# Hypothesis of Ti vs Te



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

I have a hypothesis about Ti vs Te from my *own* observations. I could be wrong, so I'm looking for opinions...

Ti asks "Why?" 
Te asks "How?" 

Some examples:

A "Ti" user would want to know "Why are we doing this? Why are we here? etc" 

A "Te" user would want to know "How do we make this more efficient? How did we get here? etc" 

What do you think?


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Ti is more concerned with how something works, essentially. Te is more concerned with "how can we implement it as efficiently as possible?" 

Example: evidence in a trial. Ti: "does it prove motive?" Te: "will the jury be convinced it is solid circumstantial evidence?"


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> Ti is more concerned with how something works, essentially. Te is more concerned with "how can we implement it as efficiently as possible?"
> 
> Example: evidence in a trial. Ti: "does it prove motive?" Te: "will the jury be convinced it is solid circumstantial evidence?"


That.

I would imagine Te requires external context, similar to how Fe requires it. (?)


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Agent Blackout said:


> That.
> 
> I would imagine Te requires external context, similar to how Fe requires it. (?)


I guess. It seems more big picture oriented, and is the more pragmatic of the two thinking functions. As my extroverted function I have a propensity for identifying the fallacies in the things others say, the redundancies, etc.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> I guess. It seems more big picture oriented, and is the more pragmatic of the two thinking functions. As my extroverted function I have a propensity for identifying the fallacies in the things others say, the redundancies, etc.


Ah, I see. With Ti, I do better with inconsistencies within or between statements. Cool


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> I guess. It seems more big picture oriented, and is the more pragmatic of the two thinking functions. As my extroverted function I have a propensity for identifying the fallacies in the things others say, the redundancies, etc.


Do you find yourself asking a lot of "why" questions? You know.. like "why are we here..." "what is our purpose"

Or do you find yourself wanting to know "how"? Like "we're here, doesn't matter why, let's look at how to make something of it"


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Do you find yourself asking a lot of "why" questions? You know.. like "why are we here..." "what is our purpose"
> 
> *Or do you find yourself wanting to know "how"? Like "we're here, doesn't matter why, let's look at how to make something of it"*


The first sounds more like Ti, but not necessarily. I don't see why Te wouldn't be able to look for the purpose for something. (I think it usually does?)

The bolded could be any type... more like a mindset than a function.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Agent Blackout said:


> The first sounds more like Ti, but not necessarily. I don't see why Te wouldn't be able to look for the purpose for something. (I think it usually does?)
> 
> The bolded could be any type... more like a mindset than a function.


I don't think I'm explaining things very well. 

Umm. I know a few people who use Te (in real life not here), and they don't seem to question things as much as I do. 
When I do something, I always ask "why?" I want to understand the whole concept before I do something, it's hard for me to just do it because I was told, if I don't understand it first.

These people, that use Te, seem to do things because they are told to do it, they will do it the most efficient way, maybe, but won't need to understand the whole idea...

For example...

There's a boss, and he has two employees: Ti and Te. They're carpenters, they build houses ok?

Boss: "Hey guys, build me a house right here." 
Te: Ok, how do you want it? Brick? Siding? What type of roof? ... etc
Ti: Who is this house for? Is it for you? Why are you building it here? Why not over there? Don't you have a house already?

Does this make more sense? Am I wrong about Ti and Te? Maybe it's something else...


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I don't think I'm explaining things very well.
> 
> Umm. I know a few people who use Te (in real life not here), and they don't seem to question things as much as I do.
> When I do something, I always ask "why?" I want to understand the whole concept before I do something, it's hard for me to just do it because I was told, if I don't understand it first.
> ...


Better explanation, lol.

Yeah, I'd say that Ti part is just about right. I don't think I use Te much so I can't vouch for it, but it seems like it's about right also.

=========================

Here's my take on it (could be way wrong though, so don't hold me to it lol):

I've know Ti is good with word-choice and defining things... So I'm better at defining my thoughts and _explaining (about) _them better than I am at _expressing them directly_ with structure/order and resolving them through action, which is what I imagine Te would be doing.

I've also noticed that Fi users are good at analyzing their feelings similar to Ti does with thoughts, and they often know how to pick the right words to describe how they're feeling. I know for a fact most strong Fe-users could care less about defining their feelings and care much more about expressing them directly and resolving them through action.

