# A couple of things on Te and how Te is extroverted



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Except I gave several practical examples of how they infer the specific reasoning process. I am not sure how that's difficult to comprehend, but ok? I am not even focused on the action, but the logic behind it. Also, your character accusation is petty and unwarranted and is extremely far from how I conceptualize things.
> 
> 
> I never excluded Fe to feel about values though, but usually, Fe isn't so much about say, right/wrong to the person in question (that's more Ti), so when Fe types feel, they often feel with people.
> ...


I am just trying to help everyone achieve understanding. Mixing Socionics, MBTI, Jung and Enneagram will not achieve that. In fact, the way you do this is more akin to Ti way of breaking down and rebuilding from the ground up. Just saying.

Don't mix things. Just trust Jung and several others. People who knew their job. And weren't in this for money's sake(like oh so many modern psychologists in lieu of MBTI).

Besides, holding grudges and attacking ad hominem doesn't really picture you in the best light(no matter how big fan club you've garnered here). See, I understand everything. So, no big deal.

Back, to the topic...what's the latest update?


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Ixim said:


> In fact, *the way you do this is more akin to Ti way of breaking down and rebuilding from the ground up*. Just saying.


This is exactly what went through my mind.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> @_Entropic_ ;
> 
> **cracks joints**
> 
> ...


Love your references to Muhtesem. That was an example of how to do a show. Still, the gowns did have too much cleavage...it's just innacurate(ok, then the girls should've been 80% naked...twist my tongue).

Anyhow, Si and Ti can be similar in their OCD ways and ONLY in that. They both have a penchant for tidyness and for order in the physical sense. It's just that Si has a tendency to arrange it like that because it's pleasing to him when he sees things arranged like that. Ti, otoh, builds mental structures, strict bodies of how things should be. The books, spoons etc, are not arranged as they are because of their pleasant aesthetic or because of efficiency(easy to grab a spoon or whatever). It's because in mind of a Ti dom, it simply MUST look like that because the right portion of a ladder is labeled as "spoon place". I could demonstrate this quite nicely with a screenshot of Campaign Editor of StarCraft:









See those locations(blue boxes)? That's how Ti mind thinks. The right part of a ladder is literally a big blue box with a title "SPOONS".

etc etc

They may come to similar results, but on wildly different ways.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Love your references to Muhtesem. That was an example of how to do a show. Still, the gowns did have too much cleavage...it's just innacurate(ok, then the girls should've been 80% naked...twist my tongue).


I agree with that! Overall, it was a great show. I wept uncontrollably when Hürrem died.. even if others were praying for her death (I can be quite immersed emotionally in the shows I like).



> Anyhow, Si and Ti can be similar in their OCD ways and ONLY in that. They both have a penchant for tidyness and for order in the physical sense. It's just that Si has a tendency to arrange it like that because it's pleasing to him when he sees things arranged like that. Ti, otoh, builds mental structures, strict bodies of how things should be. The books, spoons etc, are not arranged as they are because of their pleasant aesthetic or because of efficiency(easy to grab a spoon or whatever). It's because in mind of a Ti dom, it simply MUST look like that because the right portion of a ladder is labeled as "spoon place".


Agreed. If we compare them individually by their principles, they can be quite similar. It's when you see them work with other functions that you see how they manifest differently: for example, main or aux Ti is accompanied by main or aux Ne/Se, theoretically it would imply Ti types aren't much about rigidness but more about "accommodation" (this ties with the concept of Fe and harmony btw). On the other hand main/aux Si is accompanied by main or aux Fe/Te, implying Si users, despite being (introverted) perceivers, are more likely to adopt an order based either on the scope of its values (Fe, people) or rules (Te, objects).



> I could demonstrate this quite nicely with a screenshot of Campaign Editor of StarCraft:
> 
> View attachment 491538
> 
> ...


I see that. It's creating its own little system.



> They may come to similar results, but on wildly different ways.


Agreed!


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Entropic said:


> Fundamentally, to Ti, that 2 is a result of 1+1 isn't nearly as interesting as to why 1+1 equals 2 as in, what is the logical cause-effect between the number 1 when paired with the + sign that leads to the result of 2? To Te, that 1+1=2 isn't so interesting as much as it is interesting to understand what we can do with the result of 2. We could fundamentally replace 1 with anything else if we still accomplish number 2 and it is number 2 that we want.


I think there were a couple of wording issues (and real world examples always run the risk of slipping into the grey area between cognition and behaviour, which could be an issue), but this bit is very good and describes the differences between Ti and Te clearly.


----------



## NiDBiLD (Apr 1, 2010)

Entropic said:


> Fundamentally, to Ti, that 2 is a result of 1+1 isn't nearly as interesting as to why 1+1 equals 2 as in, what is the logical cause-effect between the number 1 when paired with the + sign that leads to the result of 2?


Just to be nitpicky here: There is no cause and effect in place, because "=" doesn't signify a process. It just means _"is the same as".

_1 and 1 doesn't _become _2 when paired with a +. 1 and 1 _is the same as _2, regardless of the time dimension.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

NiDBiLD said:


> Just to be nitpicky here: There is no cause and effect in place, because "=" doesn't signify a process. It just means _"is the same as".
> 
> _1 and 1 doesn't _become _2 when paired with a +. 1 and 1 _is the same as _2, regardless of the time dimension.


And yet the effect of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple causes the bowl to contain two apples. 

Otherwise, what if the equation were 1 + 2 = 2? Is it still the same? Is there a process for comparing?


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

@PaladinX



> And yet the effect of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple causes the bowl to contain two apples.


That's exactly what @NiDBiLD said. 1 and 1 is already 2, it doesn't need the plus sign for validation.



> Otherwise, what if the equation were 1 + 2 = 2? Is it still the same? Is there a process for comparing?


If you had a bowl with 2 apples and you add 1 more, would it still be 2? ...


----------



## SevSevens (Aug 5, 2015)

Te is a decision making function. It is used to make decisions. If you are merely observing objective data like numbers in an excel sheet, that is SE.

But if you are using that data to make a decision, that is TE.

Now if you make a decision according to an external framework, i.e. and accounting decision based on generally accepted accounting principles, that is TE and SE used in conjunction to make a decision...SE is taking the data in and TE is using it to make a choice based on external inherited, objective guidelines...like the principles of physics.

TI on the other hand is making decisions based on a subjective framework. Sometimes the subjective framework is more true to reality than the objective framework. For example, to make a choice based on the world being flat circa 1300's and earlier would be an objective decision. But if you made a choice based on the world being round, that would have been subjective.

What is objective and subjective is not what is real or not real. What is objective is not necessarily reality...it is what i sconsidered reality, but never reality itself.

Many people get confused over what is quite simple. If i make a decision based on a framework in my mind, for example, I have a framework that every time i hide a cheetoh from you, you get angry, and I want to make you angry, so I hide the cheetoh from you...that is subjective reasoning because it involves your relative and subjective relationships, your personal experience. There is no board of directors determining the laws of cheetoh hiding.

TI make good scientists because they are able to compartmentalize and build a frame work of internal logical constructs that mirror true scientific paradigms, which in most cases, in science, is more valuable than simply taking the word of the book as law (TE).

So you see...the difference between a rational and perceptive function is only one thing, and that is that one is used to decide and the other is used to gather the evidence for deciding....

Once you know that it is really easy to understand, and simple...and there is no reason for bloviations and extrapolations that are pretty much meaningless in nature.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> That's exactly what @_NiDBiLD_ said. 1 and 1 is already 2, it doesn't need the plus sign for validation.


Let me restate so that emphasis is clear:

And yet the _*effect *_of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple _*causes *_the bowl to contain two apples.

^ That sounds like cause and effect to me.

And if I remove the plus sign, you think 11=2 has the same meaning? :S



> If you had a bowl with 2 apples and you add 1 more, would it still be 2? ...


Eh? I think there is a misunderstanding. What point do you think that I'm making?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Let me restate so that emphasis is clear:
> 
> And yet the _*effect *_of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple _*causes *_the bowl to contain two apples.
> 
> ...


I...don't understand. Why are we talking about apples again? Or maths for that matter?

...what?


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Let me restate so that emphasis is clear:
> 
> And yet the _*effect *_of me adding an apple to a bowl that already has an apple _*causes *_the bowl to contain two apples.
> 
> ^ That sounds like cause and effect to me.


When you put an apple in a bowl that has an apple, that makes a bowl that has two apples. Okay. But fundamentally, one apple beside another apple makes 2 apples, whether it fell on the bowl, magically appeared on the bowl, someone put it in there, etc. *irregardless of space and time*.. The OP implied that there must be a complexity behind 1+1 = 2.. But that does nothing to explain in any way, Ti. If anything, *you misunderstood @NiDBiLD point*. Maybe we could take this as an example of Te vs Ti? 



> And if I remove the plus sign, you think 11=2 has the same meaning? :S


In real life 1 apple beside 1 apple are 2 apples. I'm just using your "apples" example.


----------



## Cmart (Oct 17, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> When you put an apple in a bowl that has an apple, that makes a bowl that has two apples. Okay. But fundamentally, one apple beside another apple makes 2 apples, whether it fell on the bowl, magically appeared on the bowl, someone put it in there, etc. *irregardless of space and time*.. The OP implied that there must be a complexity behind 1+1 = 2.. But that does nothing to explain in any way, Ti. If anything, *you misunderstood @NiDBiLD point*. Maybe we could take this as an example of Te vs Ti?
> 
> 
> 
> In real life 1 apple beside 1 apple are 2 apples. I'm just using your "apples" example.


It's to show how Ti would process things such as 1+1=2. To show that Ti is fundamentally intrigued by the CAUSE of things. 

1 is just 1 on it's own. Now if there is 2, then it's because 1 was there and now another 1 is there, which is exactly what addition is. It is a concept. Addition would be the cause which Ti is interested in.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Cmart said:


> It's to show how Ti would process things such as 1+1=2. To show that Ti is fundamentally intrigued by the CAUSE of things.
> 
> 1 is just 1 on it's own. Now if there is 2, then it's because 1 was there and now another 1 is there, which is exactly what addition is. It is a concept. Addition would be the cause which Ti is interested in.


The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils! 

1+1=2 doesn't say anything about Te or Ti, as evidenced in this shortsighted discussion, because (1+1=2) as much it is an equation, it is solved, it is a fact. There's no other route/step in the equation to use for 1+1 to =2.. You could use (1+1=2) to describe Te.. Se, Ne, Ni, etc. 

It is the same with the bowl of apples example: it is a fact that a bowl that has an apple will become a bowl with two apples if you add another one... *Any function can arrive at that conclusion*.

As I have been repeating in my previous posts, if one wants to describe functions and compare them in the way, one needs to first create the principles for each cognitive function and then test their validity in the frame of a particular context. These lame examples aren't of any use.


----------



## Cmart (Oct 17, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils!
> 
> 1+1=2 doesn't say anything about Te or Ti, as evidenced in this shortsighted discussion, because (1+1=2) as much it is an equation, it is solved, it is a fact. There's no other route/step in the equation to use for 1+1 to =2.. You could use (1+1=2) to describe Te.. Se, Ne, Ni, etc.
> 
> ...





Cmart said:


> To show that Ti is fundamentally intrigued by the CAUSE of things.


 ^


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Sultanim said:


> The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils!
> 
> 1+1=2 doesn't say anything about Te or Ti, as evidenced in this shortsighted discussion, because (1+1=2) as much it is an equation, it is solved,* it is a fact*. There's no other route/step in the equation to use for 1+1 to =2.. You could use (1+1=2) to describe Te.. Se, Ne, Ni, etc.


That's the thing - Te is more likely to accept it as fact (due to it being agreed on as correct by general consensus, having evidence to back it up etc.), while Ti is more likely to get hung up on why that's the case (where did it come from, who decided this was correct etc.). Te is focused on the result and is so more likely to examine the 2, while Ti is more likely to scrutinize the detail of the equation to make sure it makes sense to them (fits into their 'mental bookshelf').

I dispute being able to use the equation in this way to describe other functions, so if you can give examples for them all, that would be great.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> When you put an apple in a bowl that has an apple, that makes a bowl that has two apples. Okay. But fundamentally, one apple beside another apple makes 2 apples, whether it fell on the bowl, magically appeared on the bowl, someone put it in there, etc. *irregardless of space and time*.. The OP implied that there must be a complexity behind 1+1 = 2.. But that does nothing to explain in any way, Ti. If anything, *you misunderstood @NiDBiLD point*. Maybe we could take this as an example of Te vs Ti?


I could not have misunderstood the point if he didn't really have one. I'm pretty sure he explicitly stated he was nitpicking. I thought I would take him up on exploring that angle further.

I'm not really sure what you are on about though. I feel like you are arguing something that I am not presenting.

I did not get an implied sense of complexity in the op. Again, I wonder if you are reading into something. From my perspective, the op presented an oversimplified example of Ti's general interest in understanding concepts and their relationships.




Ixim said:


> I...don't understand. Why are we talking about apples again? Or maths for that matter?
> 
> ...what?


Just semantics. Nothing to see here. 



Sultanim said:


> It is the same with the bowl of apples example: it is a fact that a bowl that has an apple will become a bowl with two apples if you add another one... *Any function can arrive at that conclusion*.


Then you are missing the point and making a mountain out of a mole hill at the same time. 

To be clear, no one stated or implied that any given function is needed to arrive at that conclusion.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Cmart said:


> ^





owlet said:


> That's the thing - Te is more likely to accept it as fact (due to it being agreed on as correct by general consensus, having evidence to back it up etc.), while Ti is more likely to get hung up on why that's the case (where did it come from, who decided this was correct etc.). Te is focused on the result and is so more likely to examine the 2, while Ti is more likely to scrutinize the detail of the equation to make sure it makes sense to them (fits into their 'mental bookshelf').


I agree with that, see:



Sultanim said:


> Maybe we could take this as an example of Te vs Ti?





> I dispute being able to use the equation in this way to describe other functions, so if you can give examples for them all, that would be great.


As evidenced above, 1+1=2 is not something that can be attributed to any function. I'm sure other cognitive functions do have their particular ways of processing it.
@PaladinX



> Then you are missing the point and making a mountain out of a mole hill at the same time.
> 
> To be clear, no one stated or implied that any given function is needed to arrive at that conclusion.


OP implied certain actions are attributed to certain cognitive functions without context.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

@Sultanim It may be the lack of sleep, but I'm genuinely unsure what your issue with the equation example is.
If it's the concept of 1+1=2 being absolute fact, then you could go into the thought process of why does 1 have half the value of 2 when it's also a single-digit number? Why does 1 come before 2? Does it make sense for 1 to come before 2, 3, 4 etc.? If you look at it in terms of complexity/number of strokes required to draw it, why does 7 come after 2? And so on. Ti is more likely to be concerned with if the value of two 1s would in fact equal 2 and how much sense that makes to them personally.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils!
> 
> 1+1=2 doesn't say anything about Te or Ti, as evidenced in this shortsighted discussion, because (1+1=2) as much it is an equation, it is solved, it is a fact. There's no other route/step in the equation to use for 1+1 to =2.. You could use (1+1=2) to describe Te.. Se, Ne, Ni, etc.
> 
> ...



You are right. It is self propelling. There is no route. It just is. Math is a language with laws/conventions. The law/convention is that 1+1=2. It is a custom one abides by.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> OP implied certain actions are attributed to certain cognitive functions without context.


Can you please clearly demonstrate what the OP stated and how he implies what you are claiming?


As a side question, how does Feeling do math?


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

owlet said:


> @Sultanim It may be the lack of sleep, but I'm genuinely unsure what your issue with the equation example is.
> If it's the concept of 1+1=2 being absolute fact, then you could go into the thought process of why does 1 have half the value of 2 when it's also a single-digit number? Why does 1 come before 2? Does it make sense for 1 to come before 2, 3, 4 etc.? If you look at it in terms of complexity/number of strokes required to draw it, why does 7 come after 2? And so on. Ti is more likely to be concerned with if the value of two 1s would in fact equal 2 and how much sense that makes to them personally.





FearAndTrembling said:


> Sultanim said:
> 
> 
> > The problem of all misconceptions of types and cognitive functions is this. This is the root of all evils!
> ...


Basically, (1+1=2) is not a context, it is a principle.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Sultanim said:
> 
> 
> > OP implied certain actions are attributed to certain cognitive functions without context.
> ...


He implied purchasing the cheapest tofu because all tofu are equal in quality to be Te. Might be valid.. But it needs a context.

I have not been the only one to believe that functions are tied in axes. Fi therefore with Te and Fe with Ti, because they work together (even if one is inferior it's still being preferred).


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> He implied purchasing the cheapest tofu because all tofu are equal in quality to be Te. Might be valid.. But it needs a context.


Oh I thought we were talking about the equation?



> I have not been the only one to believe that functions are tied in axes. Fi therefore with Te and Fe with Ti, because they work together (even if one is inferior it's still being preferred).


Fair enough. I disagree with this perspective, but it helps me to understand where you are coming from so I appreciate it. Thanks!


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Sultanim said:
> 
> 
> > He implied purchasing the cheapest tofu because all tofu are equal in quality to be Te. Might be valid.. But it needs a context.
> ...


Why you asked me then?



PaladinX said:


> Can you please clearly demonstrate what the OP stated and how he implies what you are claiming


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> Why you asked me then?


Based on our whole conversation thus far and your assertions about the equation...


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Based on our whole conversation thus far and your assertions about the equation...


Cutesy examples like "ordering things", "pushing tofu out of water", "1+1=2" and such _are not enough_ to describe functions. The problems with these is that they are static actions. We can infer on them, and say how each cognitive function would process them, but the resulting statements can become potential tools for misinterpretation of types and to stereotype the way types act. I don't know if I have the answer but there must be a better way to explain functions and not confuse types with personality; it's been overdone and there are a millions of thread on it. Of course, there's no limit to the threads that can cover the same roundabouts. I just became interested in the thread, remarked the errors other people pointed out (like _the way_ he was mixing Socionics with MBTI) and made a premise of my own, and I'm still open for discussion on the matter.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

hmm, things seem to be getting a bit fluffy watching this thread :/



PaladinX said:


> From my perspective, the op presented an oversimplified example of *Ti's general interest in understanding concepts and their relationships.*


This is Thinking ^


This is what thinking does. It compares and contrasts between objects to determine 'what something is'. It builds concepts that are the abstract ideas of what a thing is. It uses a criterion to draw relationships between concepts and objects to determine what a thing is.

The act of recognising is thinking. The act of defining is thinking. The act of drawing relationships between things is thinking. What I am doing right now to pin point what thinking is, is thinking.

To judge what a thing is requires a criterion. The criterion contains a list of properties that defines what the concept is and may very well have a label of some sort as an identifier. An object is then judged against this criteria. If the properties it has are the same as the criteria then the object is deemed to have a relationship with the concept and is labeled with it's identifier. If it does not match then the conclusion drawn is this is different to the concept and does not receive the identifying label. basically a true or false judgment.


Example:
(the identifier apple
(Criteria the round fruit of a tree of the rose family, which typically has thin green or red skin and crisp flesh.

Notice how the above pulls together a specific set of properties to form a criteria (fruit, green/red skin, crisp flesh). 
Also notice how this definition forms relationships to other objects. Such as fruit, tree, rose family, skin, flesh.
And any object you encounter that fits this criteria is an apple. Any object that does not fit this criteria is not an apple.
The definition we have on the screen above is a concept of an apple, not the actual apple.

Thinking is not as literal as this. Apperception can involve memories, ideas, previous experiences, etc. that act as a criterion where we are able to recognise what we are seeing in front of us, this outside of language.


What determines the E or I factor is where this criterion is defined. If its origin is external from the outside world, or subjective from the inner world. Either I can bring together certain properties to form a logical concept (true/false, if then else, and, or, etc.) and then fit objects to this (Ti), or I can look at the objects and their properties and draw relationships between other objects and their properties.




Now the OP is defining the difference between Te and Ti by how each define objects. 
It assets Te is concerned with the function of an object, whilst Ti is concerned with the label of the object.
Te is defining based on the properties of the object, external criterion. Ti is defining based on a subjective properties, internal criterion.
An object determines its function. Either a screwdriver is able or not able to lever off a paint can lid.
The object does not determine it's label. The screw driver did not call itself a screwdriver.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Sultanim I completely understand why you think that way but you are actually wrong, and I even provide a counter-example of it in my OP where I state one action could be Si or Ti, but for the sake of example, I used it to demonstrate Ti. I never once suggested or was interested to imply that the examples I used meant action=function. If fact, if you bother to read my OP and read how it logically follows, *my initial premise is that actions are not the same as the functions*. This doesn't mean this premise later doesn't hold true further down the text; this is exactly why you are entirely misunderstanding the OP and you are acting on your knee-jerk reaction. If someone states a premise, the premise holds true until proven otherwise or if you can show how the reasoning throughout is false because the premise doesn't match its conclusion. 

My conclusion remains the same: actions are correlative to functions but are not functions in themselves and most of all, what my latter portion was intended to illustrate exactly as @Cmart was pointing out, is _how different actions have different reasoning processes behind them_, i.e. one action can be motivated by many different processes that could on paper, be almost any function, though some contexts will always imply one or the other, such as the example of the maths argument that was being discussed. 

Why? Because maths is an inherent property of the thinking function. It is about classification, either externally or internally. Surely we can do maths in possibly other ways like @PaladinX was asking for e.g. I may not know what the answer is in this situation so I'd feel myself through it like I like the number 4, so I put number 4 there if we're referring to the feeling function, or if intuition, I can intuit 4 makes more sense though I cannot explain why, or if sensation, I recall seeing 4 being the answer, I think 4 is the answer.

Of course, again, to illustrate the damn point and arguably, functions may not even play that much of a role in this scenario even, but if I must state a way to make myself clear to you, then yes, I'll use an example like this. You can't get away from behavior unless you explain the functions in themselves in a vacuum, but you know what? Most people won't be able to grasp that. It's too abstract. Not even Jung described the functions that much in a vacuum. He utilized real life examples too and he made quite stereotypical remarks about I/E, specifically that are definitely behavioral e.g. extroverts like to be around people more. I mean, where do you think this stereotype comes from? Jung invented introversion/extroversion as a temperament. It did not exist before Jung. 

Describing things in an abstract vacuum-way may work for people who are already well-familiar with the theory and its concepts, but I don't just write for a rare elite of people, I write for a wide variety of people including those who may be less familiar or understand the theory less. For the sake of pedagogy, you need practical examples. Also, contrary to what you claim, I am not saying that X is always true for Y type except when I do it abstractly i.e. it is true for Te that Te is always concerned for the result and Ti its internal logical classification of a thing. 

