# Does Te lead to flawed logic?



## Jmm124567 (May 20, 2014)

What I have noticed is that Te is more like black and white thinking and this type of thinking is considered a "cognitive distortion" so I am wondering if it is common for Te to lead to flawed logic? Te is more detail oriented and narrow minded. Te analyzes things from a more narrow point of view whereas Ti see's the bigger picture leading it to see things that Te doesn't see giving it a more accurate analysis.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

I would guess that any function can lead to flawed logic. Perhaps one question to ask is whether a given situation calls for more nuance or more decisiveness.


----------



## Jmm124567 (May 20, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> I would guess that any function can lead to flawed logic. Perhaps one question to ask is whether a given situation calls for more nuance or more decisiveness.


I see Te as being good for making observations basically what the "scientific method" is but I think Te is poorer at problem solving because it misses the bigger picture. I think when looking at statistics Ti is better at connecting multiple different statistics together to come up with a total picture of something.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Jmm124567 said:


> I see Te as being good for making observations basically what the "scientific method" is but I think Te is poorer at problem solving because it misses the bigger picture. I think when looking at statistics Ti is better at connecting multiple different statistics together to come up with a total picture of something.


Hmm... Maybe Te lacks a COMPLETE picture because it misses DETAILS. I think of Te as in fact seeing "the bigger picture."


----------



## haephestia (May 13, 2013)

Jmm124567 said:


> I see Te as being good for making observations basically what the "scientific method" is but I think Te is poorer at problem solving because it misses the bigger picture. I think when looking at statistics Ti is better at connecting multiple different statistics together to come up with a total picture of something.


You're talking like either function is capable of going beyond sorting information the way it likes without using other accessory functions. Both are useless without something to back them up. Te without Ni or Si is black and white as fuck, and can fall flat when trying to problem solve. Ti without Ne or Se is great at connecting information.... as long as it's actually able to _get it in there_.

One isn't better or worse, or more prone to particular flaws in logic than the other. It's entirely dependent on personality and personal preference.


----------



## Jmm124567 (May 20, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> Hmm... Maybe Te lacks a COMPLETE picture because it misses DETAILS. I think of Te as in fact seeing "the bigger picture."


I think you may have it backwards. I was under the assumption that detail oriented meant that you focus so much on a little detail that you miss the bigger picture and basically your thinking is more narrow. You know the saying "seeing the tree's but not the forest." Big picture thinkers see connections between things they "connect the dots." Te is considered "left brained" and the left brain is detail oriented while Ti is "right brained" and the right brain is big picture oriented.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Jmm124567 said:


> I see Te as being good for making observations basically what the "scientific method" is but I think Te is poorer at problem solving because it misses the bigger picture. I think when looking at statistics Ti is better at connecting multiple different statistics together to come up with a total picture of something.



You "see" Te as being good at making observations, but as missing the bigger picture. In the words of Te, what examples, sources, and/or evidence do you have to support this claim, and if nothing what makes your claim itself logical? 

There is no mention in Jung or any other credible function resource that claims Te is poor at problem solving, or poorer at problem solving than Ti.


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Te take pieces of data that are relevant and modell after that. Doesnt care at all the underlying reasons. So yes, they might make logic errors if the modell works and give correct answers. I do not associate Te with logic at all, just what gives good results with minimal work done. Logic is a more foundation working process which takes loads of reflection and subjective thinking.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

It is because it is paired with Fi. Ti-Fe try to balance between themselves. It is like a funnel. The objective outside is deconstructed and compared with Ti. Fe is an objective judging function. Ti also has system. Fi has no system. Te does. Ti-Fe can check each other. Te-Fi can't.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It is because it is paired with Fi. Ti-Fe try to balance between themselves. It is like a funnel. The objective outside is deconstructed and compared with Ti. Fe is an objective judging function. Ti also has system. Ti-Fe create a triangulation. Fi has no system. Te does. Ti-Fe can check each other. Te-Fi can't.


What are you even talking about? Te is an objective judging function. That's the definition of an extroverted judging function. Both judging axes serve the same purpose.