That's the parallel that I imagine would be the case between them.

Thoughts?


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I have a hypothesis about Ti vs Te from my *own* observations. I could be wrong, so I'm looking for opinions...
> 
> Ti asks "Why?"
> Te asks "How?"
> ...


That's much too simplistic.
Perhaps try going at least 1 level deeper. E.g. Both Ti and Te can ask 'Why?' and 'How?' But do they have different reasons/plans/motivations for asking these questions?

Why would Ti ask 'Why'?
Why would Te ask 'Why'?

Just throwing stuff out there.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> I guess. It seems more big picture oriented, and is the more pragmatic of the two thinking functions. As my extroverted function I have a propensity for identifying the fallacies in the things others say, the redundancies, etc.


That must be quite constricting at times, afterall if you notice it in others you may notice it in yourself from time to time and stamp it out so as not to appear above your own logic.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't ask "why am I here," in a philosophical sense, like I think you mean. But, if I'm ever at work, and it's not busy, you bet your ass the first thing out of my mouth is "we don't need so many people; why am I here?"


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Worriedfunction said:


> That must be quite constricting at times, afterall if you notice it in others you may notice it in yourself from time to time and stamp it out so as not to appear above your own logic.


Yeah online I have a pretty high post/edit ratio :tongue: I'm always going back to check to make sure what I've said is consistent, if I'm responding to something like this new thread spontaneously.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Agent Blackout said:


> Better explanation, lol.
> 
> Yeah, I'd say that Ti part is just about right. I don't think I use Te much so I can't vouch for it, but it seems like it's about right also.
> 
> ...


That's a very good explanation you got there  Thanks for that, I've been trying to figure out these cognitive functions forever but theory is hard for me to understand, you made it quite easy there.

Makes a lot of sense. 

Now I understand why my sister (strong Fi) and I (strong Ti) butt heads all the time. She expresses her feelings all the time, and I try to help her with logical solutions (lol) and it only makes her mad. Where I explain to her my thoughts (like..this makes no sense) and she thinks I'm complaining therefore she thinks i'm sad or mad and tries to help me figure out my feelings (lol)... 

I argue with Te users all the time, even if I agree with what they're saying, if I ask them why they think that, the usual response is "because that's just the way it is"... or "just do it, it's more efficient" or whatever... but they seem to leave out the fact that what works for them might not work for me...

Now I understand what it means when they say "Ti does what makes sense to them"...

A fight between me and a "Te" friend:

Te: "if you don't wake up early that means you're lazy"
Ti: "why? I stay up late, so I'm up the same amount of hours as you"
Te: "your brain works better in the morning, ask doctors"
Ti: "I actually work better in the evening. That's just how I am"
Te: "That's just an excuse for your laziness"

lol. true story... only that argument went on for about an hour, needless to say no one convinced the other of anything.


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> Yeah online I have a pretty high post/edit ratio :tongue: I'm always going back to check to make sure what I've said is consistent, if I'm responding to something like this new thread spontaneously.


Im pretty much the same lol, sometimes I edit so much that when another person was replying to me they suddenly exclaim that what they were replying to has changed beyond recognition.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> That's a very good explanation you got there  Thanks for that, I've been trying to figure out these cognitive functions forever but theory is hard for me to understand, you made it quite easy there.
> 
> Makes a lot of sense.
> 
> ...


That's when, as a Ti user, you say "why do you think there is such a thing as a 'nocturnal' person, if there weren't people who operated better at night time?"

And then Te says: "Well, the reason why school and most jobs start in the morning is because generally humans operate better on that time schedule."


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Muser said:


> That's much too simplistic.
> Perhaps try going at least 1 level deeper. E.g. Both Ti and Te can ask 'Why?' and 'How?' But do they have different reasons/plans/motivations for asking these questions?
> 
> Why would Ti ask 'Why'?
> ...


I tend to oversimplify things lol. 

However, I don't remember being asked "Why are you doing this like this?" by a Te user, normally they just come at me and tell me "Here, do this, like this, like that."... If I ask why, they usually respond with "because I said so/because that's how it's done/ because it makes sense". 

Since I don't use Te, I don't know why a Te user would ask "why?" I figure they'd be too busy with the how and the giving orders and don't bother much with the questioning. hah.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I tend to oversimplify things lol.
> 
> However, I don't remember being asked "Why are you doing this like this?" by a Te user, normally they just come at me and tell me "Here, do this, like this, like that."... If I ask why, they usually respond with "because I said so/because that's how it's done/ because it makes sense".


