# Te vs Ti, real life example of how they differ?



## Monteskiusz

I've had a situation in mine class when the math teacher told me to do some task with procent's.
I went to the blacktable and writed answer in like 20 second's. 
Then i heard from my teacher that process is wrong even tho the anwer is right.
Someone before me have to made very simmilliar task so i observed and then i comed up with easier process, more effective.
Mine teacher said that i need to do it the way my friend did, it was so boring, because the answer already was on table. 
And i am probably NTJ, 
NXJ for sure. This shows A=E.


In short. 
I observed-Se
I comed up with easier solution-Te
I wrote the answer and didn't care about the whole process.-Dunno


----------



## Entropic

Ti: How do I define this? 
Te: What results do I get?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Entropic said:


> Ti: How do I define this?
> Te: What results do I get?


Ti: Oooh, a riddle!
Te: Don't care, just give me the answer and let's move on already!


----------



## reybridge

PrinceofPride said:


> Okay, I'm still trying to make some sense out of these cognitive functions and how we use them so bear with me. I already know my Fe and Fi suck, so I'm not even going to go there. As for Te vs Ti, I want to know how they differ from each other in the way they often prefer to learn, or how they look at the world. Also, does it affect the facial expressions they make while they communicate to others? I've seen some sources stating that Te tends to talk differently or display different facial expressions as compared to Ti while communicating. If that is true then how do they differ?
> 
> The reason I'm so curious is because I already know I use Ni and Se, and I already know that tend to avoid making decisions based on my own emotions or the emotions of others. However, whether I primarily use Te or Ti will cause my entire MBTI code to change (well okay, everything but the T changes.) Normally I'd go off of the percentages such as which MBTI code is rarer than the other, and make the assumption that I'm most likely the more common personality type. Problem is, both ISTP and ENTJ are rare among females, so I can't really go off of the percentages this time. Female ISTP is 2-3% and female ENTJ is 1-4% (percentages vary depending on the sources but when it comes down to it, both are rare). I tend to enjoy planning strategies, taking leadership roles, and setting up physical chats, lists, etc. and most of my knowledge depends on unbiased facts that are presented to me. Most of these traits are often associated with Te dominant types, but is it possible to be Ti dominant and still often display these traits?
> 
> _"Te, or extroverted Thinking:_
> _It's an attitude that encourages an external, objective standard when dealing with logic, impersonal facts and ideas. Te, when arguing, will tend to cite appeals to authority and other widely accepted, externally focused evidence; i.e., citing books or prominent authors/studies, or any widely accepted consensus among the external world of people who study the topic in question. 'The experts all agree that this is the case' is a very Te-oriented argument, because it relies on external standards and context for its evaluation of logical decisions._
> 
> _For this reason Te people will usually insist on seeing quantifiable, repeatedly demonstrable, empirical evidence before accepting anything. If you can't put it in a test tube, measure it and repeat these results any time for all to see, it's not valid. The scientific method is extremely Te-oriented. From the Te perspective, there is no such thing as logic without this sort of externalized validity, because impersonal ideas are to be shared and agreed upon by large groups instead of individuals and determined by objective consensus."
> 
> _Valuing the scientific method? Constantly citing external sources during a debate? Not fully accepting something until it can be physically measured or proven? These are things I do all the time, but again, is it possible for a Ti dominant type to act this way as well?
> _
> "Ti is focused on the blueprint, the design, the idea--while Te is focused on the application of that idea into an objectively measurable process. Externally measurable application is not nearly as important to Ti as internal structural integrity and logical consistency with itself.
> 
> __Ti: What logical relationships necessitate this system working the way it does, and how can I make them make sense to me?_
> 
> _Te: What externally verifiable, quantifiable evidence can we show that this is logical, and what tangible goal can be served by spending our time on it?"
> 
> _Questions I often ask my teachers are, "What real world application does this have? What situation would we apply this to in real life? How are we going to use this?" I don't want knowledge for the sake of having knowledge. I want knowledge I can actually use in any future problems or debates I may have. I don't want to learn everything there is to technology just because I feel like it, I came to college specifically with the goal of becoming a robotics engineer. Same point of view applies to how I work out. I don't lift weights simply because I enjoy it, I lift weights because I have a specific body type in mind that must be achieved within a set time frame of four months, and I've got a schedule laid out for the entire span of these months. As one martial arts book I read put it, it doesn't matter how or why it works, all that matters is that it does work. But again, for all I know Ti doms could be thinking this way as well.
> 
> Okay, I probably just answered my own question but I feel the need to get more external opinions on this and I want to make sure my understanding of Te vs Ti is correct. So that brings me back to the main point of this thread: real life examples of Te and Ti in action. I understand that it's hard to evaluate the two unless secondary functions are taken into account however, so it'd be best to give examples of scenarios on how a Te/Si and Te/Ni would react to a situation as opposed to a Ti/Ne or Ti/Se. If you put both a Te and a Ti dominant type into a classroom setting, how would one take in the info as opposed to the other? Also, if it's true that they behave differently in conversation as some sources state, then could someone provide videos of a Ti/Ne talking and a Te/Ni talking so that I could compare the two to how people often state I behave or look while I talk with someone?