How this manifests may vary so again, I honestly think you would have reacted the same way no matter who or what it was unless you yourself wrote it, but you know what? I don't think you could write it without falling back on examples either. You've done it yourself. There is a breadth of difference between illustrating a point with an example and saying that the example itself is always true for what you are trying to describe. I honestly never intended or had any interest to do the latter and it also outright contradicts my own premise. It's about what something represents in this case, and this representation is not literal so no matter how strongly you feel I am doing that, I am _not_ doing that. 

@Ixim really dude? I mean, I do type as an ILI for a reason lol, because ILIs have demonstrative Ti and can thus seem like a Ti dom. If we go with the more common interpretation of Jung's functional stacking, then an INTJ would also be an Ni and a Ti type, if the thinking function becomes the auxiliary and a part of the conscious mind. So no contradiction there. Yet I also make feeling decisions on Fi, shrug.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Entropic said:


> @Sultanim I completely understand why you think that way but you are actually wrong, and I even provide a counter-example of it in my OP where I state one action could be Si or Ti, but for the sake of example, I used it to demonstrate Ti. I never once suggested or was interested to imply that the examples I used meant action=function. If fact, if you bother to read my OP and read how it logically follows, *my initial premise is that actions are not the same as the functions*. This doesn't mean this premise later doesn't hold true further down the text; this is exactly why you are entirely misunderstanding the OP and you are acting on your knee-jerk reaction. If someone states a premise, the premise holds true until proven otherwise or if you can show how the reasoning throughout is false because the premise doesn't match its conclusion.


Are you gonna omit most of what people have been saying? Or are you just too proud to admit that your argument needs a revision? The post in itself is flawed since the moment you started mixing Socionics with MBTI.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Ksara said:


> Thinking is not as literal as this. Apperception can involve memories, ideas, previous experiences, etc. that act as a criterion where we are able to recognise what we are seeing in front of us, this outside of language.
> 
> 
> What determines the E or I factor is where this criterion is defined. If its origin is external from the outside world, or subjective from the inner world. Either I can bring together certain properties to form a logical concept (true/false, if then else, and, or, etc.) and then fit objects to this (Ti), or I can look at the objects and their properties and draw relationships between other objects and their properties.


That is exactly why a context is needed. A problem with intricacies to properly see the manifestation of said criterion in that context.



> Now the OP is defining the difference between Te and Ti by how each define objects.
> It assets Te is concerned with the function of an object, whilst Ti is concerned with the label of the object.
> Te is defining based on the properties of the object, external criterion. Ti is defining based on a subjective properties, internal criterion.
> An object determines its function. Either a screwdriver is able or not able to lever off a paint can lid.
> The object does not determine it's label. The screw driver did not call itself a screwdriver.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> @_Sultanim_ I completely understand why you think that way but you are actually wrong, and I even provide a counter-example of it in my OP where I state one action could be Si or Ti, but for the sake of example, I used it to demonstrate Ti. I never once suggested or was interested to imply that the examples I used meant action=function. If fact, if you bother to read my OP and read how it logically follows, *my initial premise is that actions are not the same as the functions*. This doesn't mean this premise later doesn't hold true further down the text; this is exactly why you are entirely misunderstanding the OP and you are acting on your knee-jerk reaction. If someone states a premise, the premise holds true until proven otherwise or if you can show how the reasoning throughout is false because the premise doesn't match its conclusion.
> 
> My conclusion remains the same: actions are correlative to functions but are not functions in themselves and most of all, what my latter portion was intended to illustrate exactly as @_Cmart_ was pointing out, is _how different actions have different reasoning processes behind them_, i.e. one action can be motivated by many different processes that could on paper, be almost any function, though some contexts will always imply one or the other, such as the example of the maths argument that was being discussed.
> 
> ...


Yet you just wrote a wall of text, explaining just why you built something the way you did. Plus, you never, NEVER acted like Reckful, me or others who just say "Jung / someone else said so". You are CONSTANTLY building and rebuilding the theory(which could be reasoned with other things-in this case you ought to be at the very least honest about it) and idk...to me it is a textbook Ti. And it's wrong imo to say I am not this because something else is true. Sometimes truth is hidden in the plain sight-sometimes it is in the obvious, broad day facts.

Yeah, but I have a nose you won't listen. Even in spite of obvious things stated by multiple people.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Yet you just wrote a wall of text, explaining just why you built something the way you did. Plus, you never, NEVER acted like Reckful, me or others who just say "Jung / someone else said so". You are CONSTANTLY building and rebuilding the theory(which could be reasoned with other things-in this case you ought to be at the very least honest about it) and idk...to me it is a textbook Ti. And it's wrong imo to say I am not this because something else is true. Sometimes truth is hidden in the plain sight-sometimes it is in the obvious, broad day facts.
> 
> Yeah, but I have a nose you won't listen. Even in spite of obvious things stated by multiple people.


Whatever obvious things people have stated, that obvious thing is that you are getting hung up on an issue that doesn't even exist because you don't even understand the idea behind the op. And no, actually, most of what I write is focused on intuition, not Ti. I suggest you go observe how Ti doms tend to lay out their stuff, especially INTPs. You'll find they approach things very differently. 

@Sultanim 
Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the issue here is that YOU are wrong and you can't admit that you are reading something in my op I didn't intend? Like for example how you state I imply a thing but in my very op there's plenty of evidence that actually supports the opposite of what you claim I do. Stop accuse my character as a way to avoid logical scrutiny. How about how you omitted everything I wrote in favor of again, stating your interpretation of my op without even trying to acknowledge my perspective?

I'll gladly accept that maybe my examples were poor if they actually suggested what you claim they do but I consistently don't claim that; it's what you read and how you connect it. If you utterly cannot shift your perspective to see what I'm trying to say then honestly just stop waste my time. Again, just because you feel I do something wrong doesn't mean I'm actually factually wrong.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Ixim said:


> Yet you just wrote a wall of text, explaining just why you built something the way you did. Plus, you never, NEVER acted like Reckful, me or others who just say "Jung / someone else said so". You are CONSTANTLY building and rebuilding the theory(which could be reasoned with other things-in this case you ought to be at the very least honest about it) and idk...to me it is a textbook Ti. And it's wrong imo to say I am not this because something else is true. Sometimes truth is hidden in the plain sight-sometimes it is in the obvious, broad day facts.
> 
> Yeah, but I have a nose you won't listen. Even in spite of obvious things stated by multiple people.


Rebuilding a theory isn't Ti. It's just having imagination/interest enough to take it a step further and adapt it.
(Also unsolicited typing is against the rules of the forum, so unless @Entropic wants input on his type, you should probably stick to the topic at hand.)


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

owlet said:


> Rebuilding a theory isn't Ti. It's just having imagination/interest enough to take it a step further and adapt it.
> (Also unsolicited typing is against the rules of the forum, so unless @_Entropic_ wants input on his type, you should probably stick to the topic at hand.)


I'll be open. Be warned!

Him and me don't see eye to eye. Which is already troubling given how ~90% people I knew had only positive if not superlative words for me(I am humble, but people seem to think I'm awesome, so it must be awesome to be me :wink. From that example can be concluded that I aggravate only weirdoes and losers. And poking those is always fun, especially when...nah I won't bring that in. When they have no pronoun to use for them.

Just look. It's fun to tease him. And when the most of his self confidence comes from something that has been thoroughly rejected by the professionals. To me, it is a nice and fun tool. But I guarantee you that this what I am saying will piss off people. Do I care? I'm losing my hair over it. Sheesh.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Whatever obvious things people have stated, that obvious thing is that you are getting hung up on an issue that doesn't even exist because you don't even understand the idea behind the op. And no, actually, most of what I write is focused on intuition, not Ti. I suggest you go observe how Ti doms tend to lay out their stuff, especially INTPs. You'll find they approach things very differently.
> 
> @Sultanim
> Did you ever stop to consider that maybe the issue here is that YOU are wrong and you can't admit that you are reading something in my op I didn't intend? Like for example how you state I imply a thing but in my very op there's plenty of evidence that actually supports the opposite of what you claim I do. Stop accuse my character as a way to avoid logical scrutiny. How about how you omitted everything I wrote in favor of again, stating your interpretation of my op without even trying to acknowledge my perspective?
> ...


Again, you're factually wrong because Socionics and MBTI are different tools ans define cognitive functions differently. But yeah, keep ignoring everything presented thus far. I have presented why and where you have failed, but you, up to this post, haven't refuted my stance: in fact you keep coming back with lazy, emotional responses, saying you think I am wrong but can't clearly state why. You did the same to every single one of the people who refuted your post. Talk about sharing a "theory" to then be immature when people discuss about it. You didn't even share anything new: it's the way you worded it.
@owlet hmm.. but when @Entropic claims "pushing tofu out of the water" is Te then that's valid. Wow.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

@Entropic what everybody has said until now is that the examples were poor. It took you 7 pages to bend over and accept that. Just clearing this out.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> Again, you're factually wrong because Socionics and MBTI are different tools ans define cognitive functions differently. But yeah, keep ignoring everything presented thus far. I have presented why and where you have failed, but you, up to this post, haven't refuted my stance: in fact you keep coming back with lazy, emotional responses, saying you think I am wrong but can't clearly state why. You did the same to every single one of the people who refuted your post. Talk about sharing a "theory" to then be immature when people discuss about it. You didn't even share anything new: it's the way you worded it.
> @owlet hmm.. but when @Entropic claims *"pushing tofu out of the water" is Te then that's valid*. Wow.


Well, first of all, you are lying as he said...


> It is Te when *your sister uses a heavy frying pan in order to press water out of tofu*, and it is Te when your dad rather buys the cheaper kind of tofu than the more expensive because in terms of quality it is exactly the same.


Then, it is actually a good example. 
Finding a practical solution, seeing what other use can a object have, comparing quality of tofu's (comparing specifics of the object that are obvious to the outside observer) ... But I think it is also Se in works as the calculation of needed amount of force or power to do that pressing.
A quick solution to a problem would be Te, while Ti would be figuring out why it happened and taking precautions to prevent it hapening again. Both types would do both, but the very first thing the attention goes to, probably will tell you about the valued direction of Thinking function, Ti or Te.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> Well, first of all, you are lying as he said...
> 
> 
> Then, it is actually a good example.
> Finding a practical solution, seeing what other use can a object have, comparing quality of tofu's (comparing specifics of the object that are obvious to the outside observer) ... But I think it is also Se in works as the calculation of needed amount of force or power to do that pressing.


Bargain shopping is not Te. Reading food labels is not a function either. Most of this stuff is common sense. 

Can you tell my functions by how I make my grilled cheese? How would a Ti user make grilled cheese compared to a Te user? It is fucking ridiculous. lol.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Bargain shopping is not Te. Most of this stuff is common sense. Can you tell my functions by how I make my grilled cheese?


I think I can. Go ahead and tell me the details. :happy:


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

owlet said:


> Rebuilding a theory isn't Ti. It's just having imagination/interest enough to take it a step further and adapt it.
> (Also unsolicited typing is against the rules of the forum, so unless @_Entropic_ wants input on his type, you should probably stick to the topic at hand.)


I know that it doesn't have to coincide mutually, but everything I've seen from him is a STRONG driving force just to mix everything together and get a working result that is logically coherent(or, in other words, to MAKE SENSE).

He also does it in such long ways that I can't see him as a xxxJ. He likes to leave the options open etc. Now, I do see him as an overly emotional INT(or INF pretending to be logical when it's only ad verbum of what he read). P and J are the made up things of MBTI and modern tosh anyhow. But if I hadto use them...P would be my answer like 10 / 10.

Finally, just compare him to reckful or some other INTJ's. Now do the same for INTP's. Well, if in reality a night's bright...well, it is bright! Otherwise what?


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Entropic said:


> *All* functions deal with the object world because it is not humanly possible to not interact with the object world in some way. You'd be braindead.
> 
> 
> Ti, on the other hand, is the very opposite of this. Ti wants to understand how to define something, what something is. .
> ...


I am an extrovert, who is rather good at Ti. 

You are a Te user. The red DEFINES Te, and how you see the world. 

I suggest you and I have a different understanding of Ti.

My Ne takes in more information than most can possibly imagine. I have a kaleidoscope of ideas and concepts coming at me all the time I am awake.

Ti FILTERS that information. Ti makes DECISIONS on that information using my logically based internal format and decision tree. I literally TAKE IN information with my Ti, filter it internally, and "throw away" most of it. What is left I try to implement with my fake, pseudo Te. 

We are opposite in this. 

Mom organizing the library is NOT Ti. Ti is the logic used to do calculus, geometry proofs, perhaps play chess, play logic games. 

Mom organizing the library could very well be Te - putting order upon the world, making the world the way it should be (Te) - orderly and neat, information all in a row (Ni), which leads to a feeling of accomplishment (Fi). Librarians are often INTJ's for a reason. ISTJ's also like order in the world, and they get it by following tradition and rules (Si and Te).

Respectfully, and looking forward to a good discussion,
D


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Prada said:


> Personally, I never met anyone who said that Te "wants to organise external world". So this stereotype is beyond me. Also, lol because according to it I wouldn't be a Te-dom.
> 
> Te picks the most efficient way to do things and if having an organised library is efficient (in case the person needs to be able to find the correct book asap)..


I'm one who says Te wants to organize the world. Zuckeberg got FB going because he is an ENTJ, and he DROVE his company to become the vision he wanted. He MADE his company into his vision.

ESTJ's run bureaucracy BECAUSE they make the bureau into what they desire and want.

Few are as good at finding the most efficient system as an ENTP. We can blow through MILLIONS of possibilities our Ne creates with our Ti to find THE MOST efficient, or at least one which is close enough. We FIND the possibility.

ENTJ MAKES the possibility REALITY. 

INTJ leads with Ni. Their Ni leads them - they dig into things, and Te supports this by measuring and comparing to externally provided external results.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

crashbandicoot said:


> I think I can. Go ahead and tell me the details. :happy:


This is ridiculous, but let's see:



> 1. I heat 1 tablespoon salted butter in a skillet over medium-low heat.
> 
> 2. Then I press the sandwich slightly and place it in the skillet. I let it cook until golden on the bottom, somewhere from 3 to 5 minutes.
> 
> 3. Flip, adding more butter to the pan if needed, and cook until the other side is golden and the cheese melts, again 3 to 5 more minutes.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Ixim said:


> I'll be open. Be warned!
> 
> Him and me don't see eye to eye. Which is already troubling given how ~90% people I knew had only positive if not superlative words for me(I am humble, but people seem to think I'm awesome, so it must be awesome to be me :wink. From that example can be concluded that I aggravate only weirdoes and losers. And poking those is always fun, especially when...nah I won't bring that in. When they have no pronoun to use for them.
> 
> Just look. It's fun to tease him. And when the most of his self confidence comes from something that has been thoroughly rejected by the professionals. To me, it is a nice and fun tool. But I guarantee you that this what I am saying will piss off people. Do I care? I'm losing my hair over it. Sheesh.


I don't always see eye to eye with him either, but the criticism on this thread seems unjustified to me (yes, I did say there were some wording issues, but that doesn't remove the clarity of other areas).

It doesn't matter how great a person you are if frustrating someone is what you do for fun. That's also known as bullying.



Ixim said:


> I know that it doesn't have to coincide mutually, but everything I've seen from him is a STRONG driving force just to mix everything together and get a working result that is logically coherent(or, in other words, to MAKE SENSE).
> 
> He also does it in such long ways that I can't see him as a xxxJ. He likes to leave the options open etc. Now, I do see him as an overly emotional INT(or INF pretending to be logical when it's only ad verbum of what he read). P and J are the made up things of MBTI and modern tosh anyhow. But if I hadto use them...P would be my answer like 10 / 10.
> 
> Finally, just compare him to reckful or some other INTJ's. Now do the same for INTP's. Well, if in reality a night's bright...well, it is bright! Otherwise what?


Not discussing this with you as it's unsolicited typing and, frankly, distracts from the point of this thread. It doesn't matter what @Entropic's type is. All that matters is what's been explained in the OP and if it works as an explanation or not - and obviously from my perspective, it does work overall.



Sultanim said:


> @_owlet_ hmm.. but when @_Entropic_ claims "pushing tofu out of the water" is Te then that's valid. Wow.


You've done that thing politicians do where they misquote someone and take it out of context. If you want me to explain why the OP makes sense, I will, but it'll have to be later as I have work. Let me know.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> I'm one who says Te wants to organize the world. Zuckeberg got FB going because he is an ENTJ, and he DROVE his company to become the vision he wanted. He MADE his company into his vision.
> 
> ESTJ's run bureaucracy BECAUSE they make the bureau into what they desire and want.
> 
> ...


Your point? Like I said Te doesn't want to organise external world but it will if it necessary for efficiency. I have mess in all of my work places BECAUSE that's the most efficient way to order things I need on daily basis. However, in my shelves and drawers all things have their specific place where they belong because THAT is the most efficient way.

Te doesn't give a shit about organising stuff. This is why ENTJs don't want to be leaders all the time but only when there is no one better to lead (or no one to lead at all). If it were true then we would be tyrannical neat freaks. Which has nothign to do with Te-dom.

What you're describing isn't desire to have the external world organised, it's a desire for it to be efficient. Sometimes, that means organisation sometimes that means chaos. Those are just side-effects or means to an end.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

owlet said:


> I don't always see eye to eye with him either, but the criticism on this thread seems unjustified to me (yes, I did say there were some wording issues, but that doesn't remove the clarity of other areas).


Agreed. I only disagreed with his illustrations. It's really hard to make up illustrations. I prefer to use real-world examples of people I know, whose types I know, and I base them on how I tend to react to the various functions in real life. ;-)

But I think that, overall, his theory was not bad per se. And if we could throw some other perspective on this, here's a fascinating article from personalityjunkie.com
Rethinking Judging & Perceiving in IPs & IJs

Another thought. I don't know if I said this on this thread or another, but from my perspective, introverted perceivers (Ni and Si) don't necessarily realize that their perceptions are subjective and filtered through their introversion. They simply presume that what they are doing is perceiving the world, but their perceptions are, in fact, based on an image of the world, much more so than extraverted perceiving types. 

On the other hand, I, long before I knew there were such things as introverts and extraverts, and psychological functions, etc. recognized that I was subjective, and, in fact, that everybody is subjective, and have been willing to work within that subjectivity. To my way of thinking, the best attitude to have is honesty--be honest with yourself and others about your own subjectivity. So long as people pretend and tell themselves and others that they are objective, we can't really move any discussion forward. Only when we admit our own subjectivity can we begin a discussion on the merits of our own perspectives, etc. 

The truth is, nobody is a pure extravert or a pure introvert. All perception and judging are transmissive, if you will. They are in a state of flux, either moving inward or outward. They are not static, just sitting there, because, if that were true, they would be called states, not functions. ;-) And since this is a constant process, and since, for instance, I am sitting here writing this, I am constantly moving from introspection to expression--back and forth--back and forth. To me, the most stimulating thing is that back and forth interplay, not when I'm just sitting here, contemplating, but when there is an action that in some way corresponds. And not when typing or expressing, but when I have something to express that comes from within. Personally, I think this is why sites like this are so popular with introverts. It gives us a means of expressing/extraverting. ;-)

And then, there's always Keirsey, and his thoughts that terms like introvert and extravert don't belong, and that their influence is overplayed by the Jungian community. Maybe he's onto something there. We make a mountain out of a mole hill by dividing these things, and thereby people...


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

owlet said:


> I don't always see eye to eye with him either, but the criticism on this thread seems unjustified to me (yes, I did say there were some wording issues, but that doesn't remove the clarity of other areas).
> 
> It doesn't matter how great a person you are if frustrating someone is what you do for fun. That's also known as bullying.
> 
> ...



He said pushing water out of tofu is Te. I would really love to hear how that makes sense. Or shopping in aisles. Or any of the examples. Let's get down to brass tacks here. It is nonsense. Others have already given counter examples of how those behaviors could be nearly any function. It isn't like he slightly missed the mark, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what this subject is even supposed to cover and what REAL subjects outside this one actually do cover. I realize ignorant people who don't know how the world really works will attribute nearly any part of psychology/biology to type, but it is a fantasy.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Entropic said:


> I've seen this a lot lately, and people vastly confuse these two functions. Specifically, they confuse inferior quality Te and dominant quality Ti to be Te, because they get hung up on the "external" aspect of Te to concretely mean organizing the external world.
> 
> The problem, however, is that this is not what is meant when we understand a function to be focused on the object. When a function is extroverted or object-focused, it does not literally mean "what is outside of you"; to use Te as a part of your function stack, especially in the ego, does not make you a stickler of wanting to organize the world around you based on the MBTI J stereotype (that's actually more of a Ti thing); what it means is how the function understands information in the world. To make it even clearer:
> 
> ...


I think you´re too focused on single functions. Always analyze behaviour as the result of the first 2 functions. (sometimes the third as well and rarely, the inferior function, all depends on the situation.)

But wanting to organize a room or a library isn't a single function. First of all, Ti is a judging function so it couldn't care less about the outside world. What makes people want to organize their suroundings is a perceiving function together with a judging function. Si-Te for example. Si is annoyed by seeing a mess, Te initiates doing something about it. But that's just a very simplistic way to describe it. The real power is in the combination of the 2. The combination has properties that either single function doesn't have.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> He said pushing water out of tofu is Te. I would really love to hear how that makes sense. Or shopping in aisles. Or any of the examples. Let's get down to brass tacks here. It is nonsense.


I think it means that after you notice the immediate reality, you act on it in a logical manner *without* much depth, catogorization, or pre-determined notions, in contrast to Ti.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Felipe said:


> I think it means that after you notice the immediate reality, you act on it in a logical manner *without* much depth, catogorization, or pre-determined notions, in contrast to Ti.



How much is there to think about tofu? 

Another thing I have mentioned, this subject of typology is Ti. To continually categorize and refine predetermined notions without any connection to reality. To tinker with these concepts. To what end? How isn't THAT Ti? If sorting libraries and shopping is Ti. What about the incessant categorization of people in convoluted, bottomless systems? lol. Most Ti thing there is.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> How much is there to think about tofu?
> 
> Another thing I have mentioned, this subject of typology is Ti. To continually categorize and refine predetermined notions without any connection to reality. To tinker with these concepts. To what end? How isn't THAT Ti? If sorting libraries and shopping is Ti. What about the incessant categorization of people in convoluted, bottomless systems? lol. Most Ti thing there is.


no, no, no. I said IN CONTRAST TO Ti. It means Ti is like that and Te is not.




FearAndTrembling said:


> How much is there to think about tofu?


I don't know. Maybe we should put a quesition about tofu in the INTP or ISTP forum to test


----------



## Murkury (Oct 10, 2011)

Entropic said:


> It is Te when your sister uses a heavy frying pan in order to press water out of tofu




He didn't say that pushing water out of tofu is TE. 

He implied that using an object for a purpose other than the job that the object was originally designed/produced for, to obtain a desired effect, is TE.