Sounds like Si/Te. I virtually never say "just because," even though people ask me frequently why I do the things I do, if it's different from the normal way.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Te is concerned with objective (external) facts.
Ti is concerned with subjective (internal) facts.

Ti always considers the self in the equation. Why should *I*, what do *I* get out of it, how will it affect *me*. If there's no logical justification or the disadvantages outweigh the advantages a Ti user will not bother. If a tiny, albeit neat feature will take a week's work we won't do it. The amount of time spent just isn't worth what you get out of it.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> I don't ask "why am I here," in a philosophical sense, like I think you mean. But, if I'm ever at work, and it's not busy, you bet your ass the first thing out of my mouth is "we don't need so many people; why am I here?"


Ya, I was referring to the philosophical side of it. 

I read somewhere that philosophers ask "why" and scientists want to know the "how" ... well that's pretty obvious, but this is what made me wonder if it has to do with cognitive functions.

If someone said: "I built a really cool rocket ship" 
would you first wonder/say "why?" ... or "how?"


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Erbse said:


> Te is concerned with objective (external) facts.
> Ti is concerned with subjective (internal) facts.
> 
> Ti always considers the self in the equation. Why should *I*, what do *I* get out of it, how will it affect *me*. If there's no logical justification or the disadvantages outweigh the advantages a Ti user will not bother. If a tiny, albeit neat feature will take a week's work we won't do it. The amount of time spent just isn't worth what you get out of it.


Haha that makes sense. Probably why my sister thinks I'm selfish, because I always question what do I get out of this?

So can you explain Fi/Fe then?


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Ya, I was referring to the philosophical side of it.
> 
> I read somewhere that philosophers ask "why" and scientists want to know the "how" ... well that's pretty obvious, but this is what made me wonder if it has to do with cognitive functions.
> 
> ...


Yeah the first thing I'd probably do is find out what its capability is, and then see if it's worthwhile. 

If said rocket ship couldn't reach the moon, I would say "meh" and disregard it. A Ti user would probably say "that's pretty cool, it's the only rocket ship ever made that uses ____ propulsion!" whereas a Te user wouldn't be nearly as impressed with the novel invention. 

When it comes to producing these rocket ships, Te would be inclined to figure out how to supply NASA with as many of them as possible, spending the least money, while Ti would be inclined to figure out how to make them theoretically perfect.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Haha that makes sense. Probably why my sister thinks I'm selfish, because I always question what do I get out of this?
> 
> So can you explain Fi/Fe then?


They're realms completely foreign to us. You may technically get them, but never truly understand them as you can't experience them.

Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Erbse said:


> They're realms completely foreign to us. You may technically get them, but never truly understand them as *you can't experience them.*
> 
> Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


Not necessarily true.
We have _preferences_ for each function's attitude, either E/I. (per Jung)

Good link, by the way.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> Yeah the first thing I'd probably do is find out what its capability is, and then see if it's worthwhile.
> 
> If said rocket ship couldn't reach the moon, I would say "meh" and disregard it. A Ti user would probably say "that's pretty cool, it's the only rocket ship ever made that uses ____ propulsion!" whereas a Te user wouldn't be nearly as impressed with the novel invention.
> 
> *When it comes to producing these rocket ships, Te would be inclined to figure out how to supply NASA with as many of them as possible, spending the least money, while Ti would be inclined to figure out how to make them theoretically perfect.*


In the general ideas of them, yes. I feel that's just about right.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Erbse said:


> They're realms completely foreign to us. You may technically get them, but never truly understand them as you can't experience them.
> 
> Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10


Seriously? You expect me to read THAT? How much time do you think I have on my hands? And how much theory do you think I enjoy reading before I die of boredom? lol 

Nah, I appreciate the link. But I'm going to sleep cause it's 3 am


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Agent Blackout said:


> Here's my take on it (could be way wrong though, so don't hold me to it lol):
> 
> I've know Ti is good with word-choice and defining things... So I'm better at defining my thoughts and _explaining (about) _them better than I am at [*I]expressing them directly[/I] with structure/order and resolving them through action, which is what I imagine Te would be doing.*
> 
> ...


@_benr3600_ 

I can confirm what is said above about Ti/Fe, but in comparison I have little experience with Fi/Te.