Hey, if you really want a framework with a clear explanation to how cognitive functions work, you want to go to my thread http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ks-please-only-people-pure-logic-enter-5.html. You will not confusing a function with another function by the definition stated there.


----------



## ae1905

PrinceofPride said:


> Valuing the scientific method? Constantly citing external sources during a debate? Not fully accepting something until it can be physically measured or proven? These are things I do all the time, but again, is it possible for a Ti dominant type to act this way as well?


yes...many scientists are Ti users who value empirical evidence


----------



## Toroidal

PaladinX said:


> To expand on this and the reasoning behind the inconsistencies, to me, is that Ti is kind of like a complex file system, factual errors and logical inconsistencies are often challenged in order to preserve the sanctity of that system; or to redefine and reconcile where a 'record' is 'filed' (ie. re-evaluate the system or that point's place in the system).
> 
> 
> To me, Thinking is essentially defining and prioritizing based on objective* criteria. Ti is based on subjective, internal criteria, such as principles, frameworks, and classifications. Te is based on objective**, external criteria, such as rules, structure, and metrics.
> 
> * objective as in goal-oriented
> ** objective as in object-oriented; ie external to the mind
> 
> To the bolded line in quote: hahahah! all the time


I would define Ti as proper syntax code and Te as fuzzy logic.


----------



## VagrantFarce

For an example of Te, listen to how Christopher Nolan describes his film-making process - there's clearly a strong utilitarian approach, his communication is very straight-forward and focused on the process of solving real-world problems in a very methodical, easy-to-follow way:






For an example of Ti, listen to Steve Wozniak talk about his experiences as an engineer. His outward communication is more Fe (he admits to being "very soft" and not combative, and is clearly very friendly and harmonising), but his philosophy on engineering ("everything has to work and that's a type of honesty") and his interest in repeating digits reveals an orientation toward inner logic.


----------



## VagrantFarce

Another way of thinking about it:


*Ti* understands "logic" as something that is internalised, and emerges quite naturally on its own, assuming that we allow it to. To do otherwise is to be illogical.


*Te* understands "logic" as something that needs to be enforced externally & ultimately submitted to, for the betterment of everyone. "If the machine breaks down, we break down."


----------



## Paradox07

Scelerat said:


> To be somewhat hyperbolic, Te in a debate on gun control would cite statistics and other data, whereas Ti would wonder if guns really exist at all or if they are just mental constructs.


I don't laugh at many things, but this had me chuckling.


----------



## Legalname

Hi, maybe I can help in this thread since I am almost using as much Te than Ti (I'm an ENTJ scared of being ENTP). And I'm more of a scientific. 

I am really bored of science sometimes since I think a lot of scientist are very clever, but not so many are rich. So I think "How useful it is to be clever if you can't earn money with that?". So I started my own business in science consulting to see how much I can get from a science background. I really enjoy earning money by creating scientific stuff/methods or anything related to that. You can use your imagination to design solutions and make things happen. No boundaries, just challenges to appear reliable to your clients. 

So try to see if this thread is Te or Ti 

Btw, I am french so forgive the mistakes


----------



## SuperfluousNinja

NipNip said:


> Ti and Te walk home after attending a football match. Their team lost 2-3.
> 
> Ti: "Man, they played really well actually."
> - Te: "Well they lost. They gained 0 points."


So Te types can't read numbers?