I don't know whether this is indeed true or not; I'm here to learn, but that is obviously what he was implying.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> How much is there to think about tofu?
> 
> Another thing I have mentioned, this subject of typology is Ti. To continually categorize and refine predetermined notions without any connection to reality. To tinker with these concepts. To what end? How isn't THAT Ti? If sorting libraries and shopping is Ti. What about the incessant categorization of people in convoluted, bottomless systems? lol. Most Ti thing there is.


*Tofu?* Is there some sort of controversy? Can this be straightened out?

Te tofu - what is the easiest way to make it? How can it be flavored? How do we analyze its nutritious value?

Ti tofu - what kind of food is this ... as opposed to non-constructed food? Is it worthwhile eating? How can its texture enhance a meal?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Felipe said:


> no, no, no. I said IN CONTRAST TO Ti. It means Ti is like that and Te is not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know you mean Ti is like that. Ti categorizes. Typology categorizes. How is ordering people by functions, by type, by quadra, by enneagram, etc etc. different than grocery lists or bookkeeping? It is the same thing. Show me how that logic doesn't bridge all those examples. It seems like a smooth road to me.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I am trying to point out that conceptions of a thing is only its combined, practical effects. Those things must line up with theory. If you don't understand practical effects about something you simply don't understand it.


funny, that sounds like Te...


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

owlet said:


> Not discussing this with you as it's unsolicited typing and, frankly, distracts from the point of this thread. It doesn't matter what @_Entropic_'s type is. All that matters is what's been explained in the OP and if it works as an explanation or not - and obviously from my perspective, it does work overall.


Without giving my personal opinion on anyone's type here, I do think it's relevant to the topic at hand. If one types themselves at valuing function a high in their stack, whilst really being someone who values function b instead, then their view on the functions will be warped and it makes any discussion with this person on the topic of these functions unnecessarily strained and emotionally charged.
If one is going to expand on, and/or explain, theory, it's best to know what one is talking about. And the first place to show this is by typing oneself correctly, because that's where the groundwork is.
When someone mistypes, and then proceeds to argue the functions based on their personal relation to their (mis)type (which is impossible to not do), then the basis of the argument is flawed from the get-go.


You need to have a solid foundation before you can start building a house. 

So I'd say, yes, it's relevant, even if unsolicited and thus, against the forum rules.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Sun Daeva said:


> And the first place to show this is by typing oneself correctly, because that's where the groundwork is.
> When someone mistypes, and then proceeds to argue the functions based on their personal relation to their (mis)type (which is impossible to not do), then the basis of the argument is flawed from the get-go.


what happens when someone disagrees that you are typed correctly even though you are? It will be the word of one against the word of the other...


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Felipe said:


> what happens when someone disagrees that you are typed correctly even though you are? It will be the word of one against the word of the other...


Whether someone is correctly typed or not doesn't rely on anyone's word; their typing will be correct, or incorrect, regardless. Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Prada — March 10, 2016...



Prada said:


> Te doesn't give a shit about organising stuff. This is why ENTJs don't want to be leaders all the time but only when there is no one better to lead (or no one to lead at all).


Prada — September 15, 2015...



Prada said:


> I was quite confused about my type (INTJ or ENTJ) until I discovered cognitive functions and realised just how important they are when typing people. ... I knew even before that my dream job was CEO and I'm doing my best to learn all possible skills that I think will help me achieving my goals. ...
> 
> I love leading people and I want to be as good at it as possible (just as at everything I consider important). Partly for that reason I decided to volunteer at two clubs, one of which I'm leading with two friends and the other is actually a student organisation where I have like 99.9% chance to get into board in the next election. ... Even people higher in the hierarchy already acknowledge me as the next board member. Sorry, this has no informational value, I'm just bragging here.


Isabel Myers — 1980...



Myers said:


> [The E_TJ] might be called the standard executive type. There are other kinds of executives, some of them brilliantly successful. But it is doubtful whether any other type so _enjoys_ being an executive, or works so hard to get to be one. Sometimes at an early age, a child of this type, with systematic purpose and natural interest in running things, becomes, popularity aside, the leader of the school class.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> Ti doesn't care about your feelings, or even mine. All that rambling trying to worry about everyone else is F stuff.


That was kind of my point--or did you miss that?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Peter said:


> I think you´re too focused on single functions. Always analyze behaviour as the result of the first 2 functions. (sometimes the third as well and rarely, the inferior function, all depends on the situation.)
> 
> But wanting to organize a room or a library isn't a single function. First of all, Ti is a judging function so it couldn't care less about the outside world. What makes people want to organize their suroundings is a perceiving function together with a judging function. Si-Te for example. Si is annoyed by seeing a mess, Te initiates doing something about it. But that's just a very simplistic way to describe it. The real power is in the combination of the 2. The combination has properties that either single function doesn't have.


You and I understand the system differently; I don't place much emphasis on function combinations as being that relevant. I think the power lies in the functions stand-alone; not as combinations only. Why would Si want to organize the library? What motivation would Si have to do that? It perceives.

Anyway, I'm so fucking done with this thread seeing how no one seems to give a real shit to understand wtf I'm really saying as opposed to what people think I say, then twist it a bit more in order to just drill it further down the hole without even bother to look up where the fuck they are drilling in the first place.

Go on and argue, but whatever you are left arguing is certainly not what I was arguing. This is why I dislike the MBTI as it is and why I left it for socionics; it just makes things at some level so overly convoluted and abstract people frankly have no clue wtf they are talking about outside of having weird knee-jerk reactions of "but that could be X too!". Yeah, no shit Sherlock, did you read my OP as in, actually trying to understand my OP before judging it because you disagree with the message?

Do function combinations play a role? Sure. But I also think people chalk this up way more to explain external manifestations than really needs to be done. It becomes a needless distillation of an otherwise very clear process of thought.

It's like this scene from Penny Dreadful I watched earlier where a person who I'd easily type as an SEE in a heartbeat in socionics and thus translate that over into an ESFP in the MBTI made her appearance:






She used a combination of Se and the feeling function or Fe and Fi in order to manipulate the situation in her favor. You could argue that was also partially motivated by a weaker unconscious Te process.

So thus we see how a large portion of a type's functional stack could manifest in a very brief scene like that but by and large, when observing individual actions or even patterns of speech, people tend to rarely use "blends" of functions like is being suggested here, as if the end-result is some mix between Si and Te both or something. I don't buy that. The process are stand-alone and traceable as such. You can clearly see each moment where she uses Se, Fe or Fi in this brief clip and sometimes yes, they occur simultaneously, but not as a blend. 

I don't buy the blend theory. 

Also @Sun Daeva no, a person's type has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in their ability to convey proficiency in a subject. The way to gauge someone's proficiency is to gauge their knowledge. You can be shit at a subject and hold a professor status or you can be brilliant at a thing and never have had any official education on the subject matter. 

Arguing someone's type as a way to argue the credibility of their thoughts is a logical fallacy and only serves as a character attack and a red herring, distracting from the main point of view, which is in fact the soundness of their argument, not what authority they hold on the subject matter.

Either way, this is my final post so I don't give a fuck anymore.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Murkury said:


> I would imagine that the decision to seek an object for its usefulness in a particular situation might be TE, but then of course a perceiving function (preferably SE) would be needed to look for the object.
> 
> We all use both of these functions, and I hope that all of us have good enough SE to look around in our immediate environment, so I guess in this situation, those with the greater use of TE, may be the most likely to decide to look for the useful object?


Um.... no. 

All of the extraverted functions share certain features, but each has its own forte, if you will. Te is an executive function. It is volitional. Se is an instinctual function, it acts, but volitionality is more instinctual. So, for instance, say you see a wild bear coming at you. You reach out for the biggest, and baddest stick you can find. Se is not passive. It is active. The only people who describe Se as passive are those who have no direct experience with it. Se, when in the ego, is an active, involved and involving function. It is not executive in the sense of Te. It is a direct relationship with the object. Hence its pragmatic use of things. Here's another illustration. There are people who, when they want somebody to do something, they will just grab them and move them or maneuver them. Others, will tell them what they want the other person to do. It is the Se type that tends to maneuver others/manhandle them, while other types tend to resort to words. 

In the case of NTs, that pragmatism/utilitarianism is different. It is not so much a direct use of tools, but a more abstract use. So, for instance, as someone above said, Ti doesn't care about your feelings. If you don't fit in, well, you're soylent green. Tough noogies. Si, on the other hand, would stop and say, "We can't do that, for society's sake". Of course, I'm over-simplifying, and exaggerating, but the point is that any thinking function, combined with intuition, seems to have a less direct result of utilizing pragmatic, utilitarian solutions. But whereas with an SP type, it will be immediate, and likely physical in nature, with an NT, it is more strategic, and non-physical in nature--at least directly (soylent green again)


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Entropic said:


> You and I understand the system differently; I don't place much emphasis on function combinations as being that relevant. I think the power lies in the functions stand-alone; not as combinations only. Why would Si want to organize the library? What motivation would Si have to do that? It perceives.


Is your introverted intuition passive? does it just 'perceive'?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

ferroequinologist said:


> Is your introverted intuition passive? does it just 'perceive'?


To me, an introverted perceptive function can only perceive the internal world. It takes the external sensing function and the external judging function to bring substance to introverted intuition, even though introverted intuition can come up with its own information. To be fair, Entropic doesn't put much stock into the function stacks, and I think this is where he's at loggerheads with the majority of other thread participants, and I think it's where he's actually wrongheaded.

To me, an overemphasis on one's introverted intuition would lead to state similar to catatonia.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I"m going to give my take on the extraverted judging functions. I'm going to describe both together, because they share more similarities than differences, and the areas where they are different, they are contrasting, so they do well being described together. 

1. Both Fe and Te tend to be verbal functions. In other words, they tend to operate via words, rather than action. 
2. Both are executive functions. They are rational, and wish to execute their dictums in the world of the object, not necessarily self.
3. Both tend to be delegating functions. In other words, they seek to get others to perform what is spoken and desired to be executed. Of course, by "spoken", this includes written and other means of communication, but primarily verbal.
4. Both are indirectly manipulative. By that, they are not so much concerned with manipulating things directly, but indirectly--through delegation, etc. This could include, of course, manipulating data, etc. but less so, moving, for instance, product in a warehouse. 
5. They differ in how they use language. Fe tends to be personal, affirming and positive. Te tends to be impersonal, negative and critiquing. To Fe, tools and tasks tend to be used to accomplish their personal, affirming and positive people ends. For Te, people tend to be tools to accomplish their impersonal ends.
6. Both can behave the opposite of their normal--Fe can be critical and Te affirming, but in such cases, they still have their rational, executive/delegating goals in mind, even if they may seem messed up or distorted. (i.e. Fe uses criticism to still accomplish their personal end, and Te would use affirmation to accomplish their impersonal end.)

This is how I have observed these functions in real people. There are differences in where, for instance, NTJs and STJs focus their attention, and how they communicate, but I think there should be enough leeway in my descriptions to include both STJs and NTJs, and SFJs and NFJs.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Also @_Sun Daeva_ no, a person's type has absolutely no bearing whatsoever in their ability to convey proficiency in a subject. The way to gauge someone's proficiency is to gauge their knowledge. You can be shit at a subject and hold a professor status or you can be brilliant at a thing and never have had any official education on the subject matter.
> 
> Arguing someone's type as a way to argue the credibility of their thoughts is a logical fallacy and only serves as a character attack and a red herring, distracting from the main point of view, which is in fact the soundness of their argument, not what authority they hold on the subject matter.


Arguing someone's type can be a logical fallacy and a character attack etc. That's not my point. Regardless of its intent, someone's self-typing is always relevant when discussing the types. The way someone views a type will influence their self-typing, and visa versa. You type as valuing Te, and that has its influence on how you approach this topic, which makes your self-typing relevant to the discussion. If others disagree with your self-typing, they also disagree with an aspect of how you view the type. I don't see how anyone can divorce the two. They are always connected.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

For what it's worth, Te isn't a criticizing function, per se. It is "critical" in that it offers a critique of the tangible facts of the external world and how that external world is piecing together to them internally and externally. This is why I say that Te more so than Ti lends itself to diagrams, flow charts, and rubrics. Fe on the other hand focuses on the social facts, and I could see the Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti axis (as I call it) lending itself towards political cartoons as its commentary on the external world.

Te tends towards bluntness as a thinking function, whereas Fe tends towards diplomacy as a feeling function. Even Fi is better at scoping out the emotional and ethical/valuation states of others than either Te or Ti. (Fi being a more empathetic function than Fe.)


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

ferroequinologist said:


> Se is an instinctual function, it acts, but volitionality is more instinctual. So, for instance, say you see a wild bear coming at you. *You reach out for the biggest, and baddest stick you can find*. Se is not passive. It is active. The only people who describe Se as passive are those who have no direct experience with it.


according to Jung (yes, again): "...Primarily, therefore, sensation is sense-perception, i.e. perception transmitted via the sense organs and 'bodily senses' (kinæsthetic, vaso-motor sensation, etc.). On the one hand, it is an element of presentation, since it transmits to the presenting function the perceived image of the outer object; on the other hand, it is an element of feeling, because through the perception of bodily changes it lends the character of affect to feeling, (v. Affect). Because sensation transmits physical changes to consciousness, *it also represents the physiological impulse. But it is not identical with it, since it is merely a perceptive function.*"

I think it means the impulse is felt through 'sensation' but it is not the function itself.



ferroequinologist said:


> I'm over-simplifying, and exaggerating, but the point is that any thinking function, combined with intuition, seems to have a less direct result of utilizing pragmatic, utilitarian solutions.


agree



ferroequinologist said:


> There are people who, when they want somebody to do something, they will just grab them and move them or maneuver them. Others, will tell them what they want the other person to do. It is the Se type that tends to maneuver others/manhandle them, while other types tend to resort to words.


maybe...I'm not sure, but that other Si description you gave: "Si, on the other hand, would stop and say, 'We can't do that, for society's sake' " 

I'm still trying to understand what you meant by that. And you compared it to Ti: "Ti doesn't care about feelings. If you don't fit in, well, you're soylent green."...I'm assuming you meant Fi instead of Si.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> To me, an introverted perceptive function can only perceive the internal world. It takes the external sensing function and the external judging function to bring substance to introverted intuition, even though introverted intuition can come up with its own information. To be fair, Entropic doesn't put much stock into the function stacks, and I think this is where he's at loggerheads with the majority of other thread participants, and I think it's where he's actually wrongheaded.
> 
> To me, an overemphasis on one's introverted intuition would lead to state similar to catatonia.


I agree, as my own Ni would be stuck in merely perceiving archetypes, so I need the other functions for implementing or justifying what I observed. This is important as I study chemistry and I need facts for supporting my own vision about a topic. Otherwise I would mention that I perceive something and nobody would take it seriously as it wouldn't have any logical ground for supporting it.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> A If others disagree with your self-typing, they also disagree with an aspect of how you view the type. I don't see how anyone can divorce the two. They are always connected.



I disagree with you here. I can divorce the person from the argument. I can disagree wtih someone's self typing, and still listen to their argument as a separate entity, and judge the argument.

I think it is rude and obtrusive to attack someone for their self typing. I have been known to ASK someone, or send a PM, and ask if they are interested in reconsidering their self typing. 

How we act here, adn how we act in real life can be VERY different. I do not know people well, and I'm not a king who can type others. I can offer DISCUSSION. 

A few years ago, I got HAMMERED for claiming to be an ate. I had MANY people attack me, and tell me I'm too cerebral for an 8, and I'm really a 6 or a 5, or just so fucked up i had no enneagram. I have not forgotten that.

Hell, some really smart people spend a LOT fo time here and change their types over time as they learn and grow, and figure things out. The act of DISCUSSION helps many of us learn.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> For what it's worth, Te isn't a criticizing function, per se. It is "critical" in that it offers a critique of the tangible facts of the external world and how that external world is piecing together to them internally and externally. This is why I say that Te more so than Ti lends itself to diagrams, flow charts, and rubrics. Fe on the other hand focuses on the social facts, and I could see the Ti-Fe/Fe-Ti axis (as I call it) lending itself towards political cartoons as its commentary on the external world.
> 
> Te tends towards bluntness as a thinking function, whereas Fe tends towards diplomacy as a feeling function. Even Fi is better at scoping out the emotional and ethical/valuation states of others than either Te or Ti. (Fi being a more empathetic function than Fe.)


ENTJ's have Se as their third function. Some of your picture stuff comes from that. Se/Fi are cartoons. Pictures to emote feelings.

Te likes external validation - they read recipes, they look to the book to see what the "right" answer is. Rubrics, Flow charts, diagrams all are Te stuff, but the pleasure in the visual is an Se thing.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Mordred Phantom said:


> I agree, as my own Ni would be stuck in merely perceiving archetypes, so I need the other functions for implementing or justifying what I observed. This is important as I study chemistry and I need facts for supporting my own vision about a topic. Otherwise I would mention that I perceive something and nobody would take it seriously as it wouldn't have any logical ground for supporting it.


I'm probably more ambiverted than extroverted (despite the fact that I type as ENTJ), but this appearance could be that the Te-Ni combination in a Te-dom lends itself into a more reticent and observant state than the Te-Si combination. I can get lost in my head very easily, though, contemplating various angles of an idea -- but then when I settle back into Te-mode, I tend to research whatever Ni brainstormed in that moment to see if that Ni-induced "hypothesis" (okay, HUNCH) has any merit.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> ENTJ's have Se as their third function. Some of your picture stuff comes from that. Se/Fi are cartoons. Pictures to emote feelings.
> 
> Te likes external validation - they read recipes, they look to the book to see what the "right" answer is. Rubrics, Flow charts, diagrams all are Te stuff, but the pleasure in the visual is an Se thing.


Yeah, I definitely agree with this; I just think that the Fe-Ti/Ti-Fe combination might lead itself towards social commentary in the form of, say, a political cartoon when compared to the way Te might function in its visual representation of information. It would depend on how the information was conveyed, though. Although, I suspect that an especially cynical xNFJ would make an astute political cartoonist in that their social perceptions coupled with the internal visions of Ni would make for a powerful and very accurate punch since Ni-Fe can take the pulse of a situation quickly and efficiently.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> I'm probably more ambiverted than extroverted (despite the fact that I type as ENTJ), but this appearance could be that the Te-Ni combination in a Te-dom lends itself into a more reticent and observant state than the Te-Si combination. I can get lost in my head very easily, though, contemplating various angles of an idea -- but then when I settle back into Te-mode, I tend to research whatever Ni brainstormed in that moment to see if that Ni-induced "hypothesis" (okay, HUNCH) has any merit.


For me Te is something that helps to support Ni, and thanks to this I tend to observe more and rarely act (thanks inferior Se for that inertia). Te and Fi basically label whatever I detect with Ni and Se and help me to sort either impersonal data or what I feel about people and stuff. So for factual and logical discussions Te is what will support Ni, but for ethical stuff Fi may be better suited despite being unconscious for me. I may not be aware of when it works, but I know that it influences me, same with Se.


----------



## Prada (Sep 10, 2015)

@reckful ENTJ =/= Te, me =/= Te. Te is a function, ENTJ is a stack/summary of characteristics and I am a person. Those things aren't all equal. I thought that didn't need explanation.

@drmiller100 So, you completely ignored my points because they go against your theory and wrote something that has nothing to do with anything. Makes sense.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

koalaroo said:


> Yeah, I definitely agree with this; I just think that the Fe-Ti/Ti-Fe combination might lead itself towards social commentary in the form of, say, a political cartoon when compared to the way Te might function in its visual representation of information. It would depend on how the information was conveyed, though. Although, I suspect that an especially cynical xNFJ would make an astute political cartoonist in that their social perceptions coupled with the internal visions of Ni would make for a powerful and very accurate punch since Ni-Fe can take the pulse of a situation quickly and efficiently.


Fe and Ti and Te don't communicate visually compared to S. Fe and Ti and Te are not about feelings.

If you want to communicate emotion with pictures, use Se and Fi. artists are usually ISFP, actors often ESFP. 

third function for ISFP is Ni. Third function for ESFP is Te. cartoons are going to be ISFP.

One could argue ENFJ, wtih third position Se would make cartoons, but they don't like the CONFLICT of pushing emotions onto others. And they don't like sitting in a cubicle drawing all day with no social in person interaction.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Mordred Phantom said:


> For me Te is something that helps to support Ni, and thanks to this I tend to observe more and rarely act (thanks inferior Se for that inertia). Te and Fi basically label whatever I detect with Ni and Se and help me to sort either impersonal data or what I feel about people and stuff. So for factual and logical discussions Te is what will support Ni, but for ethical stuff Fi may be better suited despite being unconscious for me. I may not be aware of when it works, but I know that it influences me, same with Se.


My feeling function isn't something I've been particularly well acquainted with in the past, but there are times when I get the Fi-feels and it's a huge punch in the gut. I suspect my Ennea-typing (1w2) has to do with my inferior Fi. Also, my much healthier outlook on life these days, and my continued recovery from a long term traumatic experience has helped me to be more in touch with my inferior function, which in itself lends me to being a kinder individual on the whole (I slip up from time to time, though). During the traumatic experience, I actually typed as an INTP, but I think I'm too forceful and didactic to be a Ti-user, and the fact that I'm in love with the use of infographics and rubrics lends me to think that I'm Te rather than Ti.

Back to Te versus Fi, for just a moment. My mother is an ISFP and I'm (probably ENTJ). The difference in her Fi-dom mentality and my Te-dom mentality is readily apparent in something as simple as how we feed the cats wet cat food. I only tend to feed one of the cats wet cat food. The other cat tends to take one lick of it, then walk away. My mother tells me that I'm being mean and unfair to that cat for not at least letting her try the food; however, I think feeding that particular cat the wet cat food is an inefficient use of time and resources, especially when the other cat just gobbles up the food from the non-eater's plate anyway.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> I disagree with you here. I can divorce the person from the argument. I can disagree wtih someone's self typing, and still listen to their argument as a separate entity, and judge the argument.
> 
> I think it is rude and obtrusive to attack someone for their self typing. I have been known to ASK someone, or send a PM, and ask if they are interested in reconsidering their self typing.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about whether it's rude or not, that entirely depends on the context.

What I'm saying is that the argument someone makes about a type (or function or what have you..) will be part of their reasoning on type in general. And how else does anyone self-type, if not by going through their reasoning on type? You can't reason your self-typing without reasoning through your understanding of type on a larger scale.
So, when Person A disagrees with Person B's argument about a core part of a type (or function etc..), they will automatically and indirectly disagree with Person B's self-typing as well, as Person B's self-typing relies on their reasoning of those very core parts in the first place.

I'm starting to confuse myself by how much I'm saying the same thing in so many damn ways..

...

There's a reason people type the way they do, and that reason will always be connected to their general understanding of the theory. 

