# Ti and Te difference in logic



## goodvibe

Te is system based logic. It is only inherent to the system itself and not universal. This is why you will see the Te argument primarily made from an Ethos and not Logos standpoint, "it is right because xyz is credible and says it is right". Ti is destructive to this because it will make no assumptions that the premise is correct, in other words, something can be valid but not be sound. Incorrect conclusions can have far reaching consequences if not resolved, even if at that moment., everything fits nicely into that system.

This doesn't mean that Ti _attempts_ to be right will be right either, it can sometimes go off the rails. Nor does it mean that Ti deconstruction is necessary in every situation. There needs to be a healthy balance.


----------



## Rayos

I personally don't see much value in comparing functions of the same dichotomy, but maybe that's just because I've been seeing discussions like this since literally the creation of this thread 11 years ago. I much prefer to compare functions by their attitude, so that the difference between Ti and Te just becomes the difference between introverted judgement functions (Ji) vs extroverted judgement functions (Je).

Fi and Ti are the introverted judging functions. To put it simply, what they're concerned with is creating and living in accordance with these sort of universal principles or ideals that are intended to be right or true no matter the context. So types who favor these functions are often very against expedient decision-making that only cares about getting the job done no matter what it takes. They're willing to sacrifice Je results if it means betraying their Ji principles.

Fe and Te are the exact opposites, extroverted judging functions whose focus is making meaningful changes to an actual context. Of course, the kind of changes they want to make are different, but they're both willing to sacrifice their Ji principles if it's what a particular context demands to get the job done, and in fact they can find it irresponsible when others prioritize their personal Ji principles over the Je demands of a particular moment. In other words, they're willing to sacrifice their Ji principles if it means getting Je results.


----------



## prettyintp

OP post is incorrect. I keep reading about this all over the internet.

Deductive and inductive reasoning are not linked to only 1 cognitive function, but the result of the stacking of multiple functions.


For example: as an INTJ, you listen to what other people say, but you filter what they say as useful or useless based on Fi. But if no one tells you anything, then you rely on Se to gather your data from, new experiences which give then projected to your intuition (Ni). Then your Ni gets filtered by your Fi using the currency of Te (what is useful to me), which is linked to Se (what is useful to me right now).

As for Ti, it's different. It's a concept, an internal process, that is precise but can be true or not true. True, when the concept is built by statistics numbers (evidence - facts or Si) or concepts that are proven and your imagination (Ne) can't go against it. Not true and looks subjective, if Ti is based solely on wrong datas.

Because Te depends on the external, and external are subject to huge subjectivity you can't control (in fact do you even know where the info come from?), you often feel you are right, but you can't know what because you don't know whether that information is true or reliable. External information can come from gossip, fake news, conspiracy, or statistics, studies, etc... But if one thing never changes, it's the past, Si. But Si is not complete enough to predict the future alone, but it is the most reliable source of data. Facts are true, but the truth isn't only factual.

Ti is the slowest function of all types when it analyzes Ne. It's the nature of deductive reasoning, which, of course, analyzes all possibilities before judging.

Deductive reasoning is not based on Ti alone, it is based on the result of Si-Ne-Ti. It's the process of taking the _indisputable facts (objective datas of the past that is or can be proven at 100% and can not be denied since the past can't be changed) [Si]_, projecting those indisputable facts to all (*exhaustive*) possible and impossible scenarios [Ne], and filtering every single scenario out one by out using_ a logical framework_ _[Ti] based on the highest probability likely to happen, which is based on the most accurate methodology that is based on the success of the past (that has always worked) [Si] and that methodology can not be improved based on no possibilities to improve [Ne], which includes considerate all available datas [Ne,Si,Se, Ni], or another methodology which is proven and can not be denied (could be related to Te, acquired, learned,..). _That deductive reasoning will arrive at a conclusion and that conclusion is one of the conclusions which will be perceived as Te from Te types.

And from then, it becomes information Te will select, and the selection is usually filtered by other cognitive functions. Te is very dependable and only as accurate to someone else's Ti.

It might seem that Te holds the cup of accurate reasoning, mostly because Te doesn't know the stacking of Ti-Si-Ne which is the exact pure definition of deductive reasoning.

If you see Ti as being subjective, it is because you don't see Ti-X-Y and X-Y are other cognitive function stackings than Ne-Si. But at some point, you might argue that "_highest probability likely to happen" is subjective, and you're always right. However, everything in life is based on probability. Because that is the only best method to predict the accurate future. But it's as high as it can be, because it has considered all the pros and cons with an exhaustive listing [Ne]. Probability can be calculated in an objective way (aka actuarial science). While actuarial science is not 100%, it is still the most trustable way to predict the future. "It's not because one is not 100% that all need to be rejected, but rather it is the closest to 100% and there is no better solution."_

*As Te who you want to look at studies as the first principles, you need to realize all studies are not based on facts, but they are based on probability likely to happen, which is based on facts. *

Yes, deductive reasoning usually gives inconclusive answers because they considered all factors and in real life, it's hard to gather all those factors together. Because being accurate depends on how good your Si and Ne are, in other words, it depends on how solid the evidence is (Si) and how exhaustive your list can be (Ne). But since we are not comparing the real world but only talking about cognitive functions stacking, Ne > Ni because it is not subjective it is an exhaustive listing and Si > Se because Se is very subject to change through time easily while Si doesn't change as the past can not be changed.

Deductive reasoning is purely a principle of logic that can not be denied. It can never be wrong and it has nothing to do with your ego or how you feel. It is also not time sensitive. Because it's a framework, it's not a content. If it is wrong, the first principles contents are wrong, but not the framework.

When it comes to reasoning, it comes down to N types, especially NT types. And NT types are divided into 2 categories: you spend more time to be results oriented, or you spend more time to be framework (methodolody) oriented. We all have both, but which one is our bread and butter? INTP and ENTP are framework oriented, INTJ and ENTJ are results oriented. Framework requires more accuracy than time, results oriented can decrease accuracy to meet the time. And deductive reasoning is linked to the details of framework, Inductive reasoning save a lot of time but might not always be as accurate as deductive reasoning. The stacking of Ti + Si + Ne is found in XNTPs.

For INTJ, put your ego on the side, you know it's next to impossible to outsmart an INTP.
For ENTJ, put your ego on the side, you know it's next to impossible to outsmart an ENTP.

With the same information given, if you are unable to conclude from deductive reasoning a situation, and someone else can, it's because that someone else is not using deductive reasoning.


----------



## prettyintp

Most of the time, your valuable source of information comes from 2nd/4th cognitive functions and then gets filtered by your first and third cognitive functions. Introverts use external their external cognitive functions to gather datas and then filter using their internal functions to certify conclusion which is linked to 2nd/4th cognitive function. Extroverts use their internal functions to gather data and then get filtered by their extroverted functions.

INTJ: They received primary information by listening to others (Te 2nd) and by having new sensing experiences (Se 4th), and then they filter that information based on their introverted intuition (Ni 1st) and introverted feeling (Fi 3rd) to achieve/know if that information is strategically (Te 2nd) useful now (Se 4th)

The filter (framework, methodology) is done by Ni and Fi.

ENTJ: They received primary information from their introverted intuition (Ni 2nd) and what they feel (Fi 4th), and then filter them by asking other people what they think or doing some researching (Te 1st) and how useful now (Se) to achieve their personal future-oriented goals (Ni 2nd) and making them feel good (Fi 4th).

The filter (framework, methodology) is done by Te and Se.

But no one is 100% I and 100% E. That is the reason why some INTJ could see themselves as ENTJ, and ENTJ could see themselves like INTJs. Usually, the primary information for INTJ is the usefulness of a concept and for ENTJ is the usefulness of a person.

ENTJ comes with the mind of "no man is an island" and then gets frustrated by the incompetence of the people. ENTJ understands they can't get things done if the people they hired are incompetent, and relying on themselves solo is something they tend to avoid because it's too time-draining.
INTJ comes with the mind of "I am my own island" and then gets overwhelmed by their solo work. INTJ understands that people are unreliable and will not waste time on them. They try to avoid teamwork because other people's incompetence is too time-draining.