The only meaningful behavioral distinction between Ti and Te use is more or less reflected in quadra values -- Ti-Fe tends towards rationalist thought, more interested in the underlying logic of a system given its premises, but at the same time tends to err by becoming oblivious and indifferent to factual accuracy, sacrificing it for internal consistency. This is most noticeable in Ti dominants, whose most common mistakes involve building elaborate logic systems without empirical input, which make sense on their own terms but become increasingly divorced from reality. A good example of Ti leading to absurd conclusions can be seen in the OP of this thread, in which the Ti dominant OP's method for understanding "charisma" quickly becomes nonsensical because it fails to use observation to test validity, failing to look at what people actually _mean_ when they use the word "charisma". Instead, he overlies on what follows from his own definition of charisma, a classic Ti weakness.

The other axis, Te-Fi, tends to have an empiricist bias, disinterested in the internal logic of things, instead trying to see what follows from observable reality and building conclusions from the facts at hand. Where Ti-Fe is more or less indifferent to facts, instead preferring what makes "sense", Te-Fi distrusts elaborate schemes and instead prefers facts. Rather than caring about what makes "sense" given a set of premises, the Gamma and Delta quadras prefer what can reasonably follow from the established facts. There's a reason Jung considered the Si-Te pairing, or in Socionics terms the Delta quadra, the standard cognitive orientation of a scientist.

Case law is a classic example of a Ti school of thought. Descriptive science, such as botany or zoology, is the Te analogue.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Zamyatin said:


> What are you even talking about? Te is an objective judging function. That's the definition of an extroverted judging function. Both judging axes serve the same purpose.
> 
> The only meaningful behavioral distinction between Ti and Te use is more or less reflected in quadra values -- Ti-Fe tends towards rationalist thought, more interested in the underlying logic of a system given its premises, but at the same time tends to err by becoming oblivious and indifferent to factual accuracy, sacrificing it for internal consistency. This is most noticeable in Ti dominants, whose most common mistakes involve building elaborate logic systems without empirical input, which make sense on their own terms but become increasingly divorced from reality. A good example of Ti leading to absurd conclusions can be seen in the OP of this thread, in which the Ti dominant OP's method for understanding "charisma" quickly becomes nonsensical because it fails to use observation to test validity, failing to look at what people actually _mean_ when they use the word "charisma". Instead, he overlies on what follows from his own definition of charisma, a classic Ti weakness.
> 
> ...


Ti is more objective than Fi. I know what you are talking about with Ti doms. But Ti doms have their logic systemized. Their logic is consistent, it is just incomplete, because it ignores reality. It is still logical. It is consistent within their own system, and they explain their logic. Ti has a framework for everyone to see, and they can communicate it. Fi is not so structured or systematic. Ti-Fe has greater specificity with each other. They are more distinct, and are easier to bring together. 

Fi can do that too. Because it is subjective, and dug in. It has its initial premise it won't move on, and will go round and round trying to justify it. I think that OP in the other thread could be using a feeling judgement to come to his premise. It can't be changed by objectivity.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Ti is more objective than Fi. I know what you are talking about with Ti doms. But Ti doms have their logic systemized. Their logic is consistent, it is just incomplete, because it ignores reality. It is still logical. It is consistent within their own system, and they explain their logic. Ti has a framework for everyone to see, and they can communicate it. Fi is not so structured or systematic. Ti-Fe has greater specificity with each other. They are more distinct, and are easier to bring together.
> 
> Fi can do that too. Because it is subjective, and dug in. It has its initial premise it won't move on, and will go round and round trying to justify it. I think that OP in the other thread could be using a feeling judgement to come to his premise. It can't be changed by objectivity.