I agree that discussion helps lead to growth in most cases, and I don't think discussion on how people type themselves should be avoided, unless the intent is malicious.
That ofc doesn't mean I have intent to break the forum rules, lol.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Prada said:


> @_drmiller100_ So, you completely ignored my points because they go against your theory and wrote something that has nothing to do with anything. Makes sense.


No, I validated your points, and recognized the nits you picked with my theory. 

I believe part of Te is the desire to set the world the way the owner wants it.
As I understand your correction, You believe Te is the desire to make the world efficient the way you want it.

I think the differences are trivial, and your argument is a subset of mine.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> I
> 
> What I'm saying is that the argument someone makes about a type (or function or what have you..) will be part of their reasoning on type in general. And how else does anyone self-type, if not by going through their reasoning on type? .


there are many ways people decide on their type. One could learn the function stack, and go that way. One can take a test, and read some descriptions, and go from the big picture. One can have a friend/professional ask some questions, and get a start there. Lots and lots of ways.
MOST people figure out their MBTi type long before they understand functions. I read this thread, and some long term players on this site are reading this, and DISCUSSING, and REFINING their understanding of different functions.

Does an MBTI type make it easier to understand some functions easier than others? Of course. As an ENTP, Si and Fi are REALLY hard for me to understand. I struggle with those. Ne and Ti are pretty easy for me. 

However, I may offer good insights into Si from my pure lack of it.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

koalaroo said:


> My mother tells me that I'm being mean and unfair to that cat for not at least letting her try the food; however, I think feeding that particular cat the wet cat food is an inefficient use of time and resources


Why?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> No, I validated your points, and recognized the nits you picked with my theory.
> 
> I believe part of Te is the desire to set the world the way the owner wants it.
> As I understand your correction, You believe Te is the desire to make the world efficient the way you want it.
> ...


They're compatible frameworks; I think they're just alternate ways of saying a very similar thing. I guess, in essence, two sides of the same coin. It's about externalized efficiency. Less mature Te-users will push their ideas, concepts and formulas on other people regardless of it being proper to do so or not. A proper use of this tendency in Te would be to create efficient systems, or to create rubrics for processes within the context of particular environments (work or school -- college curricula for a major, for instance, is a very Te-organized process). You've seen the unhealthy side of Te in action with me in the past, but I think I've evolved along the way while learning that I don't fit the mold of a Ti-user like I thought I did, and by learning to be a healthier individual overall. I honestly use MBTI and the cognitive functions less as a tool to box myself into, and more these days as a tool to understand where I'm at in life and where I'm going in life. I don't see MBTI as a scientifically valid system (Big 5 traits have more validity, although even that system is on shaky grounds), but I do see it as a tool to understanding one's ways of relating to and interacting with others and the world. The thinker in general attempts to "organize" the world around them in terms of logic; the Ti user does this by internal categorization and cataloguing, while the Te user does this by extrapolating from logical systems and externalizing.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Felipe said:


> Why?


My mother's feelings towards needing to feed both cats equal shares of the wet food, or my feelings towards finding it inefficient to feed the cat who turns up her nose at the wet cat food? For what it's worth, I do feed her plenty of treats when she's in the mood for them. She picks up the treat bag she wants from the counter and drops it onto the floor. She just never wants the wet cat food.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

koalaroo said:


> My mother's feelings towards needing to feed both cats, or my feelings towards finding it inefficient to feed the cat who turns up her nose at the wet cat food?


why you think it is an inefficient use of time and resources to feed that particular cat the wet cat food?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> My mother's feelings towards needing to feed both cats equal shares of the wet food, or my feelings towards finding it inefficient to feed the cat who turns up her nose at the wet cat food? For what it's worth, I do feed her plenty of treats when she's in the mood for them. She picks up the treat bag she wants from the counter and drops it onto the floor. She just never wants the wet cat food.


Wet cat food is nasty. It dries up. My mother is similar. It is inefficient. Fuckin one cat has like 4 plates. lol. Everything is spilled too. Dry food. Wet food. Treats. Water bowl. lol. With me, he is getting dry food on a paper plate and water. 

Never introduce wet food to a cat. Don't let them know it exists.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Felipe said:


> why you think it is an inefficient use of time and resources to feed that particular cat the wet cat food?


She never eats it. She prefers dry cat food and cheesy treats. The only "wet" food she'll eat is if I drain tuna water from a can of tuna and put it in a bowl in front of her, and even that she doesn't drink the whole thing. She does drink up enough of it that it feels like a good use of time/resources, though. As for the wet cat food, she just never eats it, and therefore I see it as a waste of time/energy/resources. I feed the other cat half of the can and put the other half of the can into the refrigerator, instead of letting the cat who eats the wet cat food eat an entire can of food on her own.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Wet cat food is nasty. It dries up. My mother is similar. It is inefficient. Fuckin one cat has like 4 plates. lol. Everything is spilled too. Dry food. Wet food. Treats. Water bowl. lol. With me, he is getting dry food on a paper plate and water.
> 
> Never introduce wet food to a cat. Don't let them know it exists.


LOL. My sister used to have a cat who would only eat canned albacore tuna. She rarely ate her dry cat food, and never ate any wet cat food that was offered to her. Albacore tuna only, plus the occasional three mouthfuls of dry food if she was extra hungry. CostCo and Sam's Club bulk boxes of tuna cans were my sister's best friend for the 8 years she had that cat. Most spoiled cat in the world.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

koalaroo said:


> She never eats it. She prefers dry cat food and cheesy treats. The only "wet" food she'll eat is if I drain tuna water from a can of tuna and put it in a bowl in front of her, and even that she doesn't drink the whole thing. She does drink up enough of it that it feels like a good use of time/resources, though. As for the wet cat food, she just never eats it, and therefore I see it as a waste of time/energy/resources. I feed the other cat half of the can and put the other half of the can into the refrigerator, instead of letting the cat who eats the wet cat food eat an entire can of food on her own.


Thanks, sorry if it derailed the thread I just wanted to get a better grasp on you view of Fi vs Te because I run into similar problems with my mom


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

koalaroo said:


> LOL. My sister used to have a cat who would only eat canned albacore tuna. She rarely ate her dry cat food, and never ate any wet cat food that was offered to her. Albacore tuna only, plus the occasional three mouthfuls of dry food if she was extra hungry. CostCo and Sam's Club bulk boxes of tuna cans were my sister's best friend for the 8 years she had that cat. Most spoiled cat in the world.


lol. My cat just like licks the juice out of it. He'll lick it a bunch of times and leave this dried up nastiness which he doesn't touch again. Cats eat with their eyes. They care about presentation.

I saw this before and it is true:


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Felipe said:


> Thanks, sorry if it derailed the thread I just wanted to get a better grasp on you view of Fi vs Te because I run into similar problems with my mom


No, I don't think it derailed the thread at all. Other types can come to the conclusion that such actions would be inefficient, but typically it would be a Fi versus Te thing. It could also be a Fi versus Ti thing; it just depends on how it manifests. I tend to very directly tell my mother something along the lines of, "I do not feed the brown tabby because she does not eat the food when I offer it to her. It is a waste of my time and a waste of the full can of cat food to do so. The orange cat doesn't need to be eating an entire can of cat food, either, and you know that that's what happens when you place the food for both of them." Despite me presenting my position like that (in what I view to be a logical and coherent manner), my mother insists that I'm being mean and unfair to the brown tabby.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> lol. My cat just like licks the juice out of it. He'll lick it a bunch of times and leave this dried up nastiness which he doesn't touch again. Cats eat with their eyes. They care about presentation.
> 
> I saw this before and it is true:


LOL. That is so true that it's sad and funny at the same time.

My dad tends to tell the orange cat (who's always begging for food when her bowl looks like the "empty" bowl in that meme), "You have food you little shit. I'm not giving you anymore. You're fat."


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Prada said:


> @reckful ENTJ =/= Te, me =/= Te. Te is a function, ENTJ is a stack/summary of characteristics and I am a person. Those things aren't all equal. I thought that didn't need explanation.


I'm more than happy to acknowledge that you're a person, Prada, buuut the post of yours in this thread that I replied to wasn't about you. It was about Te and ENTJs _generally_. And what you said about Te and ENTJs _generally_ was that ENTJs _only_ want to be leaders "when there is no one better to lead."

And that's what can fairly be called an _idiosyncratic_ take on ENTJs, since E_TJs are typically characterized as the MBTI types who _most want to be leaders_.

And I offered you a quote from Isabel Myers to that effect — and she was talking about E_TJs _generally_, just in case you misunderstood — and I could just as well have offered quotes from any number of MBTI sources on that aspect of typical E_TJ personalities.

The fact that, as it happens, you consider yourself an ENTJ, a-a-and that older post of yours that I also quoted serves you up as a shining example of the _majority_ take on ENTJs (rather than your contrary take), was just bonus gravy that I added for the possible amusement of the assembled readers.

And I would have hoped "that didn't need explanation."


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Entropic said:


> I don't buy the blend theory.


I don't see it as a blend either. In the end, the functions are nothing more than a way to describe what goes on in brains. The whole brain is always more than just the sum of the functions. The functions just describe how and what information is perceived and how it's processed. This is very limiting when you want to explain people's behaviour. That's why you get those different opinions about what function(s) cause certain behaviour.




Entropic said:


> Either way, this is my final post so I don't give a fuck anymore.


Since you´re an INTJ,... not giving a fuck anymore in a situation like this is...... just Fi. :smile:


I have to say I responded just to your first post. I didn't read anything else. That's just impossible. I only have like half an hour a day (and not every day) to go through PerC.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Felipe said:


> maybe...I'm not sure, but that other Si description you gave: "Si, on the other hand, would stop and say, 'We can't do that, for society's sake' "
> 
> I'm still trying to understand what you meant by that. And you compared it to Ti: "Ti doesn't care about feelings. If you don't fit in, well, you're soylent green."...I'm assuming you meant Fi instead of Si.


No. I meant Si. I said it was over-simplified. ;-) Si, as a perceiving function, sees the world through what could be called impressions of the object. Rather than focusing on the object, it focuses on a subjective impression of the object. It acts, in practice, as a normalizing function, or a stabilizing function, hm... kind of like a gyroscope. So, as the world outside goes a-kilter, it keeps balance. My illustration was poorly chosen, so I'll try something closer to home. ;-) I was helping lay edging at the bottom of paneling. I needed to cut a piece, but couldn't find the saw. I saw the drill, and used the edge of the bit (not the tip) to cut it. It actually did a decent job. But my partner--ISFJ, practically threw a fit! It's a _drill_ and drills are to be used for drilling! I showed him how it worked, and how well, and he started using it too. Si operates that way, normalizing. In contrast, my Se saw the tool, realized it would do the job and just used it. I know that had I not showed him, my friend would have searched and searched and searched for the saw, but I saw that as a waste of valuable time. 

One could say that when Si perceives the world, it has an undergirding question of "what should I do, what should happen". And if looked at this way, Ne would ask "What could I do..." or "what could be done if..." Ni would ask, "What would happen if..." and Se, "What can I do..." These are not conscious questions one asks, but sort of foundational to how each function perceives.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

ferroequinologist said:


> I saw the drill, and used the edge of the bit (not the tip) to cut it. It actually did a decent job. But my partner--ISFJ, practically threw a fit! It's a _drill_ and drills are to be used for drilling!.


if it works, why not, right?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

ferroequinologist said:


> One could say that when Si perceives the world, it has an undergirding question of "what should I do, what should happen". And if looked at this way, Ne would ask "What could I do..." or "what could be done if..." Ni would ask, "What would happen if..." and Se, "What can I do..." These are not conscious questions one asks, but sort of foundational to how each function perceives.


I think we have to look at both perceiving functions and judging functions as being on an axis. On the Si-Ne axis, Ne is how the person perceives the external world and what possibilities exist; Si is then the internal process of "making sense" of the potentially disparate information that Ne manifests, usually based on previous experiences (although Si should not be confused with memory; stored information and experience is just something that Si references as it internalizes newly collected information).


----------



## Richdad (Feb 29, 2016)

I can say if a person with Ti is on a job. He will try to break it down into small jobs and set urgency before doing it. Practical but too theoretical. They will tend to do everything properly with great care to avoid mistake. Everything will be planned for perfect execution. This also makes people with Ti a bit overwhelmed.

Te will be happy to be surrounded with work and will never think if he can do it or not. Then he will tackle the most rewarding work in the shortest time, without caring about anything but getting it done and getting the reward for the job. Then move on to next important task. Note importance will linked to reward in any case. This leads to a fast execution. 

Usually Ti will say "I did the work perfectly, learned this and that." Ti can do task which require a lot of planning and difficult calculation. Like designing a space craft for mars or forecasting the share market progress.

Te will say "I got it done so smoothly and gained this and that." Te can do any task and even impossible task. Like getting colony established on Mars (sarcasm) or moving the share market for one's advantage.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

(Sorry, I meant to write responses yesterday.)


Sun Daeva said:


> Arguing someone's type can be a logical fallacy and a character attack etc. That's not my point. Regardless of its intent, someone's self-typing is always relevant when discussing the types. The way someone views a type will influence their self-typing, and visa versa. You type as valuing Te, and that has its influence on how you approach this topic, which makes your self-typing relevant to the discussion. If others disagree with your self-typing, they also disagree with an aspect of how you view the type. I don't see how anyone can divorce the two. They are always connected.


But then you're going to have to go into how Jung had one type and how that may have influenced the inception of the theory itself. As long as you understand the theory, you're good.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Te (heuristic) vs Ti (algorithmic)






This is important too.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> Te (heuristic) vs Ti (algorithmic)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I really don't see it that way. Scientific theories are heuristics. Mental models. Take an example of gravity. Apples fall from trees. That doesn't really surprise anybody or is insightful. But why doesn't the moon fall to the Earth like an apple? Now you are onto something. Now you create a model that unites the motions of apples and planets. That takes perception. Thinking functions in general are concrete. Perceiving descends deeper or broader.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Very interesting that 3x3x3 block assemblage. Proposing Te versus Ti is a little hard for me to grasp. Being an INTP, I wonder if that Te proposal will always work. It does make sense to start with the largest pieces. That, I assume, is because large pieces are not as flexible in position as smaller ones. Yet I think it quite possible this is not a certain formula and could go wrong. It's possible two or three large pieces put together could block out a 3 or 2 piece, meaning one has to think ahead. Once one thinks ahead, they are not following any prescribed rule. Is that Ti thinking then?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> Very interesting that 3x3x3 block assemblage. Proposing Te versus Ti is a little hard for me to grasp. Being an INTP, I wonder if that Te proposal will always work. It does make sense to start with the largest pieces. That, I assume, is because large pieces are not as flexible in position as smaller ones. Yet I think it quite possible this is not a certain formula and could go wrong. It's possible two or three large pieces put together could block out a 3 or 2 piece, meaning one has to think ahead. Once one thinks ahead, they are not following any prescribed rule. Is that Ti thinking then?


It depends on what you are doing. Like, I don't start with small pieces when I am thinking about something. I actually leave details out. But with other things like interactions with the environment, division of labor is simply an easier process for me. Assembly line. Henry Ford said nothing is hard when broken into smaller jobs. That is a way to view it. 

And Da Vinci made a good point how nature is so bare bones. He was all about simplicity. How it is the ultimate sophistication. 



"Human subtlety...will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature, because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous."

*my works are the issue of pure and simple experience **who is the one true mistress. *


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> Very interesting that 3x3x3 block assemblage. Proposing Te versus Ti is a little hard for me to grasp. Being an INTP, I wonder if that Te proposal will always work. It does make sense to start with the largest pieces. That, I assume, is because large pieces are not as flexible in position as smaller ones. Yet I think it quite possible this is not a certain formula and could go wrong. It's possible two or three large pieces put together could block out a 3 or 2 piece, meaning one has to think ahead. Once one thinks ahead, they are not following any prescribed rule. Is that Ti thinking then?


Hmm.. The video proposes that algorithms (here Ti) carefully lays the steps in such a manner that as lomg as the sequence is followed you will always get an exact result. On the other hand, it says that an heuristic (here Te) method extracts guidelines from the evident and utilizes these guidelines to go as quickly as possible towards the goal.



FearAndTrembling said:


> It depends on what you are doing. Like, I don't start with small pieces when I am thinking about something. I actually leave details out. But with other things like interactions with the environment, division of labor is simply an easier process for me. Assembly line. Henry Ford said nothing is hard when broken into smaller jobs. That is a way to view it.
> 
> And Da Vinci made a good point how nature is so bare bones. He was all about simplicity. How it is the ultimate sophistication.
> 
> ...


The difference between Ti and Te users is, as explained in the video, that Ti users carefully devise a compact set of steps to accomplish an exact thing. Te on the other hand identifies the evident principles and uses them to move along towards a goal. Ti can be simplistic too; algorithms can be simple or complex. The thing is *Ti will devise steps that must be carefully followed* to arrive somewhere. Te can be simple or complex too, but *Te doesn't depend on steps in as much as it depends on guidelines/signposts to the easiest route* to go somewhere. Compare Isaac Newton (INTJ) and Einstein (INTP):



George Polya said:


> "As a young student, [Newton] ... read the theorems, saw that they were true, and omitted the proofs. He wondered why anybody should take pains to prove things so evident."





Richard H. Jones said:


> "Einstein is often cited as a mystic, but ... [he was] simply someone awed by the orderliness of all of nature. Indeed he scoffed at the idea of being a mystic."


As for Leonardo, let me quote this:



> Leonardo and Ti
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is where perceiving functions matter. Einstein does not have the strictness/organization of a Ti dom which is why ENTP makes more sense. Newton may be Ti in his rigid clockwork universe. In absolute time. In absolute space.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> This is where perceiving functions matter. Einstein does not have the strictness/organization of a Ti dom which is why ENTP makes more sense. Newton may be Ti in his rigid clockwork universe. In absolute time. In absolute space.


Ti is not "only" about strictness: it is also about breaking, examining, and reassembling. Take another Ti user:



Dalai Lama said:


> "As a child I liked to disassemble things; radios, clocks, and the like. I took them apart to see how they worked."


But you're right, and it's only logical since all Ti users use main or aux perceiving functions (Ne, Se). Both Ti and Te can be rigid, but the difference is where they are rigid: Ti types are internally rigid with their own machinations, theories, etc. Te on the other hand are rigid with the objective facts. And as I said in the first post, it all depends in the context!!!!

--------

Going back to heuristics and algorithms, example of a Ti algorithm can be Einsteins formula (E = mc2): it is a simple algorithm that can be universally (Fe?) applied. The thing is it is a set of steps, not guidelines. An example of Te in this case would be the rule of thumb; it's easy and quick, but might not always give you the exact answer: it's better used in particular (Fi?) occasions.. In both this cases we can see that Te focuses on the evident and Ti on the inconspicuous, and that Ti is efficient/exact in its calculation and Te is effective/practical in its result.

This, in my humble opinion, _makes me assume_ that Ti types fit better in the conventional "thinker" label, as Ti/Fe types are intrinsically moved by an inner logical framework, and Fi types fit better in the conventional "feeler" label, as Fi/Te types are moved intrinsically by an inner value hierarchy. This is just my perspective though, and in no way I'm degrading Te's rational significance or Fe's emotional importance.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@Sultanim I do see what you mean by heuristics (Te) and algorithms (Ti)
To me it's similar to my cake analogy I came up with a while back:


> Both Te and Ti are given a recipie to make a cake.
> So Te starts by making a plan (what in ingredients are needed, where to get them from, what tools will be needed, etc.)
> Then will get straight on to prep work, making it, bake it, then let it cool down. Fine tuning the process to get the cake completed in the least amount of time.
> 
> ...


http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/362426-ti-te-cake.html

Essentially Te fine tunes the method to reach the cake quickest (be that making a plan, changing step order, perhaps realising a redundant step) where as Ti works towards creating the best cake (breaks down the entire process, picks apart every combination to great an algorithm for the best cake)


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> Ti is not "only" about strictness: it is also about breaking, examining, and reassembling. Take another Ti user:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you want to get philosophical then Newton is Ti in that he cannot separate abstract concepts from real concepts. Jung associated introversion in general with philosophical realism. That those abstractions ARE the ultimate reality. They are more real than reality. Like Plato called the outside world the "twilight world of change and decay". That is philosophical realism. As opposed to nominalism which Jung associated with extroversion.


This is a nominalist quote:

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-Einstein

Whereas many people say those laws of mathematics are the most certain/true descriptions of reality. God created the integers everything else is the work of man. The divinity of number.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> If you want to get philosophical then Newton is Ti in that *he cannot separate abstract concepts from real concepts*.


Judging functions don't perceive/observe: they arrange, assemble, organize, discard or add anything that is absorbed through the perceiving functions. So nope, that's Se/Ni with a bias for Ni. I'm gonna insert a quote from another thread:



Sultanim said:


> Ne-Si and Se-Ni obviously work differently too: Ni detects prototypes, archetypes, the zeroed-in basics of reality and Se describes and interacts with objects from there accordingly. Si on the other hand compiles the impressions of objects (whether or not it has come into contact with them) and Ne ponders the possibilities and theorizes from there accordingly.


Compare to this famous assertion by Isaac Newton:



> What goes up must come down.


It's not that he can't separate abstract concepts from real concepts: it's that he takes for a fact what is apparent. I've asserted above that Ti's machinations are universal and exact in their calculations. Going back to the rule of thumbs, Isaac's obvious proposal can't be used everywhere, sadly.



FearAndTrembling said:


> Jung associated *introversion* in general with philosophical realism. That those abstractions ARE the ultimate reality. They are more real than reality. Like Plato called the outside world the "twilight world of change and decay". That is philosophical realism. As opposed to nominalism which Jung associated with extroversion.


In this case, Isaac Newton typing as INTJ (dominant Ni) is valid. I've already defined Te vs Ti, but a real life example is necessary:



Newton used Extroverted Thinking (Te) rather than Introverted Thinking (Ti) said:


> As you probably learned in school, Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz (INTP) developed the mathematical instrument of calculus simultaneously. But where Leibnitz was interested in precision and in isolating and proving the principles of calculus for the sake of the principle itself (Ti), Newton’s system of calculus was messy and oriented towards utility – the solving concrete problems at hand (Te) – rather than towards principle itself. One could almost say that once Newton was convinced that his principles were true, he wouldn’t bother proving it true to others. – A classic trait of INTJs who, according to the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung, deal in oracular tones and visions – in fact, in describing Newton’s oracular approach to mathematics, the Hungarian mathemematician George Polya said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Ksara said:


> @Sultanim I do see what you mean by heuristics (Te) and algorithms (Ti)
> To me it's similar to my cake analogy I came up with a while back:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/362426-ti-te-cake.html
> ...