Now going back to the filter functions, a more reliable filter function, framework, is always linked to introversion than extroversion. Because extrovert functions are diverging and always out of our control and are only as good as the uncontrollable external, introverted functions are converging towards oneself. You want to converge when you filter, not the opposite. An INTJ would filter better than ENTJ, which makes them usually smarter (Ni+Fi >Te+Se) when it comes to converging.This is why INTJ are smarter than ENTJ, despite ENTJ looks (Se) smarter than INTJ. But Ni is a subjective function, so is Fi. Deductive reasoning has nothing subjective.

On the other hand, Si is more reliable and objective than Ni. And Ti is more objective and reliable than Fi. It's hard to go against that.

But deductive reasoning can be taught and acquired. But for some MBTI types, they are the creator of deductive reasoning. Usually, as a creator, you understand the principle better.


----------



## prettyintp

Ti is the ability to self-assess themselves. It's the ability to compare yourself to yourself. It's the ability to constantly compare you from the past to the present, to the future. It's the ability to self-improve.
Te is the ability to compare oneself to others. It's a constant competition of you vs others. It's growth relative to others, but it's unable to auto-compared. Te can't self-aware, but is aware of others.

Neither Ti or Te is complete, they both lack one and the other. If you can't assess yourself, then you can't objectively use deductive reasoning by default. If you can't assess others, then you can't objectively use deductive reasoning by default. Ti and Te are part of T but T isn't Ti, nor Te.

But here comes the major difference. Ne vs Ni. Ne is "what if this happens" vs Ni "When that happens". The What if is the most exhaustive cognitive function of the 8 types because it includes all possibilities because you can basically ask What if to every single thing that exists or doesn't exist, and is so unlimited that even time (past, present and future) is irrevelent. This is why Ne types understand the truth is not linked to the past, the present, or the future because the truth is independent of the time factor.
Ne > Ni (What if includes the when it will/would)
Ne > T (What if because it includes F)
Ne > F (What if because it includes T)
Ne > S (What if includes the when it has/have/could)

You can't use deductive if you don't have Ne. Ne incorporates all data and is irrelevant of the time and is unfiltered

How you filter is irrelevant if your list isn't exhaustive. How you filter is irrelevant if you don't possess Ne in the first place. There is no possible accurate deduction if the list isn't the most exhaustive.

The Sage journal has a study entitled _Psychological Types of Academically Gifted Adolescents_ which confirms other studies that gifted students are linked to Ne, NP types, and INTJ.

While this study can't explain why INTJ is the exception and are found to be gifted enough to be comparable to NPs, the reason is the ability of the INTJs to filter Te with Ni. While Te is not as exhaustive as Ne, Te is a pre-filtrered usefulness of Ne using logical thinking and more time saving. That being said, INTJ seems to have used an exhaustive list because Te is a pre-logical filter of "useful" Ne, but in reality, it is not using the most exhaustive list (Ne). In other words, INTJ deductive reasoning is only as reliable as the pre-filtrered listing they use, and that pre-filtrered list comes from Ne. INTJ deductive reasoning is only as reliable as the authors of the "books". And usually, INTJs are smart enough to select which authors are reliable, and most of the times, those authors are linked to NTPs. Per definition of deductive reasoning, INTJs aren't using deductive reasoning by themselves, their preferred source of information is deductive reasonings.


----------



## prettyintp

*Fallacies: Mostly SF but also found in a variable amount of STP
Inductive: Mostly NF but also found in a variable amount of INTJ and ENTP
Deductive: Mostly NT but also found in a variable amount of STJ
Abductive: Mostly NP but also found in a variable amount of ESJ
Reductive: Mostly SP but also found in a variable amount of ENJ*

Explanations:

Fallacies: Mostly SF but also found in a variable amount of STP

SF means Ti or Te at 4th. They do not value logic at all. Plus they don't consistently base their decision-making on the future. As for STP, conditional on their tendency to judge solely on external appearance.

Inductive: Mostly NF but also found in a variable amount of INTJ and ENTP.

Because your 2nd cognitive function can easily be interchangeable with your 3rd cognitive function. F vs T makes you have a tendency to decide what feels right rather than what is right. It also can happen to INTJ and ENTP conditional if they used their 3rd cognitive function over their 2nd. (F over T)

Deductive: Mostly NT but also found in a variable amount of STJ

This one is easy. The rational type is the king of reasoning because it's in their DNA. But reasoning is also linked to logic, and when facts are in the premises, the logical types can do as good.

Abductive: Mostly NP but also found in a variable amount of ESJ

Probability is linked to Ne, which is found in all NP types. ESFJ and ESTJ also have Ne in 3rd and when they value it, they can see what could,can,will,would happen.

Reductive: Mostly SP but also found in a variable amount of ENJ

Because you deny one's argument, it makes you appear (se) smarter, and you use that appearance (se) to fool people that you know better, which leads to people (binary types who only see white and black) siding with you. From then, you manipulate them to believe in your fallacies or inductive reasoning, based on how you appear smart. All types who have Se at 1,2 and 3 are subject to deductive, especially the ones at 1 (intentionally) and 2 (not always intentionally).


----------



## Purrfessor

Pretty much Ti figures things out themselves while Te tells other people or listens to other people on how to think. School for example is Te, because your work is graded and you learn a curriculum and you're told there's a right answer to things. Ti is more like "are we even sure we know why the sky is blue???" Like they ask questions A LOT MORE.


----------



## prettyintp

Purrfessor said:


> Pretty much Ti figures things out themselves while Te tells other people or listens to other people on how to think. School for example is Te, because your work is graded and you learn a curriculum and you're told there's a right answer to things. Ti is more like "are we even sure we know why the sky is blue???" Like they ask questions A LOT MORE.


The irony of when Te tells others how to think while it's Ti who can think it through. But my abductive reasoning is any T dominant has a very high Ti and Te, making it hard for all logical types to differentiate between Te and Ti because we tend to have both and use both at the same time. This is why NT-NT types get along really well because they understand. Same with ST-ST.


----------



## lww23

SF - pragmatic humanists
NF - idealistic humanists
NT - creative thinkers
ST - empirical thinkers

In the Jungian types, SFs do not all have inferior T, some of them don't. ISFP = SiFiTeNe. Tertiary Te. NFPs are N doms; NFJs are N aux.; NTPs are N doms, NTJs are N aux, etc.

Different theories come with different interpretations.

Jungian Ti dom = INTJ (TiNi) or ISTJ (TiSi). Their main difference lies in the relative values of creativity versus empirical evidence. Te dom = ESTJ (TeSe) and ENTJ (TeNe). Again, the main difference is creativity versus empiricism.

Te and Ti are fundamentally the same in nature. When in the dominant position, they become very different. All the specific differences stated in this discussion come from the E/I difference. Neither Ti nor Te only uses one type of logic. They both use different methods of reasoning, and different types of evidence, but similarly, value objectivity, rationality, and neutrality.

How do Te and Ti differ? You only need to look into the E/I difference. Te works with the outside world in the same way as Ti works with the inner world. They are mirror images.


----------



## prettyintp

lww23 said:


> SF - pragmatic humanists
> NF - idealistic humanists
> NT - creative thinkers
> ST - empirical thinkers
> 
> In the Jungian types, SFs do not all have inferior T, some of them don't. ISFP = SiFiTeNe. Tertiary Te. NFPs are N doms; NFJs are N aux.; NTPs are N doms, NTJs are N aux, etc.
> 
> Different theories come with different interpretations.
> 
> Jungian Ti dom = INTJ (TiNi) or ISTJ (TiSi). Their main difference lies in the relative values of creativity versus empirical evidence. Te dom = ESTJ (TeSe) and ENTJ (TeNe). Again, the main difference is creativity versus empiricism.
> 
> Te and Ti are fundamentally the same in nature. When in the dominant position, they become very different. All the specific differences stated in this discussion come from the E/I difference. Neither Ti nor Te only uses one type of logic. They both use different methods of reasoning, and different types of evidence, but similarly, value objectivity, rationality, and neutrality.
> 
> How do Te and Ti differ? You only need to look into the E/I difference. Te works with the outside world in the same way as Ti works with the inner world. They are mirror images.