As an INTJ, what do you think of the *bolded *sections?
Also, how would you assess the parallels described between Ti/Fi and Te/Fe?


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Oh, this thread reminds me...

Logical pitfalls I've noticed about Ti/Te. (not common, though I admit I've fallen for the Ti pitfall on occasion)

For Ti: Just because something _makes sense_ and is _logically consistent_, doesn't necessarily mean it's _true_.
For Te: Just because there is a _consensus _and evidence _suggesting _a conclusion, doesn't necessarily mean it's _true._

Thoughts?


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Agent Blackout said:


> Not necessarily true.
> We have _preferences_ for each function's attitude, either E/I. (per Jung)
> 
> Good link, by the way.


As Ti Dom you'll *never* make a judgment call through any other judging function than Ti. Thus you will never use Fi to make a call, and therefore will never truly understand it in its depth, as it moves within realms that are nothing short but mysterious to Ti.



Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Seriously? You expect me to read THAT? How much time do you think I have on my hands? And how much theory do you think I enjoy reading before I die of boredom? lol
> 
> Nah, I appreciate the link. But I'm going to sleep cause it's 3 am


Read introverted thinking / feeling.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Erbse said:


> As Ti Dom you'll *never* make a judgment call through any other judging function than Ti. Thus you will never use Fi to make a call, and therefore will never truly understand it in its depth, as it moves within realms that are nothing short but mysterious to Ti.


*Jung* asserted it wasn't impossible and in fact happens, but not always in complete consciousness.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Agent Blackout said:


> *Jung* asserted it wasn't impossible and in fact happens, but not always in complete consciousness.


My point remains valid then, you don't consciously experience it, and thus can't truly comprehend it - except for reading a technical manual like Jung wrote down.

Different reasoning, same result. :tongue:


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

"Jung asserted it wasn't impossible and in fact happens, but not *always *in *complete *consciousness."

Semi-conscious is possible. Fully conscious is also possible. (per *Jung*)
Statements and implications supporting this are even in the link you posted.

This isn't even my opinion. Just Jung's work, lol


----------



## Naama (Dec 5, 2010)

I think Te users are capable of asking why, even tho they dont use Ti.

Thinking tells you what something is


----------



## Muser (Jul 17, 2011)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I tend to oversimplify things lol.
> 
> However, I don't remember being asked "Why are you doing this like this?" by a Te user, normally they just come at me and tell me "Here, do this, like this, like that."... If I ask why, they usually respond with "because I said so/because that's how it's done/ because it makes sense".
> 
> Since I don't use Te, I don't know why a Te user would ask "why?" I figure they'd be too busy with the how and the giving orders and don't bother much with the questioning. hah.


Nah, wasn't accusing you or anything. Oversimplification happens a lot here.

Hmm...I don't know about Te-users and when/why they ask 'Why?' but as a Ti-user, I _do_ know that I ask 'How?' a lot.
When I ask 'How?', it's usually to find out the nitty gritty of why something is the way it is, which helps me understand the system/theory/reasoning of it better. 
Hmm...perhaps for Ti-users, 'How?' (and other questions) _is_ a means to 'Why?' with the latter being the overarching question for us.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Agent Blackout said:


> Oh, this thread reminds me...
> 
> Logical pitfalls I've noticed about Ti/Te. (not common, though I admit I've fallen for the Ti pitfall on occasion)
> 
> ...


Oh ya, for sure. I tend to do that all the time, I always think my logic is truth. 
And yup on Te also, noticed that too about Te users.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Agent Blackout said:


> @_benr3600_
> 
> I can confirm what is said above about Ti/Fe, but in comparison I have little experience with Fi/Te.
> 
> ...


The part about Te I agree with. I'm not sure about the Fi part. I often have difficulty finding the correct word to describe my feelings with.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Erbse said:


> As Ti Dom you'll *never* make a judgment call through any other judging function than Ti. Thus you will never use Fi to make a call, and therefore will never truly understand it in its depth, as it moves within realms that are nothing short but mysterious to Ti.


I thought we use all the functions at some point, if we're stressed, or around other people a lot with the opposite functions, etc...

For example, I live with my sister who's an INFP, she uses Fi/Ne and I use Ti/Se naturally, but I found myself making Fi judgment calls and I noticed my sister picking up on my Ti and her using that more.
I could be wrong and not understanding the whole function thing....