I particularly like the way you compared *how* Te and Ti would make a cake.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> Judging functions don't perceive/observe: they arrange, assemble, organize, discard or add anything that is absorbed through the perceiving functions. So nope, that's Se/Ni with a bias for Ni. I'm gonna insert a quote from another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read Hegel's critique of Newton. That is what Ni looks like. lol. As Hegel said, Newton raised science to reflection. To thought. He made thought fundamental. He is like the first theoretical physicist. 

To think that a number is the purest form of reality and can be formed by reason is Ti. To turn the universe into a clock. To unite it under that. One clock ticking that all others must be tuned to. Rigid. Not relational. Not lateral. Not externally related.

I think Jung actually typed Newton as as a sensor.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Read Hegel's critique of Newton. That is what Ni looks like. lol. As Hegel said, Newton raised science to reflection. To thought. He made thought fundamental. He is like the first theoretical physicist.


How does this contradict Newton being an INTJ? If anything Ni establishes archetypes, fundamentals, the zeroed-in basics. Ne is more about possibilities and the unknown and things removed from the immediate reality. 



> To think that a number is the purest form of reality and can be formed by reason is Ti. To turn the universe into a clock. To unite it under that. One clock ticking that all others must be tuned to. Rigid. Not relational. Not lateral. Not externally related.


1. Isaac Newton's theories were based on external observation.
2. Ti and Te can both interact with the external.
3. The fundamental difference is that Ti prefers to make careful steps to get precise results while Te relies on the evident to reach a quick result.
4. Don't confuse perception with judging!
5. Find it funny you mention Hegel, as he was INTJ himself. And this example of his Te:



Hegel said:


> "What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational."


Links to this:



FearAndTrembling said:


> If you want to get philosophical then Newton is Ti in that *he cannot separate abstract concepts from real concepts*.


6. Ti is more prone to question and doubt, as Te is more likely to believe in facts, proof, evidence, etc.



George Polya said:


> "As a young student, [Newton] ... read the theorems, saw that they were true, and omitted the proofs. He wondered *why anybody should take pains to prove things so evident*."


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I'm not convinced This Te and Ti have the right interpretation. To me, Te manipulates the external; Ti manipulates the internal and nothing more. Either uses whatever it needs to achieve its goal. Allow me to take a look at some statements.


Sultanim said:


> 1. Isaac Newton's theories were based on external observation.
> 2. Ti and Te can both interact with the external.
> 3. The fundamental difference is that Ti prefers to make careful steps to get precise results while Te relies on the evident to reach a quick result.
> 4. Don't confuse perception with judging!


1. Newton? A few theories and laws. How would we know what thinking went into it? That's different than looking at F = ma or a law of universal gravitation. But then again, you may know Newton and I don't.
2. Yes.
3. That sounds like speculation. What standard? Why can't I use Ti to get quick results for what I want as results and Te to just hang there pending further data?
4. Yes.



> 5. Find it funny you mention Hegel, as he was INTJ himself. And this example of his Te:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


5. Hegel? What on Earth makes this Te? The statement content or what went into it? Could it be Ti became Te once it was "out there." I'm just asking.



> Originally Posted by *FearAndTrembling*
> If you want to get philosophical then Newton is Ti in that *he cannot separate abstract concepts from real concepts*."


Who can't do this separation? The observer of one of this theories, or Newton himself? I should think anyone as complex as Newton could make any separation he wants. Not that I'm right about this ... I'm just speculating.





> 6. Ti is more prone to question and doubt, as Te is more likely to believe in facts, proof, evidence, etc.


6. I see Ti and Te as extremes about the internal and external. Reality deals with lots in between. Pure internal has to be uncertain; pure external has to be certain. I propose reality scales from one to the other. Ti is uncertain because it has only Ne and Fe externally; Te is certain because it has Se and can check itself.

Allow me to reflect on INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se and INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. I propose these are also extremes and not pure. Who is to say Ti doesn't use Ni? Who is to say Te doesn't use both Se and Si? Ne uses Si and Se also.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

owlet said:


> But then you're going to have to go into how Jung had one type and how that may have influenced the inception of the theory itself. As long as you understand the theory, you're good.


Jung himself wasn't infallible, and was indeed influenced by his own type, as we all are. All I'm saying is, context matters, even for understanding the theory.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> I'm not convinced This Te and Ti have the right interpretation. To me, Te manipulates the external; Ti manipulates the internal and nothing more. Either uses whatever it needs to achieve its goal. Allow me to take a look at some statements.
> 
> 1. Newton? A few theories and laws. How would we know what thinking went into it? That's different than looking at F = ma or a law of universal gravitation. But then again, you may know Newton and I don't.
> 2. Yes.
> ...



I have seen Hegel typed as NFJ. Ni and Ti valuing. Nietzsche same thing. 

Newton said, "physics beware of metaphysics". 

Thread on Hegel:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

Sun Daeva said:


> Jung himself wasn't infallible, and was indeed influenced by his own type, as we all are. All I'm saying is, context matters, even for understanding the theory.


But if the guy who made the theory was influenced by his own type, then by that logic the whole theory is skewed from its core, isn't it?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I have seen Hegel typed as NFJ. Ni and Ti valuing. Nietzsche same thing.
> 
> Newton said, "physics beware of metaphysics".
> 
> ...


The Hegel utube is not available at my end ... something about copyright infringement.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> I'm not convinced This Te and Ti have the right interpretation. To me, Te manipulates the external; Ti manipulates the internal and nothing more. Either uses whatever it needs to achieve its goal. Allow me to take a look at some statements.


What I have read of Jung, Ti can deal with external objects (by the same token I assume Te internal. Have not specifically read this). What differentiates the two is Te is will always come back to the external, where as Ti will come back to the internal. Both Ti and Te can deal with facts. Te focuses on the facts and multiplying the facts, even to the point of paralyzing thought. Ti takes the facts and fits it to it's own ideas/theories, even to the point of coercing facts to fit and ignoring those that don't.
It is fundamentally about where the criteria each use to judge come from. Either objective or subjective. Not necessarily what thing is being judged.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

Ksara said:


> What I have read of Jung, Ti can deal with external objects (by the same token I assume Te internal. Have not specifically read this). What differentiates the two is Te is will always come back to the external, where as Ti will come back to the internal. Both Ti and Te can deal with facts. Te focuses on the facts and multiplying the facts, even to the point of paralyzing thought. Ti takes the facts and fits it to it's own ideas/theories, even to the point of coercing facts to fit and ignoring those that don't.
> It is fundamentally about where the criteria each use to judge come from. Either objective or subjective. Not necessarily what thing is being judged.


 @BigApplePi This.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@*Sultanim*


Ksara said:


> What I have read of Jung, Ti can deal with external objects (by the same token I assume Te internal. Have not specifically read this). What differentiates the two is Te is will always come back to the external, where as Ti will come back to the internal. Both Ti and Te can deal with facts.
> It is fundamentally about where the criteria each use to judge come from. Either objective or subjective. Not necessarily what thing is being judged.


Ti and Te are cognitive functions used by a person who uses other supporting functions. We do our best to differentiate the two. I see no reason why it's not as you say. We can use all eight cognitive functions if we want to. We can say, "Tx will come back to ... ." That is fine. I would put it that the person who uses Tx as a primary WANTS to come back to their focus because that is who they are.

Identifying Tx composition is a worthwhile task. I say, carry on ...




> Te focuses on the facts and multiplying the facts, even to the point of paralyzing thought. Ti takes the facts and fits it to it's own ideas/theories, even to the point of coercing facts to fit and ignoring those that don't.


We could say Te can paralyze thought because it doesn't have the right or serviceable theory. We could equally say Ti misses facts because it has the wrong or incomplete theory. 

Let the two work together even if it isn't in the same person. As a would be INTP I admire INTJs, but what I just said applies ... or that is the theory, lol.

An example of people in the same field would be the theoretical physicist and the experimental physicist. Each one is good at and fond of different outlooks and practices, yet it's the same overall thing they are after.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

owlet said:


> But if the guy who made the theory was influenced by his own type, then by that logic the whole theory is skewed from its core, isn't it?


Jung layed the fundamentals.. but MBTI, Kersey and Celebritytypes have made developments in a succeeding. I, for instance, have picked a side on Celebritytypes's corner.



BigApplePi said:


> I'm not convinced This Te and Ti have the right interpretation. To me, Te manipulates the external; Ti manipulates the internal and nothing more. Either uses whatever it needs to achieve its goal. Allow me to take a look at some statements.


Well:



> Cognition is "the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses."[1] It encompasses processes such as knowledge, attention, memory and working memory, judgment and evaluation, reasoning and "computation", problem solving and decision making, comprehension and production of language, etc. Human cognition is conscious and unconscious, concrete or abstract, as well as intuitive (like knowledge of a language) and conceptual (like a model of a language). Cognitive processes use existing knowledge and generate new knowledge.


Cognitive functions, all, interact with the external. Practically most of what goes in a functioning brain has come from the outside world.



> 1. Newton? A few theories and laws. How would we know what thinking went into it? That's different than looking at F = ma or a law of universal gravitation. But then again, you may know Newton and I don't.
> 2. Yes.
> 3. That sounds like speculation. What standard? Why can't I use Ti to get quick results for what I want as results and Te to just hang there pending further data?
> 4. Yes.
> 5. Hegel? What on Earth makes this Te? The statement content or what went into it? Could it be Ti became Te once it was "out there." I'm just asking.


1. I would think you use your cognitive functions to solve problems, make decisions, form conclusions, etc.
3. I never said Ti can't get quick results or that Te doesn't ponder data!!! I used E=MC2 formula as an example of Ti and that would be an example in which Ti can be quick. What I did said is that Ti cares more for the steps that are taken to produce a precise result, where Te doesn't care what steps are needed as long as the result is reached.
5. The phrase ties with Hegel's (and Newton's) line of thinking and making their theories: they relied on the evident facts of nature and not their processes, as Einstein and his fellow Ti people.



> Allow me to reflect on INTJ = Ni Te Fi Se and INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. I propose these are also extremes and not pure. Who is to say Ti doesn't use Ni? Who is to say Te doesn't use both Se and Si? Ne uses Si and Se also.


You're wreaking havoc here, your type is simply the four cognitive functions that come into play _naturally_ when solving a problem. Of course an INTP can use Ni, but the fact that it's not their preferred function means it comes less naturally to them than to an INTJ or an INFJ.



> Identifying Tx composition is a worthwhile task. I say, carry on ...


I'd say it's a simple task! But hey you're a Ti user and I use Te.
-
_Could it be that maybe you have misunderstood my points?_


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Sultanim said:


> I particularly like the way you compared *how* Te and Ti would make a cake.


Hmm, I think we can analyse the how one step further, that is Te in the example took the quickest route to bake a cake, and Ti in comparison was striving for the best cake. It comes down to the criteria from which they judge.

In this example Te is making it's judgments based on time taken. This is an *external* form of measurement, measuring the time with a clock. This criteria is *objective* as it is measured based on the external reality not by the self. 

Ti in the example was judging what made the best cake. Ti has compared the cake baked to an *internal* form of measurement (how fluffy a good cake is for example) and proceeded to create a cake that fits it's inner image. This is completely *subjective* as the criteria for what makes a good cake has come from the person themselves.

This idea of best is not a feeling judgment here. That is, the individual is not make these decisions based on what they like (feeling), rather what properties the cake must have to be defined as good, ergo thinking.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Ksara said:


> Hmm, I think we can analyse the how one step further, that is Te in the example took the quickest route to bake a cake, and Ti in comparison was striving for the best cake. It comes down to the criteria from which they judge.
> 
> In this example Te is making it's judgments based on time taken. This is an *external* form of measurement, measuring the time with a clock. This criteria is *objective* as it is measured based on the external reality not by the self.
> 
> ...



Oh come on. 

Ti is about fluffy cakes and Te is about fast cakes? What about food that is supposed to be cooked longer? Short times are not always good or efficient. They can be a lazy man's load. What about all the external measurements that any person has to abide by to get anything done? Nearly any type of cooking is based on outside and inside standards and require subjective and objective input. These examples are so simplistic and not one inch of progress beyond those in the OP.

I think most people want to make somewhat of a "good" cake and that has nothing to do with speed. What if fluffiness is an outside standard of what makes a cake good? What if they are making it for other people and designing it with them in mind?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I appreciate your post. I don't think we disagree (much) on anything. It's just a little different perspectives.


Sultanim said:


> Jung layed the fundamentals.. but MBTI, Kersey and Celebritytypes have made developments in a succeeding. I, for instance, have picked a side on Celebritytypes's corner.


Never heard of this "Celebritytypes" approach. As a trivial aside, I wonder why someone said, "Pauli identifies Kant as NF"? How could Kant be a feeler? I never took to Kant. Didn't care for some of his foundations ... an emotional reaction of mine, lol. 

I like this: Introduction to Jungian Types - CelebrityTypes.com




> Cognitive functions, all, interact with the external. Practically most of what goes in a functioning brain has come from the outside world.


Most? I would put it differently. I would hate to even say equal distribution. What goes on in the brain is BOTH. Input and functioning come from both the outside world and what the brain has inside of itself ... call it experience. One thing to observe: never to exclude one of those two in any theory.




> 1. I would think you use your cognitive functions to solve problems, make decisions, form conclusions, etc.
> 3. I never said Ti can't get quick results or that Te doesn't ponder data!!! I used E=MC2 formula as an example of Ti and that would be an example in which Ti can be quick. What I did said is that Ti cares more for the steps that are taken to produce a precise result, where Te doesn't care what steps are needed as long as the result is reached.
> 5. The phrase ties with Hegel's (and Newton's) line of thinking and making their theories: they relied on the evident facts of nature and not their processes, as Einstein and his fellow Ti people.


3. E=mc2? Without a context, this is both Ti and Te. Ti because a lot of thought went into it. Te because once proven, it is out there and it can be mechanically applied ... almost pushing Se rather than Te. The mass is supplied and lo and behold, out comes the energy! By that I mean when the the formula is applied, it's a perception of an observation, all thought being behind the scenes. We can't confuse the perception with a judgmental theory.





> You're wreaking havoc here, your type is simply the four cognitive functions that come into play _naturally_ when solving a problem. Of course an INTP can use Ni, but the fact that it's not their preferred function means it comes less naturally to them than to an INTJ or an INFJ.


Your "havoc" statement to me is the most striking and important new statement of your entire post. Allow me to address that and see if I can fix it. I seek to reconcile and explain as many of these different outlooks as possible. Consistency and coverage is my goal.

First of all we struggle to define "cognitive function." We only to a measure succeed. We have to live with the best we can do. We can identify four of them or eight, depending on how analytical we want to be or how results oriented we want to be. We also assume there are four or sixteen or whatever personality/ temperament types. Whatever pleases us in practice. Those types are the ones we find most comfortable or natural for us. Again, "comfort" and "natural" are defined, not scientifically exactly, but with a measure of intuitive observation. 

Anyhow, these intuitive concepts are *centers*. By "centers" I mean exactly that. They are origins or starting points for observations. These observations have an observer, whether the observer is ourselves or others. Either works. Since the observer is not the person themselves (we stand outside ourselves), there is always some distance from the observer to the center. What we see is a radiation outward from the center to the observer. The closer we are to the center, the more accurate we are in our observations; the further away, the less accurate. This is how I see the theory. The "havoc" is only an illusion brought by imagining we are far and close to the center *at the same time* ... which cannot be. There is a failure to distinguish. This I claim is a fitting metaphor, but who uses it? 

Going a little deeper, there is the normal curve versus the camel hump theory. "The flaw has been known for quite some time and no empirical solution has yet been found." MBTI for Skeptics | CelebrityTypes This needs to be worked on. How can we come up with something that explains which is valid? I have some ideas ... in an intuitive stage, lol.




> I'd say it's a simple task! But hey you're a Ti user and I use Te.
> -
> _Could it be that maybe you have misunderstood my points?_


We are different people so of necessity look at things differently. Yet in the end we look at the same thing. What is necessary is to translate what each sees so the other has a chance at latching onto their perspective. If that state is ever reached, there is hope for an exchange.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Oh come on. ...I think most people want to make somewhat of a "good" cake and that has nothing to do with speed.


Obviously neither one of us has tasted a really good speed cake, lol.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> I appreciate your post. I don't think we disagree (much) on anything. It's just a little different perspectives.Never heard of this "Celebritytypes" approach. As a trivial aside, I wonder why someone said, "Pauli identifies Kant as NF"? How could Kant be a feeler? I never took to Kant. Didn't care for some of his foundations ... an emotional reaction of mine, lol.
> 
> I like this: Introduction to Jungian Types - CelebrityTypes.com
> 
> ...


It is too neatly sliced. How could anybody possibly know these boundaries? All the crisp divisions between conscious and unconscious. I said before they treat these concepts like real anatomy. Like Ti is an actual bone that we can see and has a muscle that works with another and is opposed by another. I mean seriously, Ti is treated like a bicep and Fi a tricep. One must rest for another to work. But there is no goddamn anatomy or physiology here. lol

I like the compass analogy by William James. When you type somebody, you are only pulling them in a direction. We are shifting potentials. It doesn't mean they are actually that direction. They "reset" back to vagueness once you release them. It is like catching lightning in a bottle. 

William James:

*The expression * field of consciousness' has but recently come into vogue in the psychology books. Until quite lately the unit of mental life which figured most was the single ' idea/ supposed to be a definitely outlined thing. But at present psychologists are tending, first, to admit that the actual unit is more probably the total mental state, the entire wave of consciousness or field of objects present to the thought at any time; and, second, to see that it is impossible to outline this wave, this field, with any definiteness.

As our mental fields succeed one another, each has its centre of interest, around which the objects of which we are less and less attentively conscious fade to a margin so faint that its limits are unassignable. Some fields are narrow fields and some are wide fields. Usually when we have a wide field we rejoice, for we then see masses of truth together, and often get glimpses of relations which we divine rather than see, for they shoot beyond the field into still remoter regions of objectivity, regions which we seem rather to be about to perceive than to perceive actually.

The important fact which this 'field' formula commemorates is the indetermination of the margin. Inattentively realized as is the matter which the margin contains, it is nevertheless there, and helps both to guide our behavior and to determine the next movement of our attention. It lies around us like a magnetic field/ inside of which our centre of energy turns like a compass-needle, as the present phase of consciousness alters into its successor. Our whole past store of memories floats beyond this margin, ready at a touch to come in ; and the entire mass of residual powers, impulses, and knowledges that constitute our empirical self stretches continuously beyond it. So vaguely drawn are the outlines between what is actual and what is only potential at any moment of our conscious life, that it is always hard to say of certain mental elements whether we are conscious of them or not.



*You also essentially named the psychologist's fallacy, which was Jung's bread and butter. Committed that shit like it was going out of style:


* The great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making his report. I shall hereafter call this the 'psychologist's fallacy' par excellence. For some of the mischief, here too, language is to blame. The psychologist, as we remarked above (p. 183), stands outside of the mental state he speaks of. Both itself and its object are objects for him. Now when it is a cognitive state (percept, thought, concept, etc.), he ordinarily has no other way of naming it than as the thought, percept, etc., of that object. He himself, meanwhile, knowing the self-same object in his way, gets easily led to suppose that the thought, which is of it, knows it in the same way in which he knows it, although this is often very far from being the case.[11] The most fictitious puzzles have been introduced into our science by this means. 


Another variety of the psychologist' fallacy is the assumption that the mental state studied must be conscious of itself as the psychologist is conscious of it. The mental state is aware of itself only from within ; it grasps what we call its own content, and nothing more. The psychologist, on the contrary, is aware of it from without, and knows its relations with all sorts of other things. What the thought sees is only its own object ; what the psychologist sees is the thought's object, plus the thought itself, plus possibly all the rest of the world.


*And a final point. People are discussing whether a person's type influences the way they type others. That is the root of the entire issue. We are trying to "sum" people here. Again William James comes in handy:


_'All the 'combinations' which we actually know are EFFECTS, wrought by the units said to be 'combined,' UPON SOME ENTITY OTHER THAN THEMSELVES. Without this feature of a medium or vehicle, the notion of combination has no sense.

_In other words, no possible number of entities (call them as you like, whether forces, material particles, or mental elements) can sum _themselves together. Each remains, in the sum, what it always was; and the sum itself exists only for a bystander who happens to overlook the units and to [p.159] apprehend the sum as such; or else it exists in the shape of some other effect on an entity external to the sum itself. 

_Aggregations are organized wholes only when they behave as such in the presence of other things. A statue is an aggregation of particles of marble; but as such it has no unity. For the spectator it is one; in itself it is an aggregate; just as, to the consciousness of an ant crawling over it, it may again appear a mere aggregate. No summing up of parts can make an unity of a mass of discrete constituents, unless this unity exist for some other subject, not for the mass itself."[15]

Just so, in the parallelogram of forces, the 'forces' themselves do not combine into the diagonal resultant; a _body _is needed on which they may impinge, to exhibit their resultant effect. No more do musical sounds combine _per se _into concords or discords. Concord and discord are names for their combined effects on that external medium, the _ear_.'


So there it is. My question is which hits the heart of it: 

On what medium do effects combine? On which vehicle do they combine? These combinations must be combined on something. What are they combined on? They are combined by the individual person. I combine the effects of certain people into certain things on MY medium. Myself. Jung combined all the effects on himself. People will combine effects differently and these combinations are never those things, they are only those things for a particular purpose for a particular person. Every medium is different. There is no universal frame.

As somebody said, it is easier to know people in general than to know a single person.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Interesting


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I have written an essay which touches on a lot of these things, but want to go further. The essay is on another website which I can no longer post on. What you have given of William James captures some of what I'd like to say. Let's see if I can put out a few more unorganized concepts. I'll put them out here before I forget to do so.


FearAndTrembling said:


> It is too neatly sliced. How could anybody possibly know these boundaries? All the crisp divisions between conscious and unconscious. I said before they treat these concepts like real anatomy. Like Ti is an actual bone that we can see and has a muscle that works with another and is opposed by another. I mean seriously, Ti is treated like a bicep and Fi a tricep. One must rest for another to work. But there is no goddamn anatomy or physiology here. lol
> 
> I like the compass analogy by William James. When you type somebody, you are only pulling them in a direction. We are shifting potentials. It doesn't mean they are actually that direction. They "reset" back to vagueness once you release them. It is like catching lightning in a bottle.
> 
> ...


Reality we can think of as a network, but we can use network as a metaphor for applications as well. Metaphor? How about I use words like model or even better template instead? One generalized template would be a scale of 1 to 100. We use the template in an effort to be precise where we can't be precise. We use it to control what of necessity will be error just as we use a measuring tape. We use a model or metaphor on what we wish to define. We lay down this template on both. We now have a measure as to how close the model/ metaphor fits reality. We say (I'm allowed to use Se) the water is warm means 70 to 80; hot is 90-100; neutral is 40-60, like that. Thus we recognize imperfection is built-in. 