What do you mean by Jungian types? Mixing mixing with some shadow cognitive functions?


----------



## lww23

prettyintp said:


> What do you mean by Jungian types? Mixing mixing with some shadow cognitive functions?


Jungian types have a different function model than the Grant model (eiei, ieie) or the MBTI model (eiii or ieee). The Jungian type is based on Jung's type theory, which is best explained in his _Psychological Types_. While Jung did not specify how his function model should be written, based on his theory, many contemporaries have figured out what each type should be expressed according to the Jungian model, which is, EEII or IIEE.

In the Jungian model, the dominant function always remains conscious. It determines one's E/I, J/P, the inferior function, the 1st shadow function, and the 4th shadow (aka, demon) function. So if one is a Ti dom, then the 4th function would be Fe, the 1st shadow would be Te, and the demon would be Fi. Of course, a Ti dom is an introvert and because Ti is a judging function, it means those who lead with Ti, can only be ITJs. Then all you need to do is to figure out if you prefer N or S in your perception. 

What about ITPs? the Jungian INTP leads with Ni and has auxiliary Ti, and are the true Ni doms. INFPs lead with Ni and have auxiliary Fi, and are true Ni doms as well. The auxiliary serves the dominant and has to have the same E/I attitude as the dominant. Being an IP means one leads with an introverted perceiving function. Very straightforward.

I believe in type flexibility but find the Jungian model convincing. It no longer treats extroverted functions preferentially and seems highly consistent - all Js lead with judging functions and all Ps lead with perceiving functions, which sounds more reasonable than either Grant or MBTI. 

For an early-day discussion of the Jungian model, see this 2014 post:








Jung and the attitude of the auxiliary


I've posted before on Jung's perspective on the attitude of the auxiliary function, but I've been meaning to plant a more longform post on that subject for a while. The issue just got raised here and, rather than derail that thread, I thought it made more sense to reply in a new thread...




www.personalitycafe.com


----------



## BigApplePi

I am pretty much a Ti thinker and dislike pure Te thinking. Are you guys interested at all in defining what thinking is anyway?


----------



## Mark R

Ti Dominant said:


> I agree with this. Ti is more based on internal principles and models which must be designed and considered thoroughly, but it can easily modify its internal system to accommodate new information. Usually we'll prefer a building of some sort, so that anything contradictory to our current system must alter the entire system before it is included. New information that contradicts our system isn't discarded for that reason. If it's true, and logically accepted by us, we'll slowly attempt to harmonized it with the rest of our system somehow. If it's not logical, we'll ignore it and it won't be integrated into our system at all. If an older piece of information is no longer considered valid, we'll easily discard it.


This explanation supposes that Ti users build one framework and try to harmonize aberrant data with that one framework. In many areas of thought, I have found myself building multiple frameworks at once. I assign fluid probabilities to the models that each of these frameworks suggest. For example, I might begin with the data set {1, 4}. This could be {1^2, 2^2}, {4^0, 4^1}, or {-2+3, 1+3} (and many other possible explanations). At this point, I have built multiple possible frameworks to interpret the data. Then I find out the third element is 16. The data set {1, 4, 16} could be explained {4^0, 4^1, 4^2} or other less simple mathematical formulas. Each additional data point might allow me to eliminate some of the frameworks.

In real life, I might have an explanation using a model of the universe where God exists and another explanation where God does not exist. I hold many of these frameworks in tension with one another. I'll even use multiple frameworks to evaluate the observed behavior of others. My Ne is creating the possible frameworks and my Ti is evaluating the frameworks.


----------



## Purrfessor

Mark R said:


> This explanation supposes that Ti users build one framework and try to harmonize aberrant data with that one framework. In many areas of thought, I have found myself building multiple frameworks at once. I assign fluid probabilities to the models that each of these frameworks suggest. For example, I might begin with the data set {1, 4}. This could be {1^2, 2^2}, {4^0, 4^1}, or {-2+3, 1+3} (and many other possible explanations). At this point, I have built multiple possible frameworks to interpret the data. Then I find out the third element is 16. The data set {1, 4, 16} could be explained {4^0, 4^1, 4^2} or other less simple mathematical formulas. Each additional data point might allow me to eliminate some of the frameworks.
> 
> In real life, I might have an explanation using a model of the universe where God exists and another explanation where God does not exist. I hold many of these frameworks in tension with one another. I'll even use multiple frameworks to evaluate the observed behavior of others. My Ne is creating the possible frameworks and my Ti is evaluating the frameworks.


Yeah that's Ti + Ne. The Ti does the calculating but the Ne does the imagining of possibilities. I'm very familiar with this process as an INTP. I, too, calculate many different scenarios and "collect" different conclusions.


----------



## maximum danger

Mark R said:


> This explanation supposes that Ti users build one framework and try to harmonize aberrant data with that one framework. In many areas of thought, I have found myself building multiple frameworks at once. I assign fluid probabilities to the models that each of these frameworks suggest. For example, I might begin with the data set {1, 4}. This could be {1^2, 2^2}, {4^0, 4^1}, or {-2+3, 1+3} (and many other possible explanations). At this point, I have built multiple possible frameworks to interpret the data. Then I find out the third element is 16. The data set {1, 4, 16} could be explained {4^0, 4^1, 4^2} or other less simple mathematical formulas. Each additional data point might allow me to eliminate some of the frameworks.
> 
> In real life, I might have an explanation using a model of the universe where God exists and another explanation where God does not exist. I hold many of these frameworks in tension with one another. I'll even use multiple frameworks to evaluate the observed behavior of others. My Ne is creating the possible frameworks and my Ti is evaluating the frameworks.


Very cool Mark, flex on them


----------



## prettyintp

Purrfessor said:


> Yeah that's Ti + Ne. The Ti does the calculating but the Ne does the imagining of possibilities. I'm very familiar with this process as an INTP. I, too, calculate many different scenarios and "collect" different conclusions.


isnt the precise word for that adbuctive reasoning?


----------



## BigApplePi

I like to run with attempted explanations (Ti) using Ne (as input) and Si (for consistency. Then I will run it by you (Fe) to see if you like it as further consistency for a positive outlook. I don't mind using Ni or Se or Te or Fi but those stay in the background.

I'm not sure I get the role of Te.


----------



## Mark R

BigApplePi said:


> I'm not sure I get the role of Te.


Same here. I know that my thoughts are extremely ordered by a series of frameworks, but my desk is a mess. I've also never found taking notes very useful. Te users desks tend to be kept ordered and they seem to find notes and lists very useful. Te users seem to organize their thoughts in the external world. Ti users organize the internal world.


prettyintp said:


> isnt the precise word for that adbuctive reasoning?


Yes. In my sequence examples, any sequence with a finite set of elements can be explained by more than one mathematical equation. Occam's Razor suggests the simplest solution is more likely to be true. In the world of ideas, 1+1=2, so there can be certainty. In the real world, nothing is that simple and nothing is certain. Abductive reasoning only applies probabilities to things. Ti users are abductive reasoning machines. 

We exist in a world with many possible weighted truths. Even the most vehement athiest among us acknowledges a small probability that God exists. The most faithful saint among us can imagine a world without God.


----------



## lww23

BigApplePi said:


> I am pretty much a Ti thinker and dislike pure Te thinking. Are you guys interested at all in defining what thinking is anyway?


I'm interested in defining what thinking is. 

Maybe it's a good idea to start a new discussion instead of using this old one. 

What is your definition of "pure Te thinking"? And any examples?


----------



## lww23

Mark R said:


> This explanation supposes that Ti users build one framework and try to harmonize aberrant data with that one framework. In many areas of thought, I have found myself building multiple frameworks at once.