Ti is more objective than Fi, really ? Subjective is subjective, there isn't such thing as a little subjective. Both of these functions are subjective by nature, however this doesn't = it can't also be logical. Both functions are logical to the user, they place this logic on how they deem it to be correct for them personally. Fi is also very consistent and also ignores reality, also consistent what personally fits their inner model Fi- Ti. Like Ti it doesn't give much weight to the object ( or outside stimula ), it is detached from the external, their findings only have to make sense to them internally, like Ti. Ti does have a framework, however not everyone CAN see it. Ti doesn't see the bigger picture like Te, it takes in data and only uses what fits their model personally, subjectively, like Fi.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Jmm124567 said:


> What I have noticed is that Te is more like black and white thinking and this type of thinking is considered a "cognitive distortion" so I am wondering if it is common for Te to lead to flawed logic? Te is more detail oriented and narrow minded. Te analyzes things from a more narrow point of view whereas Ti see's the bigger picture leading it to see things that Te doesn't see giving it a more accurate analysis.


I would agree that Te is black and white, only in the end result though. Te sees all angles and possibilities, however it hates details because all the pesty details aren't relevant to the end result. Te sees the bigger picture, this is exactly why it eliminates the details, as it doesn't change its conclusion. Te isn't flawed, it is consistent with finding the facts to back up what it sees, everything else is generally dismissed because it doesn't change what is objectively clear. Te doesn't analysis in terms of what could be, that would be Ti. Te doesn't beat around the bush, it is clear, direct, sources can be backed up through facts and evidence. Fi is all about analysis, you maybe confusing Fi for Te.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Ti is more objective than Fi.


Ti is _not_ objective. _At all._ It is a subjective, individualized function. Introverted judging functions effectively decide "how does this matter to me?" An Fi user answers that question by saying "this matters to me because of the way I feel about it", while Ti users answer that question by saying "this matters to me because it makes sense". But they are _both_ answering the same question of how things matter to the individual.

Conversely, the extroverted judging functions answer the question "how should things be?", which Fe answers by saying "things should be the way that feels right to me", and Te answers by saying "things should be the way that makes sense to me". That's what's meant by "objective" -- they relate to the external world, the object, how one organizes the external environment. They do draw off of their Ji counterparts, but not in any sort of "check each other" relationship. If anything, Ji simply tells Je what to do. Since Ji answers the question of how something relates to the individual, Je's purpose is simply to put that into action. Fi says "this matters to me because of the way I feel about it", and Te then says "ok, then since this matters to me because of how I feel about it, let's arrange the environment in the most logical way to bring union with that." Ti says "this matters because it makes sense", and then Fe says "ok, then since this matters to me because of how it makes sense, let's arrange the environment in the way that I would feel good about".

In a sense, the interplay between Ji and Je is an attempt to bring union between the internal and external worlds. That's all. 

The OP of that thread was a good example of Ti-Fe. Let me summarize his argument.

Premise 1: Charisma is force of character/sense of purpose/etc. (A)
Premise 2: (implied, but not explicitly expressed): These traits are Fi specific. (If A, then B)
Conclusion: Charisma is only possible if Fi is a valued function (A, therefore B)
Correlate: If you do not have Fi, you cannot have charisma. (Not B implies not A)

It's a straightforward example of transposition, and it's perfectly logical. However, as is obvious to most people who have any social experience whatsoever, premise 2 is not valid, and unfortunately he doesn't attempt to validate his premises by checking back on observation. Instead, when challenged on the validity of premise 2, he doubles down on his definition, drawing a distinction between "charm" and "charisma" in an attempt to buffer his premises by adjusting his definitions.

Fe does nothing to "triangulate" this. It doesn't really play into it at all. Fe, like all Je, simply implements what Ji believes has value. Nothing more.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Ti is more objective than Fi. I know what you are talking about with Ti doms. But Ti doms have their logic systemized. Their logic is consistent, it is just incomplete, because it ignores reality. It is still logical. It is consistent within their own system, and they explain their logic. Ti has a framework for everyone to see, and they can communicate it. Fi is not so structured or systematic. Ti-Fe has greater specificity with each other. They are more distinct, and are easier to bring together.
> 
> Fi can do that too. Because it is subjective, and dug in. It has its initial premise it won't move on, and will go round and round trying to justify it. I think that OP in the other thread could be using a feeling judgement to come to his premise. It can't be changed by objectivity.



Why is Ti "more objective" than Fi? 