Consciousness is brain focus. (A person is conscious means they are focusing their brain.) What is brain focus? Think of the brain as a network of dynamic connections where the weave is sparse in some places and finely knit in others. If I can't focus on anything, I'm either unconscious or asleep and I'm unmotivated. If I'm conscious, I have a number of dense nettings operating with one the primary "center." Correction: there are probably a few of these primaries (we have more than one brain), such as sensual, intuitive, kinesthetic, memory, motive. All of these operate in a multitasking manner but with a super-primary where our consciousness most focuses. We move rapidly among dense nettings over sparse nettings. As James would say, there is a field and the field has "margins." I don't use the word, margin. I like "boundaries" where these boundaries are the loose weaves of the network and may be bumped up against at any time. One moves around their consciousness via conscious and unconscious motivations into boundaries. Boundaries can be openly passed through or blocked. (I haven't quite found a satisfactory metaphor for this.)

What I said above applies to temperaments. Theoretically there is a primary comfort zone. It is dynamic and depending on Se/Si/Ni/Ne perception induced by life experience comfort zones change. When they change we temporarily can take on another temperament. This looks like the self now has a different temperament but this is misleading. A person of great integrity will keep to their temperament. A person of uncertain identity and changing mood will be uncomfortable and flail about in their temperament, but not arbitrarily. The center will still be their primary temperament. In theory, we can lay down a template and take the measure of integrity.

I got off the topic of Te. Above would you say I've used Ti but partly Te as I'm responding to the prior message?


----------



## piano (May 21, 2015)

Murkury said:


> He didn't say that pushing water out of tofu is TE.
> 
> He implied that using an object for a purpose other than the job that the object was originally designed/produced for, to obtain a desired effect, is TE.
> 
> I don't know whether this is indeed true or not; I'm here to learn, but that is obviously what he was implying.


the implication was painstakingly obvious to me too. what bewildered me was how ixim, a user who was previously a huge fan of entropic and his theories, was the main aggressor on this thread.

ISTJs are more likely to reference external works when presenting their opinions/theories than INTJs are. how ixim claims Te users, namely TJs, use and implement their Te applies to STJs, even NFPs, more than it does to INTJs. if and when INTJs do, they will usually build upon these existing theories with their own observations/thoughts.

it's also ridiculous to claim that just because a person writes a long, analytical post, they are an INTP. the guy who created this is an INTJ: Philosophy and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator





Sultanim said:


> Se: receptive, empirical
> Te: calculating, factual


+1


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> Most? I would put it differently. I would hate to even say equal distribution. What goes on in the brain is BOTH. Input and functioning come from both the outside world and what the brain has inside of itself ... call it experience. One thing to observe: never to exclude one of those two in any theory.


*If what is in the brain is a combination of both the Outer and the processing made by cognitive functions, then you shouldn't say Ti doesn't look at the external!*



> 3. E=mc2? Without a context, this is both Ti and Te. Ti because a lot of thought went into it. Te because once proven, it is out there and it can be mechanically applied ... almost pushing Se rather than Te. The mass is supplied and lo and behold, out comes the energy! By that I mean when the the formula is applied, it's a perception of an observation, all thought being behind the scenes. We can't confuse the perception with a judgmental theory.



I used a context.. 



> Your "havoc" statement to me is the most striking and important new statement of your entire post. Allow me to address that and see if I can fix it. I seek to reconcile and explain as many of these different outlooks as possible. Consistency and coverage is my goal.
> 
> First of all we struggle to define "cognitive function." We only to a measure succeed. We have to live with the best we can do. We can identify four of them or eight, depending on how analytical we want to be or how results oriented we want to be. We also assume there are four or sixteen or whatever personality/ temperament types. Whatever pleases us in practice. Those types are the ones we find most comfortable or natural for us. Again, "comfort" and "natural" are defined, not scientifically exactly, but with a measure of intuitive observation.
> 
> ...


Your point of view is interesting.



> We are different people so of necessity look at things differently. Yet in the end we look at the same thing. What is necessary is to translate what each sees so the other has a chance at latching onto their perspective. If that state is ever reached, there is hope for an exchange.


Agreed. And as long as we are able to accept the loopholes in our theories we can advance as well.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

@FearAndTrembling what I see is 1) you think typology is weak because Jung was biased 2) typology isn't really useful because:



> People will combine effects differently and these combinations are never those things, they are only those things for a particular purpose for a particular person. Every medium is different. There is no universal frame.


*This is your opinion and it's respected.* What I want to know is why are you in this thread when clearly it contradicts your views?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Sultanim said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_ what I see is 1) you think typology is weak because Jung was biased 2) typology isn't really useful because:
> 
> 
> 
> *This is your opinion and it's respected.* What I want to know is why are you in this thread when clearly it contradicts your views?



It is a "fictitious puzzle" as James said. I like puzzles sometimes. It is like a video game. It isn't reality.

I compared it to guessing a person's weight. Except nobody ever touches a scale. Nobody knows their own weight much less the weight of another person. It is carnival like shit. It is an absurdity. 

Astrology is superior in ways in at least one can get a definitive type. You can't argue with a birthday. At least there is something to stand on. It isn't a bottomless pit.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

In order to talk about and judge cognitive functions, we have to identify them correctly so we are not talking in a muddle!



> Originally Posted by *BigApplePi*
> 
> 3. E=mc2? Without a context, this is both Ti and Te. Ti because a lot of thought went into it. Te because once proven, it is out there and it can be mechanically applied ... almost pushing Se rather than Te. The mass is supplied and lo and behold, out comes the energy! By that I mean when the the formula is applied, it's a perception of an observation, all thought being behind the scenes. We can't confuse the perception with a judgmental theory.





Sultanim said:


> I used a context..


A situation can have lots of contexts. That's the same as saying it has lots of possible environments. *I'm wondering which one or ones you had in mind.*

E=mc2 is like 7x9=63. The multiplication is done with memory (not much thinking if any). That is Si. To apply E=mc2, one has to plug in numbers from the real world for m and c. That is Se. That one is multiplying and not jumping rope, I don't know what that is. I suppose it is observation which is more Se. Remembering how to multiply is Si. To check that our multiplying is within the reasonable range increasing the chance to be error free ... that could be Te. One has to think to make sure the result is reasonable. <-- am I doing this right?

Deriving the formula in the first place is different. That was very difficult. It took lots of thinking, probably both Ti and Te. Probably more Ti though as I was not there when Einstein did it. 

Now I forgot what points were to be made, lol. Oh. You said something about ... "3. The fundamental difference is that Ti prefers to make careful steps to get precise results while Te relies on the evident to reach a quick result."

Yay! E=mc2 has a little Te and gets quick results; the derivation took careful steps to get the precise formula.

Is this what you meant? It doesn't seem to give Te much credit.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> ...


I'm talking about the formula in itself: a formula is a set of steps that, if carefully followed, will get you towards a result. But you can't "manipulate" the steps or you won't get the answer you're supposed to get. That is Ti. Looking back perhaps the Rule of Three was a better example.

I then compared Te to the Rule of Thumb, in which it isn't intended to be precise but it's practical and effective... (this might be like the 10000th time I repeat this).


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

@BigApplePi I think you weren't keeping up with my posts. And I think you're being rather cynical: I compared Ti to algorithms in general, and as I said algorithms can be either long and exhaustive or short and precise. What matters to Ti is the process. Te doesn't care for the process as much as the goal, and there will be instances where Te will go to great lengths just to see the goal.

I don't think this definitions Te and Ti are given (I didn't invent them) are meant to be "mean" to either Ti or Te, it's not like all Ti users have OCD or all Te users are not intellectual. What I'm saying is that each has a different take on Thinking: they are Ti and Te, not TiA and TiB or TeA and TeB. They work on different levels. And as you say, every situation has it context. There are times where Te is more valuable than Ti and Ti is just a nuisance and vice-versa.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> Deriving the formula in the first place is different. That was very difficult. It took lots of thinking, probably both Ti and Te. Probably more Ti though as I was not there when Einstein did it.
> 
> Now I forgot what points were to be made, lol. Oh. You said something about ... "3. The fundamental difference is that Ti prefers to make careful steps to get precise results while Te relies on the evident to reach a quick result."
> 
> ...


ummm, to derive a formula, Ti and Ni are the BEST, but Ti and Ne will do. Te can "memorize" the formula and Si can memorize the derivation of ONE specific formula. 
INTP and ENTP are theoretical mathmeticians and physicists. Ni and Te do great for APPLIED math, which bores the shit out of Ti and Ne.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

It's weird seeing people argue about impressions rather than definitions, and even if the conversation was to move to a more conceptually defined approach towards the functions the users in this thread are going to have either agree on one set of definitions whether they are derived from the mind of one of the individuals, or if you all decide to go off of Jung, MBTI (it's different variations), or Socionics because arguing past each other on nothing but impressions of functions rather than a clearly [as clear as can be in relation to its 3 opposing functions (functions that are repressed, suppressed, and Indifferent to the function in question) e.g. Ne's 3 opposing functions being Si, Ni, Se]

OR you can all continue debating to a inevitable point of nonconsensus, the same nonconsencephalitis that has allowed this thread to even continue as far as it has, and as it will unfortunately keep persisting if the impressions of the functions, specifically Te due to purposes of this thread; are not forgone for a more consistent approach of tying these concepts to clear concise definitions, as much as possible, given the amount of factors known to the participants of the conversation on the process of said function in discussion.

For anyone confused on the matter here's a simple way to go about this:

-Define Extraversion & Introversion in relation to each other
-Define the Thinking function or the process of Thinking (preferably in relation to feeling to get a clear sense on what thinking us when differentiated completely from feeling)
-Apply the definition of Extraversion & Introversion to the concept of Thinking that was also defined, thus differentiating the thinking function, Te & Ti, from each otheroom
Extra: If using Chapter X of Psychological Types as a reference, then you'll need to understand what is the unconscious as defined by Jung, how the structure of the psyche is defined by him, Empathy & Sympathy defined by him, and one of the most importent things to understand is his definitions of Abstraction along with the movement on Libido.
Extra continued: without these concepts understand clearly as he defined them then you'll inevitably confuse aspects of functions for other aspects that may or may not belong to the functions themselves (ex. Attaching Feeling-Sensations to the function of Intuition which has no such aspects outside of Intuition attached to it if it's a completely differentiated function, completely differentiated function being synonymous to your main function, whereas any other "differentiated function" in the same type is only relatively differentiated, thus falling at some level into in the unconscious, never reaching full differentiation without causing a disturbance of psyche, a conflict between your dominant and that secondary function that can encroach quite close up to the dominant and at times put up an annoying fight if given to much conscious energy that differentiates at a proportionate rate) 

Continue on though; hopefully this thread can actually turn into something informative rather than the continuing these endless supply of debates over the impressions each person has on the functions and the types themselves because impressions are just that impressions, and take on very much different characteristics based on the experience of the subjective values, views, and experience within an individual; therefore making these impressions unreliable since they avoid taking in the concept for the parts that define it but instead focus on impressions with unclear defined parts, thus making such a debate/discussion a moot one if the intention and end goal has to do with truly understanding what Te is outside of subjective impressions attached to it by the individuals discussing the matter momentarily.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Te is one thing. Ti is another. 

THinking of them in terms of thinking and extroversion or introversion is mostly a waste of time IMO. 

Personal examples bring it home for people. Discussion helps people LEARN.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> Te is one thing. Ti is another.
> 
> THinking of them in terms of thinking and extroversion or introversion is mostly a waste of time IMO.
> 
> Personal examples bring it home for people. Discussion helps people LEARN.


Then this thread will inevitably continue on indefinitely with everyone debating about what which function is based on their individual impressions on the functions which does nothing beneficial for understanding the function themselves. Also if the underlying principles that constitute as the make up of the function is completely disregarded in favor of "personal examples" then you'll be continously debating about "personal examples" which may or may not be Te, and nor would you have any clue as to whether you are referring to Te over other functions without some type understanding on what makes Te what Te is, which is inevitably in relation to Ti, and that relation between them (which depends on extraverosion and introversion, Empathy, Abstraction, unconscious and concretism conceptual definitions to understand what that relation is) belongs to thinking as a whole, but hey if everyone wants to "just" talk personal experiences, then just ignore this post and the last one since I dont want to interfere with the unending process of discussing personal examples of undefined concepts.


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

The Incandescent Abyss said:


> Then this thread will inevitably continue on indefinitely with everyone debating about what which function is based on their individual impressions on the functions which does nothing beneficial for understanding the function themselves. Also if the underlying principles that constitute as the make up of the function is completely disregarded in favor of "personal examples" then you'll be continously debating about "personal examples" which may or may not be Te, and nor would you have any clue as to whether you are referring to Te over other functions without some type understanding on what makes Te what Te is, which is inevitably in relation to Ti, and that relation between them (which depends on extraverosion and introversion, Empathy, Abstraction, unconscious and concretism conceptual definitions to understand what that relation is) belongs to thinking as a whole, but hey if everyone wants to "just" talk personal experiences, then just ignore this post and the last one since I dont want to interfere with the unending process of discussing personal examples of undefined concepts.


Nobody's talking about personal experiences or personal examples, at least not me!


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

Te is concerned with speaking "on behalf of its entourage", as Jung put it - putting things in their place for the sake of everyone then knowing where it is. Clarifications are valued for the forward momentum they provide. If you fall astray from this, then you're out-of-step, and become a liability - learn to catch up. *Its circumstantial logic*. It's accessible and linear.


Ti feels like a barometer for a kind of internal "consistency" - it helps you determine the "inner" logic of something, and whether it stands up against itself, and how it might differ from something else. It's pried away from the object, and helps to differentiate (and is encapsulated within) the subject. To be out-of-step is, in some way, the point - *it's internalized logic*, belaboured and holistic.

Is this fair?


----------



## Richdad (Feb 29, 2016)

Unbelievable! So much discussion on Te and Ti. 

The most simple way one can get this is: 

Te sees things understands and take a quick decision then and there. Te excels where gut feeling or calculated risk is involved. Like social or market circumstances.

Ti will see & think about the whole matter from different prospects and then take a decision. They will take decision late but it will be a firm decision. 


Sent from my HTC Desire 620G dual sim using Tapatalk


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Richdad said:


> Unbelievable! So much discussion on Te and Ti.
> 
> The most simple way one can get this is:
> 
> ...



Ummmm, NO. Fascinating an ENFJ would give lessons on Ti and Te.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

VagrantFarce said:


> Te is concerned with speaking "on behalf of its entourage", as Jung put it - putting things in their place for the sake of everyone then knowing where it is. Clarifications are valued for the forward momentum they provide. If you fall astray from this, then you're out-of-step, and become a liability - learn to catch up. *Its circumstantial logic*. It's accessible and linear.
> 
> 
> Ti feels like a barometer for a kind of internal "consistency" - it helps you determine the "inner" logic of something, and whether it stands up against itself, and how it might differ from something else. It's pried away from the object, and helps to differentiate (and is encapsulated within) the subject. To be out-of-step is, in some way, the point - *it's internalized logic*, belaboured and holistic.
> ...


This is 100% correct, along with being concise, and it gets down to the root of each which is nothing more than thinking (the cognitive faculty that links up ideas by means of a concept) deriving thought from either general judgement or internal judgement.


----------



## Richdad (Feb 29, 2016)

drmiller100 said:


> Ummmm, NO. Fascinating an ENFJ would give lessons on Ti and Te.


Just observed through a couple of Te and Ti guys. Studied the concepts abt them prior to it. I found Te & Ti fascinating. 

Also the some guys have got the wrong concept and may be are convinced themselves they are Ti or Te when they are not. 

I think u shd give a proper reason if u say I am incorrect somewhere.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Since there has been a lot of talk on Ti and Te, what is the solution to this problem?

*In terms of empirical evidence, types don’t exist. Human traits are distributed on a bell curve, not as two camel humps.
*_T__rue._ Empirical evidence suggests that the measurable dimensions of personality are not distributed bimodally (as two camel humps) but fall along a continuum (on a bell curve). This is not what we would expect if types did in some sense exist as blueprints for the human psyche. This discrepancy with the empirical data is the single biggest weakness with regards to the scientific validity of the MBTI. The flaw has been known for quite some time and no empirical solution has yet been found. 
MBTI for Skeptics | CelebrityTypes


* *




If I don't see any suggestions on this in the next few days, I'll post what I wrote to myself yesterday. I've already thought about it, lol.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> Since there has been a lot of talk on Ti and Te, what is the solution to this problem?
> 
> *In terms of empirical evidence, types don’t exist. Human traits are distributed on a bell curve, not as two camel humps.
> *_T__rue._ Empirical evidence suggests that the measurable dimensions of personality are not distributed bimodally (as two camel humps) but fall along a continuum (on a bell curve). This is not what we would expect if types did in some sense exist as blueprints for the human psyche. This discrepancy with the empirical data is the single biggest weakness with regards to the scientific validity of the MBTI. The flaw has been known for quite some time and no empirical solution has yet been found.
> ...


I call bullshit. You are implying people are not Te or Ti, but rather some middle ground indeterminate Tx. 

There is no middle ground between Te and Ti. There are attributes of each we can all learn, but most people don't type into some mythical middle ground to support your bell curve fairy tale.


----------



## Richdad (Feb 29, 2016)

drmiller100 said:


> I call bullshit. You are implying people are not Te or Ti, but rather some middle ground indeterminate Tx.
> 
> There is no middle ground between Te and Ti. There are attributes of each we can all learn, but most people don't type into some mythical middle ground to support your bell curve fairy tale.


Guess what he's right. You are not in same mood all the time. 


Many times same person get different mbti results at different times. This is a very common error of mbti. I am surprised u didn't knew this.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Richdad said:


> Guess what he's right. You are not in same mood all the time.
> 
> 
> Many times same person get different mbti results at different times. This is a very common error of mbti. I am surprised u didn't knew this.


sigh. Yes, the tests generally give different results based on how you answer, and how you answer does give different results based on how you "feel. 

However, your base personality type does not change.

THis is another example of Te vs Ti. Weak, and undeveloped Te will blindly accept test results. Ti will question test results to validate they match what is logical and makes sense.

This is NOT a very common error of mbti. This is a common MISUNDERSTANDING of how MBTI works quickly resolved with even a tiny bit of research and logical thought.


----------



## Tripod (Mar 12, 2016)

drmiller100 said:


> THis is another example of Te vs Ti. Weak, and undeveloped Te will blindly accept test results. Ti will question test results to validate they match what is logical and makes sense.


Is this not more an example of weak critical thinking - which is not related to Te or Ti?

EDIT: Example edited due to MBTI/Socionics functional differences


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Richdad said:


> Guess what he's right. You are not in same mood all the time.
> 
> 
> Many times same person get different mbti results at different times. This is a very common error of mbti. I am surprised u didn't knew this.


Pretty sure he does know that. Being in different moods doesn't change the way your mind is built, but it does change the results of badly designed tests. That's why logical people don't trust tests to be valid all the time.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> I call bullshit. You are implying people are not Te or Ti, but rather some middle ground indeterminate Tx.
> 
> There is no middle ground between Te and Ti. There are attributes of each we can all learn, but most people don't type into some mythical middle ground to support your bell curve fairy tale.


I see what yer saying but that wasn't what I had in mind. Te and Ti are definitely distinct. I interpret the Bell shaped theory to mean people who use Te and Ti as they wish. Thus we'd find Te 60% and Ti 40% or another person Te 30% and Ti 70%. Like that.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

BigApplePi said:


> I see what yer saying but that wasn't what I had in mind. Te and Ti are definitely distinct. I interpret the Bell shaped theory to mean people who use Te and Ti as they wish. Thus we'd find Te 60% and Ti 40% or another person Te 30% and Ti 70%. Like that.


Ok. I still don't see where you are going to get 50/50 to make your bell curve. It is a boob curve, with deep cleavage. Not a bell curve. 

I'm Ti based, and I think I have VERY good use of Te, and I bet I'm 70/30 Ti to Te. 
I RARELY find someone who is Ti based who can Te with me.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Tripod said:


> Is this not more an example of weak critical thinking - which is not related to Te or Ti?
> 
> EDIT: Example edited due to MBTI/Socionics functional differences


Fair enough, but "critical thinking" does sort of distill down to Te or Ti. 

As a Ti based person, I naturally think critical thinking is Ti based, but over time I learned Te can absolutely be "critical thinking." 

Different basis of decision making, but still "logic." 

Reading my comment, to be fair, Weak Ti is also not a pretty thing and leads to weak thought processes and conclusions. You can see younger Ti users sharpen their skills in the philosophy and critical thinking forums.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

drmiller100 said:


> Ok. I still don't see where you are going to get 50/50 to make your bell curve. It is a boob curve, with deep cleavage. Not a bell curve.
> 
> I'm Ti based, and I think I have VERY good use of Te, and I bet I'm 70/30 Ti to Te.
> I RARELY find someone who is Ti based who can Te with me.


I am possibly 80% Ti with 20% Te. Note that such a percentage division is hard to define. If you are good with Te, then good for you. I will consult you as needed, lol. In the link they provided, they referred to the introversion/ extroversion divide and claimed a Bell Curve. I'm considering that first as opposed to any Te/ Ti divide.

MBTI for Skeptics | CelebrityTypes


----------



## Richdad (Feb 29, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> Pretty sure he does know that. Being in different moods doesn't change the way your mind is built, but it does change the results of badly designed tests. That's why logical people don't trust tests to be valid all the time.


 Ok, i Guess you read my mbti as enfj and which might make u think he can't understand it right.

Then again If I make another id with ENTJ mbti or any thinking type mbti. You might say he has got a point even if I repeat the same thing.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> I'm Ti based, and I think I have VERY good use of Te, and I bet I'm 70/30 Ti to Te.
> I RARELY find someone who is Ti based who can Te with me.


That's a Socionics idea (all ETs have the strongest Te). Did you come to that conclusion yourself?



Richdad said:


> Ok, i Guess you read my mbti as enfj and which might make u think he can't understand it right.
> 
> Then again If I make another id with ENTJ mbti or any thinking type mbti. You might say he has got a point even if I repeat the same thing.


Lol no, it has nothing to do with how you label yourself. You said something that is notorious of weak Te.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

drmiller100 said:


> NeTi will reexamine happily issues in order to learn more.
> 
> Te almost never. Once it is decided, they don't go back without HUGE fuss. the OP is long gone. We're all wrong, he's too busy for this stuff.
> MYST91 is a Te person. No discussion - just tells us how to behave.


Lol you mistake Ti+S for Te.

I didn't tell you how to behave, I gave a link to an article fleshing out the concepts in a great way.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> That's a Socionics idea (all ETs have the strongest Te). Did you come to that conclusion yourself?
> 
> Lol no, it has nothing to do with how you label yourself. You said something that is notorious of weak Te.