Not so sure about Ti users, but Ti doms do not just build one framework. The purpose is to achieve the best understanding, so multiple frameworks are needed. I would assert that tertiary or inferior Ti would prefer a single framework or a 'standard' explanation of something, which shows rigidity. The more dominant a function is, the less rigid it becomes, suggesting a higher degree of mastery. 

Sometimes Ti doms are described as having difficulty absorbing new data if the data contradicts their existing framework. A misconception, IMO. A true Ti dom is not stubborn about its framework but rather, stays attentive to new data and ensures that the framework(s) are flexible and accommodating to new situations. I would say that Ti is about rationality and accuracy, and can be as goal-driven as Te. One can stay rational only by being flexible. Uncertainty does not thwart a Ti dom, he/she is able to build up a rational framework out of chaos or disorder.


----------



## Mark R

Allostasis said:


> @Mark R
> I don't see where the original poster declares the model in the context of which he wanted to discuss Te/Ti. He isn't referring to them as "functions" and there is a high chance that he doesn't really care. And neither do I.
> 
> I am not sure what is the point that you were trying to make by addressing me. If you don't want to be a part of debates, then don't be.
> Fortunately, there is no competition here since the only theory that was suggested so far was the one offered by Jung. And models are either consistent with it, or they don't bother to define anything.


Jung has a lot of interesting things to say, like undirected and directed thinking. Jung was the most brilliant psychologist to contribute to personality theory. Most of the fun for me is to throw out the bad stuff and make a framework from what remains. I don't necessarily throw out all of MBTI.


Allostasis said:


> And you failed at it. Again.


I know you don't like MBTI, and you are certainly free to express that, though I don't want this thread to devolve into a fight. Sometimes things you say just seem hostile.


----------



## tarmonk

Allostasis said:


> @Mark R
> I don't see where the original poster declares the model in the context of which he wanted to discuss Te/Ti. He isn't referring to them as "functions" and there is a high chance that he doesn't really care. And neither do I.


Yes, OP didn't specify context but there's high chance that he/she isn't talking in context of Jung, at least based on my observations from how people on this site generally seem to take things:

a) I'm far from knowing too much about Jung but did he even have concepts of cognitive functions?

b) Te, Ti, Fe, Fi etc are most often referenced on this site with given syntax when discussing modern theories

c) this is cognitive funcs section not Jung section of the forum, which may give some hint about the context, if it's not exclusively specified

d) from my subjective observations (haven't done any statistics to prove it), there's minority of people here on the site who are strongly believing into Jung exclusively, and likely don't consider that some other theory might be context of discussion. Or just debate even when they know the context, to disprove others (don't get me wrong, not referencing you personally, and in overall I very much enjoy reading your posts and thoughts)

Main issue is that same dictionary words are shared between different theory contexts where they have different definitions, sometimes leading to sidetracking from actual questions. This can create unproductive debates between people who prefer different approaches and are keeping different context in their mind.

Maybe this is something we need to be more specific about, in the future?


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> And you failed at it. Again. You are just saying that "Te" is "trivial thinking" or not thinking at all, just the usage of thoughts of others.
> I already told you many times how this makes zero sense logically and how useless such a division is in practice, but your opinions/ideas seem to never develop anywhere.
> Instead of looking into the psychology of the thinking process and how extra- or introversion factors into it, you are just looking at your never changing arbitrary interpretation/idea of it.


Hey. If I fall down, then help me up. So far, I get blasted by a big wind but without proof. Since when did I ever say Te is trivial thinking? Te makes the world go round. Ti is just theory which struggles to get out.



Allostasis said:


> I am saying that it has no utility to me. I don't need your definition of thinking, I have my own. I skimmed through yours and it offered nothing new/insightful for me.


You "skimmed"? You skimmed what? Even if you went into depth, you wouldn't find my definition of thinking (which would apply to both Ti and Te) because I didn't give it. Read me again (I know you won't). You have your own? What is it? Whenever their are two solutions, one is going to be better than the others* and my solution is very likely to be better than yours. How do I know? Because my solution is correct and yours is likely to be off. I asked people to ask me for my def of thinking and so far no one has asked. Therefore I did not give it.



Allostasis said:


> You need to take into account that a thought process that is conducted outside of the mind cannot belong to it. "External thinking" makes as much sense as "squared circle." You are talking not about "Te" but about primitive/lazy/shallow/half-assed "thinking". And no, it also isn't "Si," it is just memory. If you want to create your personal pet theory of psychological types, at least do some minimal check of how much sense it makes in the end.


All thought processes take place within the mind. It's the content of the processes. I have yet (has anyone?) to articulate the Te/ Ti difference. Are we still working on it? I haven't done it. Can you? Is it worth some try? This remains a work in progress.

*This is a paraphrase of what @series0 has said.


----------



## BigApplePi

Mark R said:


> Sometimes things you say just seem hostile.


Here is where I take in a fondness for the MBTI. It has to do with how we interpret a personality and whether we can stand up to that personality. Every personality has a weakness. What do other personalities do with that weakness?

ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si. Notice the Fe. Not 1st but a trifle friendlier than an INTP in expression. When a person says they are ENTJ, if that is the case, ENTJ = Te Ni Se Fi. Look at how low down the line that Fi is. An Fi person expresses personal feeling. Maybe they are not best at that when it is 4th in the stack instead of 1st. @Fru2 was an ENTJ if I recall. That Fi got him into trouble and I liked him anyway, but for his thinking not his feeling.


----------



## lww23

I hate to repeat myself but my question is why it seems most people tend to assume that the Grant function model is the same as MBTI?

On Reddit and elsewhere, it seems people love talking about the MBTI while they are in fact using the Grant model, over and over again. MBTI has never recognized the validity of the Grant model, to be clear.

Take ENTP for example:

*Jungian - NeTeFiSi.
MBTI - NeTiFiSi.
Grant - NeTiFeSi.*

See the difference? The Grant model and MBTI model are not the same.

Simply because of how differently each type is expressed in different models, does not mean ENTPs are fundamentally different.

ENTP, in essence, means Extroverted Intuition leading the psyche. The auxiliary is Thinking.* Ne dom with auxiliary thinking, that's it. Does that make a substantive difference if your auxiliary is Te or Ti? No. *

Jung has explained how the attitude (E/I) of the auxiliary must be the same as the dominant, and that makes sense. Basically, you cannot see anything in the North if your head is turned toward the South. If your dominant is directed inward toward you yourself, it cannot have an auxiliary that is oriented outward toward the external world.

The auxiliary _has to_ be in the same attitude as the dominant in order to serve the dominant. Remember, the auxiliary must forever be subordinate to the dominant, regardless of how developed it could be.

Say, Jungian INTJ (MBTI rough equivalent: INTP): TiNiSeFe. Does that mean the Jungian INTJ becomes a psychic with Ni? No. Auxiliary Ni plays the same role as auxiliary Ne, and they share similarities as auxiliary N not dominant N.

One has auxiliary Ne because their dominant is an E function. ENFJ - FeNe.
One has auxiliary Ni because their dominant is an I function. INTJ - TiNi.

People go to greater lengths into the painstaking details about the differences between Te and Ti, Ni and Ne. Why not take a bit of a big-picture perspective?

Say, you are an INTP according to MBTI, then your function order would be - TiNeSeFe. Use an abstraction without attitudes, that would be T-N-s-f.

For anyone with T-N-s-f:

If you are an E, it will be TeNe. If you are an I, it will be TiNi. The E/I difference. This is not about seeing possibilities versus seeing psychic revelations.
Types are dynamic but I'm not delving into the dynamics here in order to avoid confusion.


----------



## lww23

tarmonk said:


> I'm far from knowing too much about Jung but did he even have concepts of cognitive functions?


Jungian psychology is like a sea. Personality types are only a small part of it. IMO, Jung did not develop the concepts of cognitive functions, nor did he specify how his type model should be expressed in cognitive functions. 

