# REAl LIFE examples of Te vs Ti?



## Satan Claus

monemi said:


> Ti doesn't always follow rules, but not allll Ti users spend time on why. ESTP's most certainly don't spend a lot of time on why.


Yeah, I was aiming more towards INTP's. Again, I think it just depends on where the Ti is in your function stack.


----------



## Satan Claus

L'Enfant Terrible said:


> Te is asking why just as much as Ti. Ti's answer to why is inside while Te's is outside. That doesn't mean Te can't think for itself or that Ti is logically right all the time. On the contrary, I know a lot of Ti people that make no sense whatsoever.


I didn't say Te can't think for itself and no Ti is not always right because they're going on what makes sense to them, not others. 

When telling the difference between the two, I always think of Ti as an investigator and Te as a doer. Both are really good thinkers, but it comes out in different ways. Besides, we all have Ti and Te. Just a preference. So saying a Te user can't think for themselves wouldn't make any sense.


----------



## PaladinX

I would just like to throw out there that Te isn't necessarily having a "scientific method" or empirical way of thinking or needing to have facts/proof (they belong to the Te category, but is not what Te is). Te also accepts general 'objective' ideas. The point is that the criteria for the thinking judgments of Te are based on external factors.



Jung said:


> Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one, no matter whether it be represented directly by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned.



To OP:

I'm sorry I can't think of a concrete example for you.


----------



## monemi

Oh shit. Forgot real life examples of Ti vs Te. It really depends on type. Situational can so often depend on so many other factors. So any examples I come up with are going to be untrue to a certain degree. 

I suppose voting would be one example. Te is more focused on functionality of voting: Getting things done. Ti is more focused on representation of voting: Is my perspective being represented. Ti will be just fine if a bill fails due to a lack of agreement. Opposing views were represented. Te will see that the system failed because a bill failed to go through.


----------



## Stavrogin

I think of it this way:

Te is vertical logical construction. Think of a pillar for a building, it's strong, stable one stone or brick is placed on the other securely to create a very reliable foundation. But it is not very broad or far seeing. So a Te user constructs very secure and strong ideas, theories, and systems. The user has a fantastic appreciation for facts and how they can be directly related, but not so good at seeing the underlying implications of these facts or other areas which these facts may influence but not apply directly.

Ti is horizontal logical construction. It's not so much concerned with the factual consistency as it is with the logical consistency of a system, theory and so on. Ti can see how ideas and systems will relate and interact with each other and whether or not they can work together but it's not so good at forming arguments or creating an independently strong concept.

I'll give an example of this:
A friend of mine (Te user) and I (Ti user) where having an argument. My friend had expressed a belief in two ideologies and his arguments for them were very good. There really was no way that I could disprove either one of them, but what I did notice that my friend did not was that they were inherently contradictory.

On the surface yes, there did not seem to be a problem and even looking at the elements of what was needed in order for them to be applied everything looked good. But I observed that simply by the nature of how they were constructed if both were applied fully in life they would quickly end up in conflict due to a slight nuance in the way each would interact with the world once they were applied.

So to summarize:
The Te user bakes a delicious, beautiful, gorgeous, delectable, fantastic and all around perfect cake. The best cake ever created in the history of humanity.

Then the Ti user comes along and says "You can't have your cake and eat it too." But they can't bake a cake for shit.


----------



## Giraffe77

Ti unknowingly critiques general common knowledge, and rationalizes with their own assumptions and beliefs.
Te unknowingly critiques their own assumptions and beliefs (and others), and relies more on general common knowledge. 

Ti's attempt to explain with personal logic for understanding.
Te's attempt to justify with objective logic for knowledge. 

Ti's have deep understanding of a handful of things, while Te's have quite a storehouse of knowledge for tons of things. 

I find Te-leads talk with a more bland, direct, blunt, 'matter-of-fact' kind of style. :dry:
However, Ti's can also seem quite stubborn, and critical of anything people state as fact, as they subjugate it with their own differing explanations, personal beliefs and understanding.


----------



## Giraffe77

Ti unknowingly critiques general common knowledge, and rationalizes with their own assumptions and beliefs.
Te unknowingly critiques their own assumptions and beliefs (and others), and relies more on general common knowledge. 