 @Richdad's post seemed fine, certainly not any worse than @drmiller's who supposedly has strong Te.

Note, I am not retyping anyone here, I'm simply pointing out how this here happens to have nothing to do with type.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> If I don't see any suggestions on this in the next few days, I'll post what I wrote to myself yesterday. I've already thought about it, lol.


Do post.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> Nicely put. Beautiful! That's the first time I've seen this idea said this way. Cause and effect are processes. Whether it's thinking or feeling, we can take an interest take an interest in one or the other. Not everyone is interested in both equally and who is? This leads me to the next thought.


Reading Jung or van der Hoop is still better than this speculation.


----------



## Cmart (Oct 17, 2013)

Tripod said:


> Yeah, and that's the difficult bit. Coming up with a reliable methodology for determining what these underlying cognitive functions are. Unfortunately we could only go about determining what these are based on behavioral observations, which unfortunately does not have a strong correlation with the underlying cognitive function. Plus we can't go about assigning motivations to the cognitive types either, which are more accurately depicted via enneagram. Thus complicating the process of determining one's cognitive functions.
> 
> 
> I agree with Ti being associated with rules, principles and "laws" of things, but I've yet to notice socionics SEEs being prone to identifying themselves as mbti thinkers though.
> ...


It is definitely a difficult thing to do I agree. 

You should check the socionics to mbti conversion poll chart, of course there is a margin of error, but most SEE pick Estp in mbti.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

myst91 said:


> Reading Jung or van der Hoop is still better than this speculation.


Maybe, but doesn't it depend on who you are and where you are? Whenever I read someone, especially a well-known expert, they have so many ideas unless they are super organized, I can't find a way to handle them all. Logic is linear and one can go back and forth making connections. Not quite so when we quote Jung here. If I were to concentrate on Jung and quote him here at some length, what would that mean? Not logic. Not linear. Not simple.


----------



## Tripod (Mar 12, 2016)

myst91 said:


> That's just introversion in this generic context of reading a newspaper (where you say Te would have to go to Ti).
> 
> Yes. This is what I have to do a lot, unfortunately, when pressed for time which does happen often enough if I want to get something done. This is at least how I perceive it, because otherwise I do have an adequate understanding at that point to get things done but I'm just not satisfied with that.
> 
> That business partner I mentioned earlier, he was doing a job with me where analysis was highly an advantage and he did analyse in his own way but he never got the Ti type of understanding. It's just different. Others surely explained better before how the Te competency and knowledge is different from a Ti understanding.


*Gasp* Are you... an LSI??

Mission accomplished!! 



myst91 said:


> Yes. For example, when I worked with my ENTJ business partner, the differences were very clear in this way. He would take up facts real quickly and did not mind a bit of trial and error to get things working. I was analyzing much deeper and that took time but I gained an understanding that he never found despite being an Intuitive and he'd ask me for help at times. :tongue:


I can relate to your ENTJ business partner. I do find myself wishing for a greater systemic understanding of issues etc due to what I saw as its advantages - better analysis and greater insight that can only be gleaned through a deep vs surface understanding. Except that I never really got down to it because there's always something else to address. Looking back, I feel that I lacked the patience for that level of analytical depth anyways, and because all I needed to know was "just enough", to get stuff done and obtain the results I sought. 

I was painfully aware that such an approach, while effective and consumes less time, was a form of instant gratification on my part, which would have longer-term implications, if not addressed. Idk how much of this can be attributed to MBTI vs socionics.



myst91 said:


> I see you are mixing socionics and MBTI together. That's a problem because they aren't really consistent with each other.


 By this, I take that you mean 1) the two systems utilize different definitions over similar functions and that 2) introverted types in MBTI have different functional ordering compared to socionics?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Originally Posted by *BigApplePi*  
If I don't see any suggestions on this in the next few days, I'll post what I wrote to myself yesterday. I've already thought about it, lol.



myst91 said:


> Do post.


#7405


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Tripod said:


> So... if I get the gist of what you're saying, Ti is more concerned with "how things work" and is process-oriented, whereas Te is more concerned with being "effective" and is result-oriented. According to this, the Te way is faster (because it is more focused on results rather than process) and the Ti way is more comprehensive and systemic, but slower (because it takes time analyse and do things according to a certain internal process). And that an individual is either more inclined towards one or the other (Te or Ti).
> 
> In your example of music recording, it sounds like you already had a certain end goal in mind and simply wanted to get there and do things based on "gut", whereas your friend is more meticulous, more in the habit of doing things a certain way ("ritual"). He probably also possesses a greater theoretical understanding, as he seemed to show an appreciation of how each of the elements (plugins) work together to produce a superior sound.
> 
> ...


I already considerate all you are saying, don't have much time to develop but i just want to say my friend is clearly ENTP.
He totally lacks Fi and kinda dislikes it. I notice how he starts being unconfortable when i perform one of my alien moves, specially if we are with more people. Not any J type for sure. I think you are just not seing the big pic. I'm not saying you are not an intuitive, just that maybe at the begining u refuse to believe the distorted shape for what it is and try to maximize resolution but it is not a vector. XD


----------



## Tripod (Mar 12, 2016)

MeTheParrot said:


> I already considerate all you are saying, don't have much time to develop but i just want to say my friend is clearly ENTP.
> He totally lacks Fi and kinda dislikes it. I notice how he starts being unconfortable when i perform one of my alien moves, specially if we are with more people. Not any J type for sure. I think you are just not seing the big pic. I'm not saying you are not an intuitive, just that maybe at the begining u refuse to believe the distorted shape for what it is and try to maximize resolution but it is not a vector. XD


Shrug. Ok.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Here is my analogy solution to the problem. What is the problem? It is, what is the distribution of usage of Te versus Ti people? is it one humped or two? If it's one humped it's like the Normal curve, possibly skewed left or right. If it's two humped, it's like the camel with two humps. One for the greater number of Te usage people and another hump for the greater number of Ti usage people. The cleavage between would be for the number of people using both Te and Ti more equally. Which distribution is right? 


* *




*In terms of empirical evidence, types don’t exist. Human traits are distributed on a bell curve, not as two camel humps.
*_T__rue._ Empirical evidence suggests that the measurable dimensions of personality are not distributed bimodally (as two camel humps) but fall along a continuum (on a bell curve). This is not what we would expect if types did in some sense exist as blueprints for the human psyche. This discrepancy with the empirical data is the single biggest weakness with regards to the scientific validity of the MBTI. The flaw has been known for quite some time and no empirical solution has yet been found.

MBTI for Skeptics | CelebrityTypes




I will give my answer below as an analogy. I'm proposing a theory which I assume if we do it right can be figured out. This answer is more fun anyway:

The answer depends on how far away we are from what we are asking the question about. It's a matter of perspective and distance. Suppose you go to a party and are introduced to someone new. What is the first thing you notice about them? Dress? Height? Weight? Skin color? No. The first thing you notice about them is their sex ... whether they are male or female. This is the two humped camel proposal. I understand you may dispute this, but I read this answer somewhere but I forget where. Anyway this is the camel hump observation. People are divided into male or female with few in between and few extremely male or extremely female.

The other view is that of an alien landing on planet Earth. Assume they reproduce asexually from one organism. When they first view humans they will notice their shape and size and how many limbs they have. They won't observe sexuality and even if they wanted to would find it as difficult as we do when we try to sex a fish. It's all a matter of perspective and distance. The alien would see a one hump distribution.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> Maybe, but doesn't it depend on who you are and where you are? Whenever I read someone, especially a well-known expert, they have so many ideas unless they are super organized, I can't find a way to handle them all. Logic is linear and one can go back and forth making connections. Not quite so when we quote Jung here. If I were to concentrate on Jung and quote him here at some length, what would that mean? Not logic. Not linear. Not simple.


Well I did provide two sources, the latter is easier to read, it's the jungian ideas but with the "obscure stuff" removed.

I understand your problem, I'm the same way really but I allow myself time to process the ideas in my own way. Btw I don't experience my own logic as simply linear though yes it can be expressed in that form.




Tripod said:


> *Gasp* Are you... an LSI??
> 
> Mission accomplished!!


Haha yes, what mission? I missed something?




> I can relate to your ENTJ business partner. I do find myself wishing for a greater systemic understanding of issues etc due to what I saw as its advantages - better analysis and greater insight that can only be gleaned through a deep vs surface understanding. Except that I never really got down to it because there's always something else to address. Looking back, I feel that I lacked the patience for that level of analytical depth anyways, and because all I needed to know was "just enough", to get stuff done and obtain the results I sought.
> 
> I was painfully aware that such an approach, while effective and consumes less time, was a form of instant gratification on my part, which would have longer-term implications, if not addressed. Idk how much of this can be attributed to MBTI vs socionics.


He did have a good overview of the systems but it was shallow compared to mine, of course it had its advantages too. I generally like to work with ENTJs on some stuff, I can really appreciate the advantages of dominant Te with strong intuition and they often appreciate my Ti too. 

Btw I just noticed you type ENTJ in MBTI but EIE in socionics. I find it hard to tell from your posts in this thread if you are Fe or Te but the Ni makes sense 




> By this, I take that you mean 1) the two systems utilize different definitions over similar functions and that 2) introverted types in MBTI have different functional ordering compared to socionics?


Different definitions of the functions with attitudes even though the definitions of the function dichotomies are pretty close across the systems. Introverted types, uhh, depends how you pick the type in MBTI.




BigApplePi said:


> #7405


Heh was this supposed to be an illustration of Ti? I think this is more INTP specific tbh. With that Ne running around  I finish things easier than the INTPs and knowing people asked for a solution and that I already wrote it up, I would not stop at that point. Even posting the document as it is and letting people read through it is better than nothing. I'd also make a decision on posting the separate thread pretty quickly after logically reasoning about what makes the most sense. I think that may be the practical side of the S auxiliary with Ti.




BigApplePi said:


> Here is my analogy solution to the problem.


The analogy is cool but I'm not quite sure it's what it really is in reality. But it's possible, sure.. without better tools to investigate it's going to remain unanswered for a while.


----------



## Tripod (Mar 12, 2016)

myst91 said:


> Haha yes, what mission? I missed something?


No you didn't.  I was wondering when somebody would come along to quickly and unambiguously sort out where my opinions stand in relation to everyone else's in the system. And... theoretically if you happen to self-type EIE, wouldn't you prefer an intelligent LSI to pop by, dissect, and give you that clarity you seek instead of any other type? :winks:



myst91 said:


> Btw I just noticed you type ENTJ in MBTI but EIE in socionics. I find it hard to tell from your posts in this thread if you are Fe or Te but the Ni makes sense


Since MBTI and socionics are distinct systems, I thought it would make sense to type myself differently. I suppose in an MBTI sense as currently understood, my dominant approach is most often to know "just enough" and be over and done with it, rather than to spend time fleshing out and analysing the details. I associate this partly to my own impatience and partly to the external requirement to deliver results in a limited span of time. Or it could be I wasn't cut out for it in the first place. I tell myself that I would investigate if I had the time (because it's interesting), but I never really get down to it (because I also find many other things interesting). Besides, the lack of urgency also means that it's ok if I end up not doing it (the deeper analysis).

However, I also tend to get horribly irritated by the harsh judgmentalism exhibited by individuals whom I have identified to be ESIs, so I'm quite hesitant to go down the socionics LIE route. The ESI-LIE dyad also sounds a lot more boring compared to EIE-LSI.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

* *












Originally Posted by *BigApplePi*  
Here is my analogy solution to the problem.






myst91 said:


> The analogy is cool but I'm not quite sure it's what it really is in reality. But it's possible, sure.. without better tools to investigate it's going to remain unanswered for a while.





This thread is about Te, right? What is going on here? We are talking about Te, then bringing Ti into it and considering possibilities. What kind of science is this? I suppose it's more fun to talk about Te and Ti without defining them ... or think we have defined them and then forget the definitions*. What a strange situation to be in ... pursuing solving a problem without defining an important definition at the foundation or at least trying to define them but then abandoning them.

What brought this about this morning that I should post the above rant? I was reading the cover article of Time about 
the top guy at Apple Inc and his defiance of the gov't to unencrypt phones. The issue is PRIVACY and how much should we honor it? I started to think about it ... and then asked myself, is this Ti or Te? Surely it is Ti. I claim to be a Ti thinker. I wildly search the outside world for what it is saying (Ne) and form an intuition and then think about it. That's Ti/ Ne, right? But then I had to ask myself, am I doing any Te?

Hold on. I had to stop to write this:
I notice I used the word, "rant." That is an emotion and certainly looks like Fi. Yet those aren't my conscious feelings. What I'm conscious of is a desire (Fe) to get across to you readers a problem. It's a social problem for all of us guilty of using vague and assumed words without defining precisely their meaning. Yet I did notice Fi. That means I feel both Fi and Fe. If I can't draw a boundary between those two, doesn't this make drawing a boundary on Te and Ti usage suspect? 

Sure we know Ti and Te when we see them, but could it be we know them only at the extremes? Extremes, just as extremists, are easy to see. What about all the activity in between? What if Ti users are using a Ti/Te mixture 80 percent of the time? What if a Te user is doing the same? That is an argument for the single hump Normal curve theory.

As I continue reading the article, I start thinking about it. That my Ti. But the article has plenty of thoughts of its own ... certainly better than mine, which is not the point. Those thoughts are theirs ... outside of me. That means I'm reading Te thoughts. What does that do to me? I'm reading Te and reflecting Ti. Is that not both? A Ti thinker who allows Te to enter his brain ... is what? As I read Te, I have Te in my brain, which I may or may not translate into Ti. If I sit with the Te and experience it as Se, has Te leaked into my mind? Does that alter my brain into Te? 

*
Te = thinking about the world outside us
Ti = thinking about what is inside us


----------



## Paradox07 (Dec 30, 2015)

I’ve been having many conversations with an ENTJ about our differences in our cognition, and through this process we’ve learned how a function can operate differently when it’s in another position within the cognitive stack. This falls more under the concept of what Jung mentioned about consciousness, and how the dominate function can make somebody perceive or judge the world completely differently. It’s for this reason alone that I have a hard time talking solely of Extroverted Thinking, as I can see all of the connections with how Extroverted Thinking works differently depending on its position and perceiving functions (I do follow the Bebee model closely).

I find that a lot of people in the typology community begin to lose this connection and begins to twist information around in order to justify their own beliefs or theories—especially when it comes to their relations of other people and what they like or dislike them, or most importantly when they want to justify why they’re x type.

For example, Introverted Intuition is often praised with INFJs and overlooked with INTJs, as people tend to focus more on their auxiliary Extroverted Thinking, which isn’t even their main focus from a cognitive standpoint, therefore completely missing what it is that an INTJ actually does and how they judge and perceive information. I suppose what I’m saying, is that it’s the equivalent of somebody being asked what a tree is, and they’re only able to explain what they’ve saw a tree to be, but they don’t actually know how the tree works on a complex level—they can only guess through association of how they know other similar things to work as a tree (kind of like the comparisons between Ni and Si).

When my ENTJ friend and I began to break down our differences given that we share the same functions but in a different order, we learned very quickly that we not only handle information differently, but we also have different goals and perceptions entirely of what we do with that information—but using a similar process, which is what we can define as the cognitive functions.

He often tells me that while he can rapidly go to different points with information (Te) and briefly speak of the abstract nature of it (Ni), that I often seem focused and I’m able to explain a concept in-depth (Ni) and concisely (Te). We joke and call me the sniper riffle and him the shotgun. This little part already explains the major differences between an INTJ and ENTJ, which can be described as: An INTJ is focused more on how entities intuitively connect and forms a big picture (Ni) while “objectively” trying to reason that thing (Te). As you can also see, this looks similar to how Introverted Thinking is explained (Hence, the mistypes between INTJs and INTPs).

While I understand the point of this topic is to discuss how Extroverted Thinking works as a single function, I think a lot of important understanding will be lost if we don't first understand the level of influence this functions has in the cognitive stack, what kind of information it's processing, and its main goal, or else all types who use Extroverted Thinking will be described as being the same, which would eliminate the point of having even different dominant functions as described by Carl Jung and many people after him.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> Te = thinking about the world outside us
> Ti = thinking about what is inside us


No. Te can deal with inner objects, just as Ti can deal with outer ones. What dictates the I/E attitude is the direction thinking predominately moves towards, the criterion it uses. That is Te will judge based on external facts, Ti will judge based on an inner facts.

To determine the attitude forget what is thought about, determine by which criteria they measure/define these objects.

Also thinking has been defined in this thread 
I have already taken the liberty to break down "thinking tells us what something is". The Jungian definition.


EDIT:
I found where Jung points this out:



Jung said:


> As a result of the general attitude of extraversion, thinking is orientated by the object and objective data. This orientation of thinking produces a noticeable peculiarity.
> 
> Thinking in general is fed from two sources, firstly from subjective and in the last resort unconscious roots, and secondly from objective data transmitted through sense perceptions.
> 
> Extraverted thinking is conditioned in a larger measure by these latter factors than by the former. judgment always presupposes a criterion ; *for the extraverted judgment, the valid and determining criterion is the standard taken from objective conditions*, no matter whether this be directly represented by an objectively perceptible fact, or expressed in an objective idea ; for an objective idea, even when subjectively sanctioned, is equally external and objective in origin. *Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without*, i.e. are transmitted by tradition and education. The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by [p. 429] which standard is its judgment governed -- is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective? A further criterion is afforded by the direction of the thinker's conclusion, namely, whether or no the thinking has a preferential direction outwards. *It is no proof of its extraverted nature that it is preoccupied with concrete objects,* since I may be engaging my thoughts with a concrete object, either because I am abstracting my thought from it or because I am concretizing my thought with it. Even if I engage my thinking with concrete things, and to that extent could be described as extraverted, it yet remains both questionable and characteristic as regards the direction my thinking will take; namely, whether in its further course it leads back again to objective data, external facts, and generally accepted ideas, or not. So far as the practical thinking of the merchant, the engineer, or the natural science pioneer is concerned, the objective direction is at once manifest. But in the case of a philosopher it is open to doubt, whenever the course of his thinking is directed towards ideas. In such a case, before deciding, *we must further enquire whether these ideas are mere abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would merely represent higher collective concepts, comprising a sum of objective facts ; or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time. *In the latter event, such ideas must also belong to the category of objective data, in which case this thinking should also be called extraverted.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

* *






> Originally Posted by *BigApplePi*
> 
> Te = thinking about the world outside us
> Ti = thinking about what is inside us





Ksara said:


> No. Te can deal with inner objects, just as Ti can deal with outer ones. What dictates the I/E attitude is the direction thinking predominately moves towards, the criterion it uses. That is Te will judge based on external facts, Ti will judge based on an inner facts.
> 
> To determine the attitude forget what is thought about, determine by which criteria they measure/define these objects.
> 
> ...








Ksara said:


> @*Ksara. *That very same quote appears in your #219. Notice there this part is bolded: "*The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by [p. 429] which standard is its judgment governed -- is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective?"*
> 
> It's the usability of the language that bothers me. Jung seems to be fond of the words, "objective" and "subjective." Not sure what can be done with that. Also I wonder if "p.429" says anything in addition?
> 
> ...


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tripod said:


> No you didn't.  I was wondering when somebody would come along to quickly and unambiguously sort out where my opinions stand in relation to everyone else's in the system. And... theoretically if you happen to self-type EIE, wouldn't you prefer an intelligent LSI to pop by, dissect, and give you that clarity you seek instead of any other type? :winks:


Haha. Glad if I helped, btw.




> Since MBTI and socionics are distinct systems, I thought it would make sense to type myself differently.


Yeah, as far as functions go. The T/F and S/N dichotomies aren't really different though.




> I suppose in an MBTI sense as currently understood, my dominant approach is most often to know "just enough" and be over and done with it, rather than to spend time fleshing out and analysing the details. I associate this partly to my own impatience and partly to the external requirement to deliver results in a limited span of time. Or it could be I wasn't cut out for it in the first place. I tell myself that I would investigate if I had the time (because it's interesting), but I never really get down to it (because I also find many other things interesting). Besides, the lack of urgency also means that it's ok if I end up not doing it (the deeper analysis).


Sounds like extraversion and if it's in the area of logic, it's T with an extraverted attitude somewhere, either an outright Te preference or your default extraversion colouring everything. Overall I don't know if you are trying to say that you prefer T half of the time and F the other half of the time. 




> However, I also tend to get horribly irritated by the harsh judgmentalism exhibited by individuals whom I have identified to be ESIs, so I'm quite hesitant to go down the socionics LIE route. The ESI-LIE dyad also sounds a lot more boring compared to EIE-LSI.


Haha, by now you sound more EIE than LIE anyway.




BigApplePi said:


> This thread is about Te, right? What is going on here? We are talking about Te, then bringing Ti into it and considering possibilities.


OP talked about both Ti and Te, comparing them I guess.




> Sure we know Ti and Te when we see them, but could it be we know them only at the extremes? Extremes, just as extremists, are easy to see. What about all the activity in between? What if Ti users are using a Ti/Te mixture 80 percent of the time? What if a Te user is doing the same? That is an argument for the single hump Normal curve theory.


This is possible, however there is still a preference. And what really interests me is the contents of consciousness in this sense - Ti-dom would only have Ti in their conscious attention, Te would be ignored out of the introverted consciousness. Now there are ambiverts but if a Ti-dom achieves ambiversion by just extraverting their Thinking, it would result in a lot of inconsistencies and Ti could not be a true dominant function anymore.




> As I continue reading the article, I start thinking about it. That my Ti. But the article has plenty of thoughts of its own ... certainly better than mine, which is not the point. Those thoughts are theirs ... outside of me. That means I'm reading Te thoughts. What does that do to me? I'm reading Te and reflecting Ti. Is that not both? *A Ti thinker who allows Te to enter his brain ... is what?* As I read Te, I have Te in my brain, which I may or may not translate into Ti. If I sit with the Te and experience it as Se, has Te leaked into my mind? Does that alter my brain into Te?


Ti differentiated to the point of being the dominant function isn't going to have Te enter the consciousness - the Te facts will have to be processed by Ti first. So no longer extraverted thinking. Ti cannot absorb Te objectivity directly. Consider also the other points I have made here above.



> Also you say, "Te can deal with inner objects." If I think of something internally and then objectify it, now it becomes something outside of me ... in the external world. Inner becomes outer. For example, if I am thinking internally of something about fish, and divide them into fish eating versus plant eating, I have now objectified something. This means what was Ti becomes Te if I choose to think that way.


Er, why do you think the categorization of fish eating vs plant eating creates an object?