In his famous and widely cited book _Psychological Types_, the main theme is the difference between Extraversion and Introversion. Jung was the inventor of these concepts.



tarmonk said:


> Te, Ti, Fe, Fi etc are most often referenced on this site with given syntax when discussing modern theories


True. My observation is that most people seem unaware of Jung's theory and Jungian typology is just a small minority in the typology community. MBTI claims itself to be based on Jung but actually has deviated from it, so I would see it as a separate system on its own. As for the Grant model, it is popular online, but outside the online communities, the Grant model is not found anywhere. It's not even recognized by MBTI. Now Grant model is the best known because of popularity, not validity. 



tarmonk said:


> there's minority of people here on the site who are strongly believing into Jung exclusively, and likely don't consider that some other theory might be context of discussion. Or just debate even when they know the context, to disprove others (don't get me wrong, not referencing you personally, and in overall I very much enjoy reading your posts and thoughts)


Elsewhere, I've seen what I call "Jungian fundamentalists." Those are people who claim that only Jung is correct. They keep "correcting" people and wanting them to adhere to the Jungian system. 

IMO, Jungian fundamentalists tend to be rigid and focus way too much on how functions express themselves in the Jungian model. I personally do not think they have a system yet. Not sure if you've seen it, there is a group that advertises itself on Reddit from time to time, very secretive it seems. 



tarmonk said:


> This can create unproductive debates between people who prefer different approaches and are keeping different context in their mind.


At this point, IMO, the best way is to create a hybrid system combining Jung's theory with other systems of typology, including Enneagram, Socionics, four/five temperaments, DISC, the Big Five, etc. 

To develop this new system, it will not be enough to simply put them together. The concepts must be redefined. The inconsistencies across those systems must be addressed. That will be a lot of work.


----------



## Allostasis

Mark R said:


> Jung has a lot of interesting things to say, like undirected and directed thinking. Jung was the most brilliant psychologist to contribute to personality theory. Most of the fun for me is to throw out the bad stuff and make a framework from what remains. I don't necessarily throw out all of MBTI.
> 
> I know you don't like MBTI, and you are certainly free to express that, though I don't want this thread to devolve into a fight. Sometimes things you say just seem hostile.


We share the same goal. I don't particularly care how something is consistent with what Jung thought or wrote specifically. I am curious about human psychology and the ways in which it can be conceptualized. It inevitably leads to the creation of some kind of theory/understanding/framework because we want to be able to "explain" phenomena in the end somehow.

I don't have anything personal against the MBTI. It is just the part of "throwing bad stuff," refinement/elimination of concepts that obstruct our path towards clearer understanding. If there is something insightful in the MBTI that helps with that, then it shouldn't be ignored. 

Some things that I say indeed might seem hostile. However, there is always a reason behind that I believe. I don't have anything personal. I am interested not in fights but in discussions/arguments/debates, as I believe they help us with moving forward to the truth.



BigApplePi said:


> Hey. If I fall down, then help me up. So far, I get blasted by a big wind but without proof. Since when did I ever say Te is trivial thinking? Te makes the world go round. Ti is just theory which struggles to get out.


The thing is that I genuinely tried many times, but it always just goes nowhere for some reason.



> How do I know? Because my solution is correct and yours is likely to be off.


And how do you know that? I won't bother continuing this line of conversation though, it is irrelevant and I don't need your definition just as much as you don't need mine.



> All thought processes take place within the mind. It's the content of the processes. I have yet (has anyone?) to articulate the Te/ Ti difference. Are we still working on it? I haven't done it. Can you? Is it worth some try? This remains a work in progress.


I did this a billion times I think. And every time instead of reading what I wrote you returned to your own specific "intuition" or the way that you like to think about it which arbitrarily agrees with the phenomena or analyses the arguments of others. If you want to talk with yourself, then, by all means, feel free to do so.




tarmonk said:


> Yes, OP didn't specify context but there's high chance that he/she isn't talking in context of Jung, at least based on my observations from how people on this site generally seem to take things:
> 
> a) I'm far from knowing too much about Jung but did he even have concepts of cognitive functions?
> 
> b) Te, Ti, Fe, Fi etc are most often referenced on this site with given syntax when discussing modern theories
> 
> c) this is cognitive funcs section not Jung section of the forum, which may give some hint about the context, if it's not exclusively specified
> 
> d) from my subjective observations (haven't done any statistics to prove it), there's minority of people here on the site who are strongly believing into Jung exclusively, and likely don't consider that some other theory might be context of discussion. Or just debate even when they know the context, to disprove others (don't get me wrong, not referencing you personally, and in overall I very much enjoy reading your posts and thoughts)
> 
> Main issue is that same dictionary words are shared between different theory contexts where they have different definitions, sometimes leading to sidetracking from actual questions. This can create unproductive debates between people who prefer different approaches and are keeping different context in their mind.
> 
> Maybe this is something we need to be more specific about, in the future?


He has the concept of "psychological functions". I use this interchangeably with "cognitive functions", but I am aware that it isn't entirely accurate.
And by "T/N/F/S i/e" I understand "X function employed under the y attitude."
I know, the current situation is a mess.

I go from the assumption that all of us in the end want to understand the psychology of humans better, rather than to receive some detached technical details of some poorly designed model. This is what gives meaning to all of those talks and questions and drives them I believe. People stick to some theory usually because they believe that it is closest to truth/most insightful.

As such, unless the topic explicitly aims to investigate the technical properties of some specific model, I would suggest focusing on the phenomena first and figure out the best conceptualization of it in the process. And it just happens that it is hard to ignore with Jung, even though he also got many things wrong.


----------



## Mark R

Allostasis said:


> We share the same goal. I don't particularly care how something is consistent with what Jung thought or wrote specifically. I am curious about human psychology and the ways in which it can be conceptualized. It inevitably leads to the creation of some kind of theory/understanding/framework because we want to be able to "explain" phenomena in the end somehow.
> 
> I don't have anything personal against the MBTI. It is just the part of "throwing bad stuff," refinement/elimination of concepts that obstruct our path towards clearer understanding. If there is something insightful in the MBTI that helps with that, then it shouldn't be ignored.


In this topic, I am interested in thinking from a Jungian perspective. Sometimes thinking is in the extraverted attitude. Sometimes it is introverted. He also writes of active and passive thinking. In Chapter 11 of _Pschological Types_, he writes about thinking that "lacks any sense of direction." I interpret this to mean that Ti types and Te types are not completely different from each other, since both types share T. This creates a much more complicated but more realistic model.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> The thing is that I genuinely tried many times, but it always just goes nowhere for some reason.


Then I will have to look at what you say more carefully. The thing is we use or emphasize different cognitive functions (according to the MBTI) and these lead to a less than optimum communication.



Allostasis said:


> And how do you know that? I won't bother continuing this line of conversation though, it is irrelevant and I don't need your definition just as much as you don't need mine.


I will have to accept you don't need my definition but you can't speak for me since you don't know what is in my mind. I definitely DO need your definition though when (and if) you gave it, it must have escaped me. 

Okay. I just went through this entire thread looking for a definition of thinking using the keyword "*think"* and didn't find anything you said. Maybe you talked about a definition but I've missed it. I'm falling short I guess.

Added: I do value your opinion and critique. While agreement is supportive, critique adds to what was there before.


----------



## series0

BigApplePi said:


> All thought processes take place within the mind. It's the content of the processes. I have yet (has anyone?) to articulate the Te/ Ti difference. Are we still working on it? I haven't done it. Can you? Is it worth some try? This remains a work in progress.


Te is external thinking. This is thinking related to patterns (all thought is just an excitable state arising as a pattern from one's past) that are external to the inner workings of ideas and principles within the mind. So Te is recognizing the patterns that play out in what one might call 'real life'.

I find Te is the 'how's that working out for you' practical understanding of human society. If this mass or people moves this way, then that mass or people will move that way. It allows for anticipation and makes great executive and general status. But Te is almost blatantly unconcerned with concepts or ideas or purity in any sense.

Ti is the internal pattern matching and concept linking force of thought. Ideas and their application come into play. Design pattern theory and logic and such are all Ti things. UNDERSTANDING is Ti. 