----------



## Notanidealist

Te marketing person: Our research shows that customers respond well to these buzzwords. Here's some copy for the packaging that uses all these buzzwords in pretty colours with dubious punctuation. Just check it for grammatical mistakes.
Ti editor: Wait a minute. This doesn't make sense. Some of these terms have no meaning and others have opposing meanings. Most don't even accurately describe the product.
Te manager: If we don't get this copy sent off by 4 pm, we'll miss the deadline with the printer. Just write something that won't get us into any legal trouble, okay?
Marketing person and editor: Uh, okay ...


----------



## NipNip

SuperfluousNinja said:


> So Te types can't read numbers?


The team doesn't 'gain points' in regards to the tables/ranking. Score 2 and concede 3 = 0 _points_, 2 _goals_.


----------



## Chesire Tower

Well, I prefer to get to the basic point in any discussion but that may be my Ni. I always need to make sure that my logic is 100% solid before I construct any argument. Some people subscrube to the view, that it's better to have a confident strong opinion rather than a logically cogent one. I obviously subsribe to the latter.


----------



## AlexandreDeMacedoine

Most statements about thinking which relates to the origin of data which feeds thinking are wrong because a function is a processing box. You cannot include perceiving functions to describe a function on its own. Te relates to reference/origin of logical judgement in a context of the object. I am here using Te since I use inner logic of functions and somewhat classical canonic logic to exhibit fallacy. Ti is a reflective movement, i.e. to judge according to own logic. A implies B in the referential of my sole logic.
Therefore, Ti is more universal because it uses a single reference point while Te is more contextual and relative since it derive from outer reality which mutates. 

Intuition is an incouscious processor of possibilities. Intuition says "this is a possible vector between points A and B" and this possibility might be judged using a judging function (depending of personnal state). 

Things like "Ti examines deeper" or "Te use statistics" is at best statistical stuff. The thing is that lies more in values. Rationality is not logic, logic is a framework containing sets of rules and axioms. Monopoly has a logic, mathematics also and so on.


----------



## AlexandreDeMacedoine

As for reference point, e or i refers to direction of the stream. A function is implemented by its output (direction : e or i). Te is so directed towards object and seeks to apply to the extraverted object. Note that an object can be anything like an idea, concept... Therefore there is a huge miscunception around differentiating Ti and Te. Ti is directed towards structring self world and Te external world (which can be external world of ideas). 
Te : I applies logic to a field to sort an exteroverted set of principles, Ti : I applies logic to a field to sort an introverted image of set of principles. This set is the output, input does not characterize the function.

A Ni dom is percepting and feeds judging with meaning and vectors. So Ni exhibits an inner bound between internal stored abstract images of objects and - if they want to - use Te to applies it outside. Therefore Ni Te can be interrupted by Ni to Te translation which is a reflective call while Ti can be interrupted as Ti call to Ne (I just speak about Ti-Ni and Te-Ne pairs). 

Point of this ? There is no point to infer functions from behaviour and preferences, neither to characterize a function by its input because E and I designate output.


----------



## heavydirtysoul

Figure said:


> Didn't read the entire thing, but here's a quick sketch of the two:
> 
> *Ti* says A=B=C=D=E. It values a way of thinking in which there is a logical progression from one point to the next that creates a system. They focus on sorting out inconsistencies within their system, wanting it to "work," preferably without error. This is why Ti people tend to correct facts when they think you've mis-spoke - they tend to want consistency and accuracy, as this creates validity in their style of thinking. However well their system "works" on its own, Ti thinking sometimes misses the end goal/point, and is such criticized by
> 
> *Te: *A=E. Te people tend to be concerned with output and result. What's the end result or payout, regardless of the process or the way in which individual steps get you there, and does this amount to efficiency when all is said and done? Unlike Ti logic that deals with creating a structure that "works," Te logic simply uses what's around factually to make a strong case. "The facts are what they are, regardless of how or why, and they come together to prove X." The problem here is that sometimes Te thinking makes assumptions that are not valid and runs with them.
> 
> The difference, then, is that Ti values a logical progression in which each piece works so consistently with the next that it couldn't be logically refuted from that person's point of view (introverted), even if not practical. Te values a logical progression where multiple pieces of data from either the same or different outside sources (extraverted) is taken for exactly what it says it is, and tied together to provide enough evidence to make the proof overwhelmingly obvious, even if there is more going on beneath the surface that isn't accounted for.


This one helped me out a lot. Great description.


----------



## heavydirtysoul

I have a question though, for anyone who will accidently stumble across the thread. How do you know for sure your Te is dominant, what are the tricks?


----------