But, even when I'm stressed out, I use Te a lot. Sometimes I use Fe... etc

So I don't know if you're right or I'm right... I'll read up on this when I get a chance, if you read up on it before me, give me a link please. Thanks.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> The part about Te I agree with. I'm not sure about the Fi part. I often have difficulty finding the correct word to describe my feelings with.


Maybe because your Fi is tertiary? 

I only know one Fi dom (who I live with), and she can describe her feelings really well. She's INFP so she uses Fi/Ne. Her feelings are connected to ideas, more so then the actual reality of things. She will get excited over an idea or sad over an idea, but she barely acknowledges what is ACTUALLY going on... ) It's quite funny to watch.

You have Ni/Te as your dom and aux so I'd suspect you use those the most. I wonder what THAT combination looks like in real life...


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I have a hypothesis about Ti vs Te from my *own* observations. I could be wrong, so I'm looking for opinions...
> 
> Ti asks "Why?"
> Te asks "How?"
> ...


I had a friend who always insisted on knowing why the mathematical formulas worked -- I was only interested in making it function in different ways. We'd sit and the teacher would explain from the very basics to the complex and that's where it all made sense to him. I see it more like:

Ti - slow, small and deep. 

Te - Fast, wide and broad.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

Lunarprox said:


> I had a friend who always insisted on knowing why the mathematical formulas worked -- I was only interested in making it function in different ways. We'd sit and the teacher would explain from the very basics to the complex and that's where it all made sense to him. I see it more like:
> 
> Ti - slow, small and deep.
> 
> Te - Fast, wide and broad.


lol funny pic.

Ya, sorta like Ti trying to understand why something works the way it does, and Te wanting to know how to apply it, right?
That's what I meant by Ti = why, Te = how... (yes i know, i oversimplified it. hehe)


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Lunarprox said:


> I had a friend who always insisted on knowing why the mathematical formulas worked -- I was only interested in making it function in different ways. We'd sit and the teacher would explain from the very basics to the complex and that's where it all made sense to him. I see it more like:
> 
> *Ti - slow, small and deep.
> 
> Te - Fast, wide and broad. *


No, no... 

I'd say it's more like this:

*Te* *vs.**Ti* 
No-nonsense vs. Belabored
Marshaling vs. Analytical
Organizing vs. Piercing
Expediency vs. Integrity
Dominance vs. Justice
Pursuing goals without reflecting vs. Reflecting without pursuing goals​ 

Take a look at this for more info. Lemme know what you think.
Jungian Functions, at-a-glance


----------



## Ayia (Feb 27, 2012)

Agent Blackout said:


> No, no...
> 
> I'd say it's more like this:
> 
> ...


The Ti vs Te seems a bit biased... and by a bit I mean hughely.


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Runa said:


> The Ti vs Te seems a bit biased... and by a bit I mean hughely.


It's very oversimplified, lol
Can't speak for Te, but I think the Ti is about right


----------



## George Glass (May 4, 2012)

Ti is deductive logic (general to specific), and Te is inductive logic (specific to general)


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

Agent Blackout said:


> No, no...
> 
> I'd say it's more like this:
> 
> ...


The list probably goes on if you're intending to compare them thoroughly, I was only contrasting and oversimplifying the very general bits


----------



## Agent Blackout (Mar 1, 2012)

Lunarprox said:


> The list probably goes on if you're intending to compare them thoroughly, I was only contrasting and oversimplifying the very general bits


Wordd. Gotcha, lol


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Te seeks purpose. Ti seeks understanding.


----------



## Cheesecoffee (Mar 22, 2012)

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> I have a hypothesis about Ti vs Te from my *own* observations. I could be wrong, so I'm looking for opinions...
> 
> Ti asks "Why?"
> Te asks "How?"
> ...


I think you have it figured out in the opposite order


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Cheesecoffee said:


> I think you have it figured out in the opposite order


I do both. At least "Why are we doing this?" "How do we make this more efficient?"

When I ask why, I want to understand the details of the current context so that I can insert my mental focus into the center of the 'problem'. It will help me to assess if I already have models that I can apply, tweak, or if I need to devise a new one. Then I will ask how, because I want to either tweak or devise a new model to streamline process of achieving the goal.

I think when Te asks why, they are more concerned about the end result than the current context. I think when Te asks how, it is for procedural reasons.


----------