In the social world Te is more charisma and flow. Ti is knowledge and awareness and such. Ti is analysis and Ti also has the understanding of purity, which Te often dismisses as inconvenient.


----------



## BigApplePi

*Thinking defined.*
Maybe I should stop the playing around and just give my definition of thinking whereupon you can kick my butt if you don't like it, lol.

I haven't really thought of a formal definition but I do have a shot at what lies at the foundation of thinking.
Some will refer to reason and logic as thinking and though this could be true, it doesn't capture, say how thinking differs from feeling which I claim carries a contrasting and paired meaning. Also these are my personal thoughts, making them subjective so you don't have to like them. You can pick your own definition.

Thinking and feeling can be put in the same package as they are both judgments. That is, they give directions as opposed to alternative directions. The other cognitive functions, sensation and intuition are not meant to be judging. They are just observational. They are experienced as what we take as is, not where things are going.

With that in mind, thinking differs from feeling in that feeling flows while thinking jumps. A single feeling is continuous while thinking always considers more than one thing. Conversely if it is experienced as flow, it is feeling and if it jumps, it is thinking. Oh, I forgot. This flow versus jumping takes place within the mind, not something experienced by the body. This is the basic difference. I may be leaving out some context, but that's it.

The ability to feel, just about any primate animal can do. But humans can excel at thinking because they can have one thing in mind and make a judgment contrasting with something else. Show me a lower animal that can do this.


----------



## BigApplePi

series0 said:


> Te is external thinking. This is thinking related to patterns (all thought is just an excitable state arising as a pattern from one's past) that are external to the inner workings of ideas and principles within the mind. So Te is recognizing the patterns that play out in what one might call 'real life'.
> 
> I find Te is the 'how's that working out for you' practical understanding of human society. If this mass or people moves this way, then that mass or people will move that way. It allows for anticipation and makes great executive and general status. But Te is almost blatantly unconcerned with concepts or ideas or purity in any sense.
> 
> Ti is the internal pattern matching and concept linking force of thought. Ideas and their application come into play. Design pattern theory and logic and such are all Ti things. UNDERSTANDING is Ti.
> 
> In the social world Te is more charisma and flow. Ti is knowledge and awareness and such. Ti is analysis and Ti also has the understanding of purity, which Te often dismisses as inconvenient.


Let me say something personal first. I have done a good deal of thinking (without realizing it) during my lifetime. Maybe it is time to try to take on the role of teaching something rather than doing too much passive interrogation. That could be my arrogance or it could be my stupidity. I dunno.

Your post has got me to thinking further about Te and Ti which we called external and internal thinking. I think of PerC and how most (are they?) of the people I encounter who like to think about the MBTI are N types. I've been in meetup groups about the MBTI where of twelve people only one is an S type and that S type kind of feels out of place. The stats show 75 percent of people in a general population are S types. What is going on? Evolution must be trying to tell us something. S types are valuable people.

Let's apply this here. Instead of generalized speculation on internal and external (what the heck is that?) when all our thinking is done internally, what is going on? What is needed is what the S types do: talk about specific things. Then if one wants to run their N personalities, use inductive reasoning and we will get somewhere. Let's try for samples of internal and external thinking. This could make things much more clear.

1. Te Pure External - I am putting together a computer assembly kit. Some of the parts are motherboard, cpu, hard drive, keyboard, openings & insertions, display screen, blah blah blah. To do this, this doesn't require my creative talents. This is putting components together in the right places. This is Te - all external thought. The end of this thought will have the same external result no matter who does the job.

2. Ti Pure Internal - I can't even think of a good example. Let's say separating Ti from Te is the example. I search for external components for Te. I take concepts as components for Ti. I try to put them together my way. There are multiple possibilities, many already given in this thread but not prominent in my mind. I put the whole thing together and propose this as Te Ti differences. The thread asks for "difference in logic." I think "differences in components. 

A better example is the novelist. They have created their own characters. The characters have to act and interact in a way that befits them. The story is like no other novelist. This is Ti but the characters still have to act according to real people (Te caution) unless this is a scifi novel.

Let's try for an even more clear example.

3a. A girl knows four men. She wants to arrange them in order of height. To achieve this order requires thinking with external components. The results are universal for everyone. This is Te.

3b. Same girl knows same four men. They are potential and actual dates. Her task is to arrange all four in order of whom she likes best. This is different from how tall the men are. Her thinking is subjective. One is a nerd. One is fun. One is talented. Another is religious. Her arrangement requires thinking. Her arrangement won't be the same as her roommate's. This is Ti. 

3c. Same girl but add a complexity. One guy is four inches shorter than she. One is of a different race. One is forty years older. The last is of questionable sexuality. Now what? She knows her social relations and family would have a say. Her arrangement goes to more than whom she likes. She has to do subjective and objective thinking (assuming thinking over feeling). This is Ti and Te.
===============================================



series0 said:


> UNDERSTANDING is ...


The word understanding comes up quite a bit on this forum and I use that word. It prompts me to want a definition. I ... ahem ... understand it to be taken a couple ways. If someone asks you if you understand and you say, "yes", that is pure intuition. It is your all-at-once complex sensation that you know how the subject operates. Intuition can certainly be wrong, especially if someone challenges you. To check out if you really understand, you then do some thinking.

In the #1 example above, the technician understands if they can easily reproduce the computer put-together.
In the #3c example, the dating girl may have done a great deal of troubled Ti and Te thinking (combined with feeling) and say she doesn't understand, and depending on her needs, say the thinking is driving her bananas.


----------



## Ms. Aligned

When I first learned about MBTI I witnessed one of the most Te-Ti differences ever, but it's really simplistic. 

At work, if you were to walk into my office, everything was super simply organized. I could literally tell anyone over the phone where to easily find something, or get the info they needed when I wasn't there. Shit, a total stranger could walk in and because of my system go straight to exactly what they needed. 

Then you would walk into my coworker's office, and it was chaos (to me). Piles that were sorted into piles, that were sorted into other piles. Unless you had her brain, there was no way you were figuring anything out in there. But god forbid you moved or touched anything. It would drive her mad and throw her off. 

Again, this is when I first learned about MBTI, and all I could think was, "This is the difference between Te and Ti." Lol!


----------



## lww23

In logic, there is something called FALSE DICHOTOMY, in which one creates a dichotomy that does not exist and keeps reinforcing false concepts and notions.

Ti and Te are both THINKING. No fundamental distinction. *You don't use either Ti or Te, you are simply thinking.

Ti and Te are one and the same. As Jung pointed out, the difference is the E/I difference, nothing else.*

There is no such thing called External Thinking or Internal Thinking. All the thinking processes start and complete within the mind. All thinking is INTERNAL.

*BOTH Ti and Te are about ideas, concepts, logic, evidence, and application. *Jung treated T and F as opposing each other because Feelings prioritize something else and may or may not be quite concerned with what is commonly called "rationality."

Want to know Ti and Te difference? - Look into the Introversion versus Extroversion differences instead!


----------



## BigApplePi

lww23 said:


> Ti and Te are both THINKING. No fundamental distinction. *You don't use either Ti or Te, you are simply thinking.*


Okay. I agree. What about renaming terms? 



lww23 said:


> In logic, there is something called FALSE DICHOTOMY, in which one creates a dichotomy that does not exist and keeps reinforcing false concepts and notions.


Would you agree there IS a dichotomy but it is not about thinking. Thinking is thinking. The dichotomy is about content. As in the examples given above by people in this thread, the content is about external things or internal personal things. Admittedly there is overlap but it is there. People tend to strongly be polarized in their interests and I mean strongly. I hate to give another example but there are experimental physicists and there are theoretical physicists. They are different. Physicists, I you ask them, I'll bet, say they want to be one or the other. One thinks hands-on about defined external things and the other loves to work out generalizations for how things may or may not work. String theorists work on the chalkboard with mathematics. They are not hands-on.

Back to terms. If we must use terms (why not if the above is a valid polarization?) we can call the theoretical physicists Ti thinkers and the experimental physicists Te thinkers?