Ti's attempt to explain with personal logic for understanding.
Te's attempt to justify with objective logic for knowledge. 

Ti's have a _very_ deep understanding of a handful of things, while Te's have quite a storehouse of knowledge for tons of things. 

I find Te-leads talk with a more bland, direct, blunt, 'matter-of-fact' kind of style. :dry:
However, Ti's can also seem quite stubborn, and critical of anything people state as fact, as they subjugate it with their own differing explanations, personal beliefs and understanding.


----------



## Kavik

Stavrogin said:


> I think of it this way:
> 
> Te is vertical logical construction. Think of a pillar for a building, it's strong, stable one stone or brick is placed on the other securely to create a very reliable foundation. But it is not very broad or far seeing. So a Te user constructs very secure and strong ideas, theories, and systems. The user has a fantastic appreciation for facts and how they can be directly related, but not so good at seeing the underlying implications of these facts or other areas which these facts may influence but not apply directly.
> 
> Ti is horizontal logical construction. It's not so much concerned with the factual consistency as it is with the logical consistency of a system, theory and so on. Ti can see how ideas and systems will relate and interact with each other and whether or not they can work together but it's not so good at forming arguments or creating an independently strong concept.
> 
> I'll give an example of this:
> A friend of mine (Te user) and I (Ti user) where having an argument. My friend had expressed a belief in two ideologies and his arguments for them were very good. There really was no way that I could disprove either one of them, but what I did notice that my friend did not was that they were inherently contradictory.
> 
> On the surface yes, there did not seem to be a problem and even looking at the elements of what was needed in order for them to be applied everything looked good. But I observed that simply by the nature of how they were constructed if both were applied fully in life they would quickly end up in conflict due to a slight nuance in the way each would interact with the world once they were applied.
> 
> So to summarize:
> The Te user bakes a delicious, beautiful, gorgeous, delectable, fantastic and all around perfect cake. The best cake ever created in the history of humanity.
> 
> Then the Ti user comes along and says "You can't have your cake and eat it too." But they can't bake a cake for shit.


So you're saying Te constructs and Ti deconstructs?


----------



## Stavrogin

Kavik said:


> So you're saying Te constructs and Ti deconstructs?


In some sense yes, though more accurately I would say Te constructs and Ti makes connections.


----------



## Kavik

Stavrogin said:


> In some sense yes, though more accurately I would say Te constructs and Ti makes connections.


I think our conversation is a good example of Ti. One Ti user says something in long terms, then another Ti user tries to simplify the information to its basic points, in their own words to make it all make sense to them. then the original Ti poster simplifies their own bulk message with the same message as the commenter but in their own words because that word choice makes more sense to their internal catalogue. 

I'm not picking on you. I just thought our conversation was a good example. I'm known to go in circles like this until I come up with a conclusion in my own words. I can't speak for Te users but I imagine they don't have a need to rephrase what they hear or break it all down in such a way that the information applies specifically to their understanding of the obtained information. The information is there and they do not need internal confirmation or a manipulation of the parts of the info. Basically they are able to take things at 'face value' in a loose sense.


----------



## Octavian

I am skeptical of all things to the point that my catchphrase is, "if that's true then ___." I assume nothing to be true without clear or strongly implied evidence. Everything else is explored as mere assumption and then backtracked under the assumption that it’s a lie (most often through my Ni.)

Pure reason does not move me. I do not care how logical or eloquent a thing is, if I do not see evidence, I will either do research, test the thing myself, or discard it entirely (especially if it's working out of a premise that isn't falsifiable.) I do not trust formal logic. 

Te is most concerned with the object, it's attributes, and it's nature relative to the tangible reality, even in the case of the object being intangible itself.

I tend to spend a lot of time collecting data but my focus is never upon the data itself, but the underlying principle or laws that gave rise to those results. Due to my leading with Ni and Te occupying the auxiliary position, I am more concerned with bending reality to my will, than I am with understanding it. Understanding it inside-out is just the pre-requisite to that. 

To me personally, Te is a tool through which to actualize or test my intuitive inclinations.


