattern. It's certainly more definite and concluded than the thinking of an INFP, for example. Similarly, it's more succinct and cutting.
> 
> The reason is because Ne enjoys thinking out loud, exploring ideas with the group to get to a final understanding, so they're *more likely* to speak in indefinites.
> 
> Whereas Ni draws conclusions on its own. *Perhaps*, internally, your thinking process is like that (I can identify with that), but upon expression Te users are *more likely* to have a 1 or 0 approach; "I either completely know or I don't know at all". Would you agree?


aha! 

(you know you're a Te user when you think the 10 character limit results in the contribution of extraneous fluff text)


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

You know you use Te when you find yourself living life as a game of trial & error, cutting out the sources of error without a second thought.


----------



## dollybones_90 (Jan 22, 2012)

I don't fully understand the difference between Te and Ti. I'm an INFP, yet seem to use A LOT of Ti. Maybe its my evil Te shadow.

-You despise shitty analogies. People compare two things and you tell them that's like comparing apples and oranges, because IT IS
-You compulsively note how certain things could be done in a much more efficient matter, but don't want to come on too strong
-You tell people what to do instead of doing it yourself. You like to "manage" (that's my ESTJ dad, not me)


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

dollybones_90 said:


> I don't fully understand the difference between Te and Ti. I'm an INFP, yet seem to use A LOT of Ti. Maybe its my evil Te shadow.
> 
> -You despise shitty analogies. People compare two things and you tell them that's like comparing apples and oranges, because IT IS
> -You compulsively note how certain things could be done in a much more efficient matter, but don't want to come on too strong
> -You tell people what to do instead of doing it yourself. You like to "manage" (that's my ESTJ dad, not me)


You're forgetting that Te is a logic function - it's more of a logic synthesis function (connecting logical ideas naturally), while Ti is a logical analysis function (breaking down logic to it's most fundamental form - for instance, they tend to hyperfixate on defining words in a technical way, while Te types tend to just logically connect whatever someone said to something else to define the logic). If you're an INFP, you're probably mistaking Te for Ti, since Ti should be your last function.


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

dollybones_90 said:


> I don't fully understand the difference between Te and Ti. I'm an INFP, yet seem to use A LOT of Ti. Maybe its my evil Te shadow.
> 
> -You despise shitty analogies. People compare two things and you tell them that's like comparing apples and oranges, because IT IS
> -You compulsively note how certain things could be done in a much more efficient matter, but don't want to come on too strong
> -You tell people what to do instead of doing it yourself. You like to "manage" (that's my ESTJ dad, not me)


You're somewhat on. Cut out the "but don't want to come on too strong" and the "instead of doing it yourself".

Te thinks more along the lines of "We can finish this faster and better if we include as many competent people in the process".


----------



## paper lilies (Dec 6, 2011)

You are constantly making pro-con lists (or lists of any kind).
You need your plan to _work_ and that's the bottom line.
You say "no" to someone's idea simply because it will not work.
People tell you that your voice sounds angry and loud and it's actually the natural tone of your voice.


----------



## Fiori (Nov 16, 2011)

_There's no point in arguing about this, just let me explain why you're wrong. First of all... secondly... *proceeds to argue.*_


Happened in a conversation today. Te or just obnoxiousness on my part? :0


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

Fiori said:


> _There's no point in arguing about this, just let me explain why you're wrong. First of all... secondly... *proceeds to argue*_
> 
> 
> Happened in a conversation today. Te or just obnoxiousness on my part? :0


It's difficult to classify forms of communication which are somewhat standard into a particular cognitive function -- anyone could decide to 'try it out', if you know what I'm pointing at.

That said, I do that almost every day.


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

Fiori said:


> _There's no point in arguing about this, just let me explain why you're wrong. First of all... secondly... *proceeds to argue*_
> 
> 
> Happened in a conversation today. Te or just obnoxiousness on my part? :0


It's difficult to classify forms of communication which are somewhat standard into a particular cognitive function -- anyone could decide to 'try it out', if you know what I'm pointing at.

That said, I do that almost every day.


----------



## Fiori (Nov 16, 2011)

AbioticPrime said:


> It's difficult to classify forms of communication which are somewhat standard into a particular cognitive function -- anyone could decide to 'try it out', if you know what I'm pointing at.
> 
> That said, I do that almost every day.


Ah, yeah I see! It could be environmental too, speech patterns and whatnot are catching.
I suppose it depends on how comfortable you are in expressing yourself in different ways... but more importantly, how you think.


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

AbioticPrime said:


> It's difficult to classify forms of communication which are somewhat standard into a particular cognitive function -- anyone could decide to 'try it out', if you know what I'm pointing at.
> 
> That said, I do that almost every day.


Could you outline the major differences between Ti and Te? It seems like you know a lot about Te, most people who look for this thread are curious what kind of thinkers they are. Mm ?


----------



## AbioticPrime (Sep 1, 2011)

NeonSyph3 said:


> Could you outline the major differences between Ti and Te? It seems like you know a lot about Te, most people who look for this thread are curious what kind of thinkers they are. Mm ?


You're in for a treat, I just got done typing this to someone after reading some Jung:



> Introverted thinking forms hunches or 'primordial images' subconsciously and then tries to bring those hunches to reality, not based on many facts. It then gathers facts to try to support that image, to try to give birth to it I guess you could say. They're more so slaves to their theories so they can be viewed as fairly unbending when faced with a reality which differs from their viewpoint.
> 
> Extraverted thinking however revolves around seeing all the facts first, then coming to a conclusion about those facts. It's more dynamic in that it's freely willing to change it's viewpoint in accordance to the acquisition of new facts. They're more so slaves to objective reality, so they can be viewed as upholders of evident truth. They're generally more willing to bend as long as that's what the raw facts indicate, and will be unbending when someone argues a point which challenges the raw facts.
> 
> So one starts with a subjective spark and brings it to reality. The other stays in reality and synthesizes/resynthesizes their understanding of it.


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

AbioticPrime said:


> You're in for a treat, I just got done typing this to someone after reading some Jung:


Ohhh -- splendid! Anything else to add?


----------