Einstein was a Ti guy, the theoretical physicist with a theory about how space might be curved. No telling whether it was any good or not. They had to run an experiment to see if the math would show how light behaved around the space distortion brought by the planet Mercury. (That's the way I remember it.) That was hands-on experimental physics using Te thinking.


----------



## series0

I lied your post because you have at least one uncanny ability. You can almost exactly show how most people MISUNDERSTAND philosophical (and psychological) concepts. Since you tow the 'party line' for the majority quite well in that sense, it is somewhat helpful. You become the sparring partner needed to elucidate the progressive philosophy.



BigApplePi said:


> Let me say something personal first. I have done a good deal of thinking (without realizing it) during my lifetime. Maybe it is time to try to take on the role of teaching something rather than doing too much passive interrogation.


Passive interrogation IS teaching. Experience itself is teaching. If you meaning 'Teaching on Purpose', it can still be that. Again, as I have mentioned many times before, it is only the RELATIVE nature of the argument or 'thing taught' to the opposing belief that reveals the BETTER argument or 'thing taught'. The BEST reason these actions work at all is because morality is objective. If morality were not objective, 'teaching' could not be worthy of the name. All teaching would only always be random persuasion. 



BigApplePi said:


> That could be my arrogance or it could be my stupidity. I dunno.


Yes, you should 'know'. Know NEVER means know. It really means believe. That is because certainty is a delusion. So people who use the word 'know' are exaggerating or idiotic. That is what my non-conclusion argument is all about.



BigApplePi said:


> Your post has got me to thinking further about Te and Ti which we called external and internal thinking. I think of PerC and how most (are they?) of the people I encounter who like to think about the MBTI are N types. I've been in meetup groups about the MBTI where of twelve people only one is an S type and that S type kind of feels out of place. The stats show 75 percent of people in a general population are S types. What is going on? Evolution must be trying to tell us something. S types are valuable people.


When you DISCUSS things and shift through concepts, RATHER THAN ACT AND DO, you are in the N realm. S people do. They have a natural tendency not to think overmuch about things. They do and in such a way learn and earn their wisdom by the school of hard knocks. 

Of course all of this categorization is a bit foolish also. No one is all N or all S. I myself am 100% N on any test I take for a balance of N-S, BUT, if we rank my functions as to strength I come out Ne, Se (the warrior) as my top two functions. What does that mean about the complexity of our testing, our ways of 'knowing' what categories we are? Let's just say these 'sciences' are still in their infancy, or at best early teens.



BigApplePi said:


> Let's apply this here. Instead of generalized speculation on internal and external (what the heck is that?) when all our thinking is done internally, what is going on?


This is classic YOU. A blatant misunderstanding of where to apply the internal and external concepts as they relate to cognitive function. 

You ask 'what the heck is that?' It's the original theory as put forth by Jung himself. In and of itself that is not really a matter of debate in terms of the specific words said and how HE means them (within reason). He was quite clear. 

The internal or external divide is related to the OBJECT of consideration, NOT where the thinking takes place. If the object is abstracted and refined into purity (yet another concept itself that is abstract), then it is an object that partakes of the realm of N aimed people. By contrast the tangible, the extant, that which is a part of being in essence, EASY to sense, then that object is S. In that sense S tends to be overwhelmingly pragmatic with its chosen objects. What we usually think of as 'artists' are mostly S because they work, they wallow, in tangible materials and create extant 'real' objects. I am an artist. I am a very good artist. But my craft is NOT in the tangible realm. Like Tolkien, I work in imagination, in what-ifs, in concepts and purity. This is the realm of N.

Both N and S are based on intuition. Intuition is a function of anger in my model. That is to say, being-in-essence, instantiation. The S needs/prefers a 'real' instantiation. The N is FINE with imagination and the realm of dreams. The N usually goes too far into these dreams and has no pragmatism properly balancing its imaginings. That is not wise. The S is too bound to what is materially present and possible within our skill sets, and that also is not wise. As with all wisdom, the middle road is the wise path.



BigApplePi said:


> What is needed is what the S types do: talk about specific things.


This is a pragmatic cop-out like what you enjoy. Specifics are for cowards. The NEED for a specific is childish. Apply that concept to all specifics to discover and believe in GENERAL OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. Sound familiar?

It is too restricting and effectively lame to demand specifics.



BigApplePi said:


> Then if one wants to run their N personalities, use inductive reasoning and we will get somewhere.


If the concept of the N is anywhere near correct, then it will become a scale of the possible. The problem with S orientation is that it has this lunkheaded 'prove-it' style. This is why they usually detest Communism, because they believe it an impossible (not just improbable) Utopia. This is most assuredly lunkheadedness. It's just the stupid man's inability to have faith. Belief in the pursuit of perfection (ideals) is the GREATEST moral aim there is. It is IN GENERAL, the ONLY correct (most direct) approach to truth. 

In this effect then the S side can be seen as patient, whereas the N side is impatient. Patience and laziness are strongly linked in some sense. That does not excuse too much impatience which is akin to throwing caution to the wind amid a lack of awareness to pursue the dream (desires).



BigApplePi said:


> Let's try for samples of internal and external thinking. This could make things much more clear.


Yes, well, you started with incorrect conceptual ideas of what you are trying to define so, ... what follows CANNOT be proper.



BigApplePi said:


> 1. Te Pure External - I am putting together a computer assembly kit. Some of the parts are motherboard, cpu, hard drive, keyboard, openings & insertions, display screen, blah blah blah. To do this, this doesn't require my creative talents. This is putting components together in the right places. This is Te - all external thought. The end of this thought will have the same external result no matter who does the job.


Nope.

All these conceptual patterns of power and computer chassis architecture are N only. If the S does not understand them, then the S is doomed to simply follow instructions (written by an N) until they memorize the pattern and realization about what is happening slowly seeps into their acceptance (not just their awareness). 

In your same example though we CAN show Te quite well. Te is the manager who realizes who can and will do this tedious work regularly and right. Te recognizes the Se and Si person as the likely candidate. Te also knows what to say to such a person not to alienate them in this task. Te knows roughly what is required to compensate such a person and keep them working. Te knows how many times to ramrod this person and keep them at high efficiency. Te checks the bottom line and makes sure that this whole process is within the DYNAMIC of the business. All of that is great exmaple of Te.



BigApplePi said:


> 2. Ti Pure Internal - I can't even think of a good example. Let's say separating Ti from Te is the example. I search for external components for Te. I take concepts as components for Ti. I try to put them together my way. There are multiple possibilities, many already given in this thread but not prominent in my mind. I put the whole thing together and propose this as Te Ti differences. The thread asks for "difference in logic." I think "differences in components.


Ti partakes of the UNDERSTANDING, of the pure abstract concepts of electricity and material properties like plastics and wires and silicon. Ti understands the relationships of design and why some wires cannot be next to others, field mechanics(for example) and can analyze the whole in relation to its parts and the parts in relation to the whole. This INTERNAL intricacy is requires to MAKE anything. It is also requires to test and design anything. Te sucks at that. 

But Ti has issues dealing with 'business'. That is unless this particular Ti person is a business process analyst. So ANY concept can be benefited by both Te and Ti. Ti would state truth without regard to how it affects the target because that regard is Te. So the crass wizard or techie is very Ti and not much Te. Ti might design something that CANNOT be built right now with available materials and manpower. It thinks it knows what would work, but has little regard for the limits of what is. 

So Te is related more to pragmatism, as is Si. Ti is related more to idealism, as is Se. 



BigApplePi said:


> A better example is the novelist. They have created their own characters. The characters have to act and interact in a way that befits them. The story is like no other novelist. This is Ti but the characters still have to act according to real people (Te caution) unless this is a scifi novel.


This is the most right part you said.



BigApplePi said:


> Let's try for an even more clear example.
> 
> 3a. A girl knows four men. She wants to arrange them in order of height. To achieve this order requires thinking with external components. The results are universal for everyone. This is Te.