@Ksara I would like to clarify this jungian point:

_"Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be a merely concretistic thinking it may equally well be a purely ideal thinking, if, for instance, it can be shown that the ideas with which it is engaged are to a great extent borrowed from without"_ and _"we must further enquire whether these ideas are mere abstractions from objective experience, in which case they would merely represent higher collective concepts, comprising a sum of objective facts ; or whether (if they are clearly not abstractions from immediate experience) they may not be derived from tradition or borrowed from the intellectual atmosphere of the time. In the latter event, such ideas must also belong to the category of objective data, in which case this thinking should also be called extraverted."_

How I see this, is, it's Te if the thinking is not only taking into account ideas from others but will stay with them without stepping beyond in any way. So in that sense it's truly just borrowing things from the intellectual atmosphere of the time and never thinking them through deeply (or not dealing with depth via Thinking, anyway).


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Paradox07 said:


> I find that a lot of people in the typology community begin to lose this connection and begins to twist information around in order to justify their own beliefs or theories—especially when it comes to their relations of other people and what they like or dislike them, or most importantly when they want to justify why they’re x type.


Damn, yeah.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> @*Ksara. *That very same quote appears in your #219. Notice there this part is bolded: "*The criterion of judgment, therefore, as to whether or no a thinking is extraverted, hangs directly upon the question: by [p. 429] which standard is its judgment governed -- is it furnished from without, or is its origin subjective?"*


Yes, great quote 
Yes, it isn't what objects one is focused on, it is how one makes a judgment about those objects.



> It's the usability of the language that bothers me. Jung seems to be fond of the words, "objective" and "subjective." Not sure what can be done with that. Also I wonder if "p.429" says anything in addition?


I can find it later, Jung does define the terms he uses.



> Also you say, "Te can deal with inner objects." If I think of something internally and then objectify it, now it becomes something outside of me ... in the external world. Inner becomes outer. For example, if I am thinking internally of something about fish, and divide them into fish eating versus plant eating, I have now objectified something. This means what was Ti becomes Te if I choose to think that way.


Making a few assumptions (Jung referring to himself when using I, and he views himself as using Ti) Ti can use concrete objects. It goes both ways. Jung does not specifically say the Te becomes Ti, or Ti becomes Te (though how some have interpreted his function stacking this could be the case). Rather Ti can use concrete objects, such as external facts, but Ti will judge based on an abstracted criteria.



> Another thing you said: "What dictates the I/E attitude is the direction thinking predominately moves towards." This is hard to process. What if one spends 90% on internal and 10% on a final external direction, is that Te or Ti? I propose it is both. In my fish example above, what if I decide that I don't like that division and come up with something else? I have moved from Te back to Ti.


From what I understand our conscious mind holds one attitude (say introversion), and our unconscious mind the other (say extroversion). The functions bend towards these attitudes depending on how conscious/unconscious they are. A Ti dominant will be mostly conscious of Thinking, being introverted their thinking takes an introverted attitude. Yes at dom point their attention will be elsewhere and if thinking becomes unconscious will take on the extroverted attitude.
I don't see why the dominant function must always be conscious (this is my assumption) so yes I think T can move between Ti and Te.

The 90% Ti user, and this 90% is conscious, and the most conscious of the other functions that would be a Ti dom.

I'm not sure how 'like' is used in the thinking process (or Ti). To me a judgment based on 'like' is feeling. If you fish division is based on you own idea, not an external standard/tradition/fact, then yes that's a Ti judgment.



> Since Jung is the guru on these things, I'd to look at what he says a little more. (I have his book, but unread.) I'm not saying he has the final word though as he wrote decades ago.


I'm always personally weary of this.

Jung has his theory/definitions 
Socionics has their theory/definitions,
As well as Beebee, Nardi, Thomson, Beren's, MBTI.

The above not always interchangeable systems as they are talking about different aspects of personality even though they use the same labels. Then add on top the conclusions/ideas people come to and again they are explaining another theory (their theory) with the same labels... Leads to a lot of confusion lol.

You definitely don't have prescribe to Jung, I just hope for clarity. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone define Si with a very similar definition Jung uses for Fi. They claim they are more correct, I just see the same phenomenon observed and they labelled it differently. Their ISxJ would be an ISxP in another established system. Just arbitrary lines in the sand.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

Paradox07 said:


> I
> He often tells me that while he can rapidly go to different points with information (Te) and briefly speak of the abstract nature of it (Ni), that I often seem focused and I’m able to explain a concept in-depth (Ni) and concisely (Te). We joke and call me the sniper riffle and him the shotgun. This little part already explains the major differences between an INTJ and ENTJ, which can be described as: An INTJ is focused more on how entities intuitively connect and forms a big picture (Ni) while “objectively” trying to reason that thing (Te). As you can also see, this looks similar to how Introverted Thinking is explained (Hence, the mistypes between INTJs and INTPs).
> 
> .


Excellent points. INTP vs ENTP is an INTP uses Ne to find things to think about, and ENTP uses Ti to filter the crapload of ideas which run through our brain.

Another point worth making is our first function is so natural and easy for us, we assume EVERYONE has it, and we take it for granted, and we forget how to even identify it - like our heartbeat, our first function just IS, and always has been, and we can't imagine without it.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> YI'm not sure how 'like' is used in the thinking process (or Ti). To me a judgment based on 'like' is feeling. If you fish division is based on you own idea, not an external standard/tradition/fact, then yes that's a Ti judgment.


No, when someone uses the word "like", it does not have to be a feeling-based value judgment. It can be logic deciding something makes sense. These everyday generic words can't be used to analyze where someone is coming from.




> I'm always personally weary of this.
> 
> Jung has his theory/definitions
> Socionics has their theory/definitions,
> ...


Ha, yeah.




> You definitely don't have prescribe to Jung, I just hope for clarity. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen someone define Si with a very similar definition Jung uses for Fi. They claim they are more correct, I just see the same phenomenon observed and they labelled it differently. Their ISxJ would be an ISxP in another established system. Just arbitrary lines in the sand.


Yeah ISxP vs ISxJ in MBTI vs Socionics, uhh... can of worms


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

myst91 said:


> Er, why do you think the categorization of fish eating vs plant eating creates an object?


I can't continue this line of thinking about Te versus Ti until this question gets answered to your satisfaction.

Let's say I start out as an INTP, puzzling about fish and not knowing much about them. I observe: here are all kinds of fish. Are they all alike? Doesn't seem that way. My intuition says maybe some eat other fish and some others eat plants. That is Ne, strictly observation. So as a theorist I propose a theory: fish can be divided into one or the other. That division plan is Ti. I hardly know if it's true to not. Maybe fish eat both which would make the theory crude. 

Then, I say to myself, the hell with this speculation. I'm going to type up this theory and put it out there for others to read. (There is some Fe in that and Fe is my motive.) I immediately want to go further with this. It's too late to take the theory back because it's in hard print. As a matter of fact, I read my own writing as if it were someone else's. That makes it objectified. It's in the external world as hard coded categories. 

Sure I can do more Ti thinking about this theory, but I'm not doing that yet. Instead I'm finding myself explaining this theory to people I observe reading it. The naming of two categories is Se observation. My explaining requires a different kind of thought, namely I decided there were fish of each type and my decision I felt (Fi) was good enough to make the division. You are to accept my division. For the time being I'm explaining and not taking it back. That is Te. 

This may be rather long winded, but that's the way such a thinker might go. I started out as an INTP and took on a temporary INTJ role by publishing. If I want to question my own theory and further develop it, I'm back to the INTP I claim to be. Yet there is no denying I stopped off to play INTJ, however reluctantly. I may even in lecturing about this theory be forced to call myself a "fish professor." More objectifying. My students on listening to my theory see me as an INTJ even though underneath I may be uncomfortable about it.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> No, when someone uses the word "like", it does not have to be a feeling-based value judgment. It can be logic deciding something makes sense. These everyday generic words can't be used to analyze where someone is coming from.


Thanks, I still don't quite understand however. 'To like' I associate with that sense of attraction/repulsion, a feeling judgment haha. Perhaps too narrowed in association.



> Yeah ISxP vs ISxJ in MBTI vs Socionics, uhh... can of worms


Lets not go there


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> I can't continue this line of thinking about Te versus Ti until this question gets answered to your satisfaction.
> 
> Let's say I start out as an INTP, puzzling about fish and not knowing much about them. I observe: here are all kinds of fish. Are they all alike? Doesn't seem that way. My intuition says maybe some eat other fish and some others eat plants. That is Ne, strictly observation. So as a theorist I propose a theory: fish can be divided into one or the other. That division plan is Ti. I hardly know if it's true to not. Maybe fish eat both which would make the theory crude.
> 
> ...



I don't have the time at the moment but a quick skim over this. Apologies if I missed the mark 

Your theory --> Ti inner image
and then you fitting facts (external objects) to your theory --> Ti judgment

Te stays with the facts, and searches for more facts which may never coalesce to a theory. Te may borrow your theory if it becomes accepted by majority.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> Let's say I start out as an INTP, puzzling about fish and not knowing much about them. I observe: here are all kinds of fish. Are they all alike? Doesn't seem that way. My intuition says maybe some eat other fish and some others eat plants. That is Ne, strictly observation. So as a theorist I propose a theory: fish can be divided into one or the other. That division plan is Ti. I hardly know if it's true to not. Maybe fish eat both which would make the theory crude.
> 
> Then, I say to myself, the hell with this speculation. I'm going to type up this theory and put it out there for others to read. (There is some Fe in that and Fe is my motive.) I immediately want to go further with this. It's too late to take the theory back because it's in hard print. As a matter of fact, I read my own writing as if it were someone else's. That makes it objectified. It's in the external world as hard coded categories.


When you read your own writing later, you don't have to absorb facts, they are already processed via your own Thinking if you are Ti-dom.

And no, putting it out in the external world doesn't necessarily make it hard-coded categories in the sense that they all will still be dependent on the system into which they fit. That makes them relative and not objects existing on their own right without anything else. So again, still Ti. Though a Te person may read it exactly that way, that is, hard-coded facts.




> Sure I can do more Ti thinking about this theory, but I'm not doing that yet. Instead I'm finding myself explaining this theory to people I observe reading it. The naming of two categories is Se observation. My explaining requires a different kind of thought, namely I decided there were fish of each type and my decision I felt (Fi) was good enough to make the division. You are to accept my division. For the time being I'm explaining and not taking it back. That is Te.


Just because you are explaining your thoughts it doesn't make it Te, imo. As for the Fi part, I really disagree that that is Fi, unless you made the decision based on value judgments. When I make a logical decision that I feel is good enough, it's not Fi. The feeling isn't a value judgment, it's simply a feeling of things making logical sense, it's detached from values. 




> This may be rather long winded, but that's the way such a thinker might go. I started out as an INTP and took on a temporary INTJ role by publishing. If I want to question my own theory and further develop it, I'm back to the INTP I claim to be. Yet there is no denying I stopped off to play INTJ, however reluctantly. I may even in lecturing about this theory be forced to call myself a "fish professor." More objectifying. My students on listening to my theory see me as an INTJ even though underneath I may be uncomfortable about it.


No, you are not playing INTJ as INTJ is going to think differently and as a result, will talk differently too. 




Ksara said:


> Thanks, I still don't quite understand however. 'To like' I associate with that sense of attraction/repulsion, a feeling judgment haha. Perhaps too narrowed in association.


I often say it without feeling anything and it's not about a real value judgment there either, it's just a phrase of expression.




> Lets not go there


Ahah why not - now you made me curious, what do you think about that one?


----------



## Sultanim (Feb 4, 2014)

I think @Entropic should be proud of this thread. It's nearly 30 pages and people are still discussing openly trying to solve the riddle!


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> I often say it without feeling anything and it's not about a real value judgment there either, it's just a phrase of expression.


Ah, gotcha.



> Ahah why not - now you made me curious, what do you think about that one?


Arbitrary lines in the sand we draw.
All see the same desert, yet each typology draws different lines in the sand to foster understanding, the segments not the same. In and of themselves the segments do not matter as what matters is the desert. However to foster communication we want to match these segments, otherwise we face endless mismatch/disagreement/confusion. None of the segmentation is inherently wrong as all describe the desert, yet each can not see this from the others viewpoint.

Things get even more confusing when we layer these systems, add our own opinions, draw our own lines., and claim these segments are the same when they aren't.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Sultanim said:


> I think @Entropic should be proud of this thread. It's nearly 30 pages and people are still discussing openly trying to solve the riddle!


This does not please the master.

There is plenty of good material in this thread... Does anyone know SFJ 2 that cant resist gathering and compiling the correct data on this topic.


----------



## Tripod (Mar 12, 2016)

myst91 said:


> Yeah, as far as functions go. The T/F and S/N dichotomies aren't really different though.
> 
> Sounds like extraversion and if it's in the area of logic, it's T with an extraverted attitude somewhere, either an outright Te preference or your default extraversion colouring everything. Overall I don't know if you are trying to say that you prefer T half of the time and F the other half of the time.


Quick question - In your view, is it possible for a MBTI INTJ to be a socionics IEI? Or in an extreme case, for one's MBTI type to be drastically different from one's socionics type?



myst91 said:


> Haha. Glad if I helped, btw.


:thumbs up:


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> Arbitrary lines in the sand we draw.
> All see the same desert, yet each typology draws different lines in the sand to foster understanding, the segments not the same. In and of themselves the segments do not matter as what matters is the desert. However to foster communication we want to match these segments, otherwise we face endless mismatch/disagreement/confusion. None of the segmentation is inherently wrong as all describe the desert, yet each can not see this from the others viewpoint.
> 
> Things get even more confusing when we layer these systems, add our own opinions, draw our own lines., and *claim these segments are the same when they aren't.*


I don't really see it as necessarily arbitrary lines. There must be a reason(s) for seeing the lines and better to know these reasons. But I agree the desert is what matters the most in a sense. 

God, the bolded. Someone just claimed it in my (MBTI) type thread too. So frustrating.  :tongue:




jkp said:


> There is plenty of good material in this thread... Does anyone know SFJ 2 that cant resist gathering and compiling the correct data on this topic.


I would do it if there was much correct data that led to anything new. I don't think so, at this point.

I mean, there are good insights and bits of explanations and whatnot but not really leading to anything new. Though this also depends on the reader's level of understanding of things, sure.




Tripod said:


> Quick question - In your view, is it possible for a MBTI INTJ to be a socionics IEI? Or in an extreme case, for one's MBTI type to be drastically different from one's socionics type?


I go by how the basic dichotomies of S/N and T/F do match so no. (I/E also, depending on how we look at that one.) Going by functions is a different matter but they should still follow these basic dichotomies as they are built up from those. If someone is really so undifferentiated -function-wise- that there is no clear ego with a dominant function then sure, they can be categorized in whatever inconsistent ways between the systems. I wouldn't see that as very meaningful though.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> I don't really see it as necessarily arbitrary lines. There must be a reason(s) for seeing the lines and better to know these reasons. But I agree the desert is what matters the most in a sense.
> 
> God, the bolded. Someone just claimed it in my (MBTI) type thread too. So frustrating.  :tongue:


I see our ability to see patterns (where none may or may not exist) and project our meaning into them. The lines remain arbitrary until someone comes across them and interprets them.

We should be fine seeing the desert in general as long as we aren't caught up looking at every grain of sand haha.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> I see our ability to see patterns (where none may or may not exist) and project our meaning into them. The lines remain arbitrary until someone comes across them and interprets them.
> 
> We should be fine seeing the desert in general as long as we aren't caught up looking at every grain of sand haha.


Oh, I was talking about real patterns that have been validated enough but lacking an explanation yet. If a line is arbitrary, a non-existent pattern, it wouldn't ever get interpreted properly.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Oh, I was talking about real patterns that have been validated enough but lacking an explanation yet. If a line is arbitrary, a non-existent pattern, it wouldn't ever get interpreted properly.


Humans looking at cars naturally see the car as having a face.
Most people can identify a car's face, and most will interpret how it looks in a similar way.
We have identified a pattern that appears real, yet in reality cars do not have faces.

With typology I do think there is some pattern that does exist. The E/I, T/F, N/S and J/P are only just one way we can organise these patterns. Cognitive functions another.

I think we are moving off topic anyhow haha. And what I have said is just opinion not fact. It's just how I currently see things.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> Humans looking at cars naturally see the car as having a face.


What? That's news to me. I don't see cars as having a face. They are just cars, I can describe their physical properties and that's it for me, no more.




> Most people can identify a car's face, and most will interpret how it looks in a similar way.
> We have identified a pattern that appears real, yet in reality cars do not have faces.


What I'd call a "pattern" here is that many people (well, according to you) will see this "car face". Not that the car has a face. We need to know why people see that. This is what I meant by wanting to know why the lines are drawn in the ways they are.




> With typology I do think there is some pattern that does exist. The E/I, T/F, N/S and J/P are only just one way we can organise these patterns. Cognitive functions another.


Well the two are related though. But yes.


----------



## Tripod (Mar 12, 2016)

myst91 said:


> *I go by how the basic dichotomies of S/N and T/F do match so no. (I/E also, depending on how we look at that one.) Going by functions is a different matter* but they should still follow these basic dichotomies as they are built up from those. If someone is really so undifferentiated -function-wise- that there is no clear ego with a dominant function then sure, they can be categorized in whatever inconsistent ways between the systems. I wouldn't see that as very meaningful though.


Thanks. So essentially, you opine that assuming an individual is correctly typed in the MBTI system (meaning, typed via an accurate understanding of the JCF and not simply by various type descriptions and tests), their socionics type should more or less be equal to their MBTI type. 

And that the reason why there is no 1:1 correlation from MBTI to socionics is because MBTI interprets the functions differently from socionics in terms of function attitudes (I/E of the N/S/T/F dichotomies), and since the functional ordering is different for half the types under MBTI, that's why socionics and MBTI are deceptively similar but different systems. 

This discussion on cognitive functions here - is neither purely from an MBTI perspective on JCF nor the socionics perspective, am I right? We're going about it trying to define the functions inductively based on our individual observations to enhance our understanding of theory (and perhaps to modify it?)

Just trying to grasp the underlying assumptions here as a basis for future discussion.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tripod said:


> Thanks. So essentially, you opine that assuming an individual is correctly typed in the MBTI system (meaning, typed via an accurate understanding of the JCF and not simply by various type descriptions and tests), their socionics type should more or less be equal to their MBTI type.


The dichotomies I mentioned, yes, but just those.




> And that the reason why there is no 1:1 correlation from MBTI to socionics is because MBTI interprets the functions differently from socionics in terms of function attitudes (I/E of the N/S/T/F dichotomies), and since the functional ordering is different for half the types under MBTI, that's why socionics and MBTI are deceptively similar but different systems.


Actually, I don't subscribe to the j/p switch idea for introverts, IMO it's not as clear-cut as extraverts being always the "same type" between the two systems and introverts always having a different functional ordering. But yes to the rest.




> This discussion on cognitive functions here - is neither purely from an MBTI perspective on JCF nor the socionics perspective, am I right? We're going about it trying to define the functions inductively based on our individual observations to enhance our understanding of theory (and perhaps to modify it?)


I'm trying to stick to Jung here. Good question about others. 

I wouldn't want to do it only inductively, tbh, but yes, observation is needed to test ideas.




> Just trying to grasp the underlying assumptions here as a basis for future discussion.


Haha probably there are many underlying assumptions here, differing for each person (?).


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> What? That's news to me. I don't see cars as having a face. They are just cars, I can describe their physical properties and that's it for me, no more.


Well according to what I have come across that makes you the minority here 
What about with people, do you recognise faces or do you just see eyes/noses/mouths?



> What I'd call a "pattern" here is that many people (well, according to you) will see this "car face". Not that the car has a face. We need to know why people see that. This is what I meant by wanting to know why the lines are drawn in the ways they are.


There is a part of our brains that put certain objects (eyes, noses, mouths) together to form what we recognise as a face. It forms a pattern with these objects. It can also see the pattern of a face 'falsely' in other objects where features are similar to eyes/noses/mouths all found together. That's why this line is often drawn.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

I see cars as having faces too. Like the headlights are the eyes, the logo on the grill is the nose, etc? I thought everyone did that? Lol.

They are definitely just cars to me, I don't see them as living or anything, lol, but I do instinctively see a "face" for some reason.

They sell those eyelashes for your car that go on the headlights as if the headlights were eyes.










Slightly disturbing, lol, but they sell them and they sell fairly well as far as I can see. Carlashes.com

I have not read most of this thread /off-topic.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> Well according to what I have come across that makes you the minority here
> What about with people, do you recognise faces or do you just see eyes/noses/mouths?


Err what do you mean by faces vs eyes/noses/mouths? What do you define as the difference?




> There is a part of our brains that put certain objects (eyes, noses, mouths) together to form what we recognise as a face. It forms a pattern with these objects. It can also see the pattern of a face 'falsely' in other objects where features are similar to eyes/noses/mouths all found together. That's why this line is often drawn.


I know there is a face recognition area in the brain. If you draw me a circle that has two dots and a horizontal line below them in it, I can see it as a face, sure. But cars are real physical objects. I don't mix those with other kind of stuff.




counterintuitive said:


> I see cars as having faces too. Like the headlights are the eyes, the logo on the grill is the nose, etc? I thought everyone did that? Lol.


That of course makes logical sense that it has such a similarity but I don't see it by default. If I make myself focus and ask myself to focus in this specific way then I can now that this has been the topic here.




> They sell those eyelashes for your car that go on the headlights as if the headlights were eyes.


Lol..

Thanks for the off-topic :tongue:


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Ksara said:


> There is a part of our brains that put certain objects (eyes, noses, mouths) together to form what we recognise as a face. It forms a pattern with these objects. It can also see the pattern of a face 'falsely' in other objects where features are similar to eyes/noses/mouths all found together. That's why this line is often drawn.


Wait... I was using that as an analogy. Did you not get that? I was using it to point out how I meant it when I talked about the lines in the desert.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Err what do you mean by faces vs eyes/noses/mouths? What do you define as the difference?


Face is the combination of those separate objects in a particular layout.

Facial recognition, the ability to put those separate objects together mentally to see a persons face as a whole. 

People who can not do this do not see a person's face, they actually struggle to identify people (even people as close as family members) because they literally just see eyes, nose, mouth. Mentally there is no connection between these objects to form a familiar face to identify the person. It's like looking at a person's eyes, then their nose but forgetting the eyes, then their mouth forgetting the nose, and never seeing it all simultaneously.



> I know there is a face recognition area in the brain. If you draw me a circle that has two dots and a horizontal line below them in it, I can see it as a face, sure. But cars are real physical objects. I don't mix those with other kind of stuff.


*shrugs* perhaps your brain just hasn't drawn the connection instinctually when it comes to cars? Your perception isn't deceiving you


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

myst91 said:


> Wait... I was using that as an analogy. Did you not get that? I was using it to point out how I meant it when I talked about the lines in the desert.


The desert was an analogy. The false pattern recognition is a real phenomenon.

I don't know. I'll have to reread the posts haha


----------