You said their logic is consistent, but incomplete and ignores reality. If someone ignores reality, to me, they are not objective. I agree with you that they are logical, and that in turn Ti is logical. But Ti is not both objective and logical while Fi is neither, nor is the "i" in Ti meaningless or any less indicative of subjectivity than it is in Fi. 

Next time you interact with a Ti dom, notice how they _also_ have things they won't move on. That is the reason they are noted as being "more precise" within systems as they are intended to work than Te people are. They base their worldview on assessments that work entirely within their own structure, as you imply - but that makes them just as subjective and dug in as Fi doms, just within a different function.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

lol objective and subjective have different meanings and contexts. I think you guys are conflating them. 


Feeling is always subjective in that it is biased towards feelings. Fe is objective in that the feelings are based on the object's standards or external factors. Fi is subjective in that the feelings are based on the subject's standards or internal factors. Fi is also objective in that "the more abstract it is is, the more universal and objective the value will be." 

Thinking is always objective in that it is unbiased by feelings. It is dependent upon logic, cause and effect, this causes that. The criteria by which Thinking determines its conclusions are based on the object's standards and external factors or the subject's standards and internal factors. The latter being Ti. Ti will also be objective the more abstract and universal it is.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

I bet inferior Te can easily lead to flawed logic.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Jmm124567 said:


> I think you may have it backwards. I was under the assumption that detail oriented meant that you focus so much on a little detail that you miss the bigger picture and basically your thinking is more narrow. You know the saying "seeing the tree's but not the forest." Big picture thinkers see connections between things they "connect the dots." Te is considered "left brained" and the left brain is detail oriented while Ti is "right brained" and the right brain is big picture oriented.


Though, isn't it either seeing the big picture from the details (Te) or details from the big picture (Ti)? It's not about being hooked on on small details or the big picture, it's which point you start and end at since they ultimately review the same information, just either from the inside out or outside in.


----------



## Dastan (Sep 28, 2011)

Kavik said:


> Though, isn't it either seeing the big picture from the details (Te) or details from the big picture (Ti). It's not about being hooked on on small details or the big picture, it's which point you start and end at since they ultimately review the same information, just either from the inside out or outside in.


I guess all that detail vs. big picture is not very useful in the case of thinking. Thinking is not like a painting in which the big picture directly consists of the details. In thought, especially when abstract and language-based, everything points or leads to each other and doesn't consist of each other. You don't have to look at all details at the same time to get the whole thing but rather follow a sequence of details that lead to there. The information that represents the bigger picture is not 'big' itself but it has a many meaningful connections that lead somewhre else again.

For example: a pragmatic and a theoretically inclined person are planning some travel. The theoretical one gets distracted by something that leads him to think about world history while the other one wants to get the current task done. One could easily say that the distraction is a detail and the current task is the big picture or context even though thematically the distraction is about something very general.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Dastan said:


> I guess all that detail vs. big picture is not very useful in the case of thinking. Thinking is not like a painting in which the big picture directly consists of the details. In thought, especially when abstract and language-based, everything points or leads to each other and doesn't consist of each other. You don't have to look at all details at the same time to get the whole thing but rather follow a sequence of details that lead to there. The information that represents the bigger picture is not 'big' itself but it has a many meaningful connections that lead somewhre else again.
> 
> For example: a pragmatic and a theoretically inclined person are planning some travel. The theoretical one gets distracted by something that leads him to think about world history while the other one wants to get the current task done. One could easily say that the distraction is a detail and the current task is the big picture or context even though thematically the distraction is about something very general.


Sounds like you're including Ni and Ne here. I would say all thinking functions have preferred paths since there are many ways to start and many directions to go when analyzing information. In the end all the information can be connected or linked back in some way to details or the big picture. Conflicts arise between thinking types when they can't figure out where the other started or which path they took to reach their conclusion. The paths themselves aren't straight and narrow and have many converging and/or diverging branches from other paths, adding to the difficulty of understanding.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Yes, but it gets things done.


----------



## ConsciousIllusion (Feb 12, 2015)

The universe is binary, emulating ternary in some instances.

Says an ENTJ programmer.


----------