----------



## Stavrogin

Kavik said:


> I think our conversation is a good example of Ti. One Ti user says something in long terms, then another Ti user tries to simplify the information to its basic points, in their own words to make it all make sense to them. then the original Ti poster simplifies their own bulk message with the same message as the commenter but in their own words because that word choice makes more sense to their internal catalogue.
> 
> I'm not picking on you. I just thought our conversation was a good example. I'm known to go in circles like this until I come up with a conclusion in my own words. I can't speak for Te users but I imagine they don't have a need to rephrase what they hear or break it all down in such a way that the information applies specifically to their understanding of the obtained information. The information is there and they do not need internal confirmation or a manipulation of the parts of the info. Basically they are able to take things at 'face value' in a loose sense.


I agree, and I will say the need for repeating and rephrasing comes from the fact that Ti builds horizontally rather than vertically so it's harder to communicate to other people, especially the ones who don't have it.


----------



## cautiouskitty

Satan Claus said:


> Ti *dominate* user: Ok....let's go over the objectives again...I see here that I have to make my conclusion paragraph six sentences? Why do I have to do that? Why does this rule exist? Would other teachers make me do this? How is this benefiting us? I've never done this before. Ok, I have four days to get this done. I guess I'll just do some tonight and finish it later.


This makes a lot of sense to me particularly. My INTJ husband recounts having even as a small school-aged child been exactly this way. He was in a state of constant questioning. The only caveat is that if the teacher couldn't produce a valid reason why something should be done x-way and y-way and answer him in a manner that made sense to him...well, frankly, he would just refuse to do the work entirely. Everything was a questioning, logic, and reasoning with him, and heaven help you if you couldn't give him a satisfactory why. In his mind, if you can't answer this, you have no business teaching him anything and need to find a new job.

I'm sure you can believe that he had a really rough time through his schooling! Dropped out at 15 due to boredom, then went and aced his GED test a week later. It wasn't that he was stupid at all; he's incredibly intelligent. He just refuses to take anyone's word for it. They have to PROVE it...or else! 

The same man is currently teaching himself C and C++ programming so that he can get a job in the programming field. He has mostly used Python as a medium beforehand, but he has an uncanny knack for simplifying lines of code to one or two lines that most others cannot manage in ten lines.


----------



## Kathy Kane

I don't agree that Te has anything to do with empirical data or experimentation. I think both of those fit with Se, as they are tangible and active. 

For me, I use Te to confirm the Ni intangible impressions I've collected and identified by ensuring the external ideas/objects match. I also use Te to organize the external world in a logical and impersonal structure. 

So I'll observe something new, and if my impression seems off, then I'll research and figure out what it was that I was missing or what was strange about it. Most of the time I can just run my impression by another person, whom I respect, and confirm what I already knew and discover things I overlooked. 

I tend to ask questions like: "what do you think of this?" or "when you've read xyz, what was your opinion of it?" That way I can gather more pieces and get a clearer picture. 

When I organize, I look to traditional methods that are consistent. I don't ever want to design my own, though I will try to fix the ones that my Ni has problems identifying, which I want to make accurate.


----------



## FakeLefty

The really simplified version:

Ti: "I'm right because (insert internal mental process here)."

Te: "I'm right because the data seen here is irrefutable."


----------



## jetser

I think it's a great example.

Te: Agent Hoffman - this is our shared interest

Ti: Donovan - this is our shared value, called the rulebook, aka the Constitution.


----------



## Conscience Killer

*Te* is concerned with *facts*.
*Ti* is concerned with *sense*.


----------



## Lady of Clockwork

My ESTP brother learning to drive:

Te: You need to indicate when you're turning from this lane.

Ti: I don't see why! I'm clearly in the left lane, so they should already know I'm turning left. Why should I have to indicate when they can clearly see?

Te: It's not a personal issue - it's law.


----------



## Stevester

Me and my ENTP friend...



Him _"It works like this, but it can also do that and then there's this and if you tweak it you can get that...''_

Me: _''But.....does it work or not?''_


----------



## blackpussy

Te: bossy. He doesn't accept any logic that doesn't proven yet. Based facts on what is said somewhere else.
Ti: hardheaded prick. Doesn't listen. He knows he's right. And you cannot understand his logic because he's got his own.


----------



## Bastard

@jetser can't be a sensor, he practices necromancy.


----------