Nope. 
Getting the men to do it is Te and Fe. The concept of height and why it is needed now are more Ti. Granted these barriers are not wise and blur together strongly in all experiences.



BigApplePi said:


> 3b. Same girl knows same four men. They are potential and actual dates. Her task is to arrange all four in order of whom she likes best. This is different from how tall the men are. Her thinking is subjective. One is a nerd. One is fun. One is talented. Another is religious. Her arrangement requires thinking. Her arrangement won't be the same as her roommate's. This is Ti.


Nope.
Although the ideal concepts she is aiming at are Ti constructions, this is mostly Fe and Fi trying to find harmony via Te guidance. How she goes about this process is Te. That how is guided by her Ti and Fi. But it will succeed best if Fe and Te are in charge, after the concepts of Ti and Fi are integrated. All experience is loaded with all functions.

Aim at the dream, but work within the limits of reality.
NEVER stop aiming at the dream. But do not let the improbable nature of the dream stop you from being successful within reality.



BigApplePi said:


> 3c. Same girl but add a complexity. One guy is four inches shorter than she. One is of a different race. One is forty years older. The last is of questionable sexuality.


Lol, what is 'questionable sexuality'? 



BigApplePi said:


> Now what? She knows her social relations and family would have a say. Her arrangement goes to more than whom she likes. She has to do subjective and objective thinking (assuming thinking over feeling). This is Ti and Te.


Well, yes, is the short answer, because everything is Ti and Te. Really in this example the dominant functions are Fe and Fi and Te.



BigApplePi said:


> The word understanding comes up quite a bit on this forum and I use that word. It prompts me to want a definition. I ... ahem ... understand it to be taken a couple ways. If someone asks you if you understand and you say, "yes", that is pure intuition. It is your all-at-once complex sensation that you know how the subject operates. Intuition can certainly be wrong, especially if someone challenges you. To check out if you really understand, you then do some thinking.


Understanding means closeness to truth in belief. Since morality is objective understanding is possible. If your subjectivism was real, understanding would be not only improbable, but actually impossible. That is because your misunderstanding about what objective and subjective really are, leaves you unaware that the foundations of the universe itself, the meanings of everything, would have to change randomly, sometimes extremely rapidly, for subjectivism to be viable. IT IS NOT (viable).



BigApplePi said:


> In the #1 example above, the technician understands if they can easily reproduce the computer put-together.


That is more Si and Te.



BigApplePi said:


> In the #3c example, the dating girl may have done a great deal of troubled Ti and Te thinking (combined with feeling) and say she doesn't understand, and depending on her needs, say the thinking is driving her bananas.


When we depend on the internal delusion to match the external truth, problems follow - Series0


----------



## Allostasis

BigApplePi said:


> Then I will have to look at what you say more carefully. The thing is we use or emphasize different cognitive functions (according to the MBTI) and these lead to a less than optimum communication.


Good. 



> Okay. I just went through this entire thread looking for a definition of thinking using the keyword "*think"* and didn't find anything you said. Maybe you talked about a definition but I've missed it. I'm falling short I guess.
> 
> Added: I do value your opinion and critique. While agreement is supportive, critique adds to what was there before.


And it wasn't introduced here. Attempts were made months ago. I will try again.
There is a fundamental problem with this and all the other definitions of thinking: thinking precedes all definitions.

Thinking is a compilation of multiple pieces of information into a judgment. Each ingredient gets conceptually connected to the resulting conclusion.
One of the most essential consequences that follows from this is the ability to differentiate one thing from another. Ability to take A and B and conclude that A != B.

Feeling is an act of making judgements too. However, the difference is in the "glue" that connects elements together.
In the case of Thinking, it is the conceptual/intellectual properties of pieces that are orthogonal to the emotional state of the thinker.
In the case of Feeling, however, the state/mood of the feeler IS the glue that binds things together into judgments. And the fluidity of the mood, concordantly, makes connections just as fluid.

Extraversion or Introversion, as was already stated many times, matters not for the nature or quality of thinking.
Te and Ti (types, not functions) both formulate theories/conjectures/ideas and such, just as independently. It says nothing about the quality, rigour, level of abstraction, practicality, efficiency, pragmatism, creativity or whatever. You can be more empirical and practical than Te, while Te can be more abstract and theoretical than you. All of this is irrelevant. This must be understood first before we will try to seek differences between types.

Whenever you are thinking of someone who doesn't care about being creative in his thinking, who cares only about results and less about understanding, who delegates thinking to others and needs to know what others are thinking in order to get to the conclusions, who just "organizes external things" - you are not thinking about T dom. 



BigApplePi said:


> *Thinking defined.*
> Maybe I should stop the playing around and just give my definition of thinking whereupon you can kick my butt if you don't like it, lol.
> 
> I haven't really thought of a formal definition but I do have a shot at what lies at the foundation of thinking.
> Some will refer to reason and logic as thinking and though this could be true, it doesn't capture, say how thinking differs from feeling which I claim carries a contrasting and paired meaning. Also these are my personal thoughts, making them subjective so you don't have to like them. You can pick your own definition.
> 
> Thinking and feeling can be put in the same package as they are both judgments. That is, they give directions as opposed to alternative directions. The other cognitive functions, sensation and intuition are not meant to be judging. They are just observational. They are experienced as what we take as is, not where things are going.
> 
> With that in mind, thinking differs from feeling in that feeling flows while thinking jumps. A single feeling is continuous while thinking always considers more than one thing. Conversely if it is experienced as flow, it is feeling and if it jumps, it is thinking. Oh, I forgot. This flow versus jumping takes place within the mind, not something experienced by the body. This is the basic difference. I may be leaving out some context, but that's it.
> 
> The ability to feel, just about any primate animal can do. But humans can excel at thinking because they can have one thing in mind and make a judgment contrasting with something else. Show me a lower animal that can do this.


You already gave it, just months ago in a different thread. And I already expressed my criticism.
In short : you are differentiating thinking from feeling, but you are not defining the "essence" of Thinking.
"Jumps" can be viewed as a characteristic of thinking, but it isn't sufficient in isolation. You can have a free flow of associations, jumping from one idea to another and I wouldn't call this "thinking" personally.


----------



## BigApplePi

series0 said:


> This is a pragmatic cop-out like what you enjoy. Specifics are for cowards. The NEED for a specific is childish. Apply that concept to all specifics to discover and believe in GENERAL OBJECTIVE TRUTHS. Sound familiar?
> It is too restricting and effectively lame to demand specifics.


I may lairn you a thing or two. Ready?? When one is working toward a theory, as an adult might, it is useful to play as a child would. A child discovers. A adult flounders or dwells on old stuff. If one can't come up with a satisfactory intuition as an N might, it is useful to go after a few S's and use induction to come up with a better intuition. The technique is one abstracts commonings from the S's and uses them to create a general iNtuition.



series0 said:


> Yes, well, you started with incorrect conceptual ideas of what you are trying to define so, ... what follows CANNOT be proper.


We hope light is shed on the premise bringing an improvement.



series0 said:


> Nope.


I believe we are not on the same page or even in the same book. We agree the example is Te thinking which is the important thing.



series0 said:


> Lol, what is 'questionable sexuality'?


That is when one is attracted to first a rabbit and then to a doorknob and has no way to know how to choose. Ti thinking or Fi feeling?


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> There is a fundamental problem with this and all the other definitions of thinking: thinking precedes all definitions.


Life precedes all definitions. A definition is a definition. The tools used are irrelevant.



Allostasis said:


> Thinking is a compilation of multiple pieces of information into a judgment. Each ingredient gets conceptually connected to the resulting conclusion.
> One of the most essential consequences that follows from this is the ability to differentiate one thing from another. Ability to take A and B and conclude that A != B.


Is that your definition (I haven't read further)?  It is an okay definition but is a descriptive top-down definition. This is okay to grasp intuitively what thinking is but invites disputes. Why? Because it uses so many terms that need definitions in themselves: compilation, judgment, conceptually, differentiate, conclude. I may not have been precise about this, but do you get what I'm saying? I propose another different definition but which is bottom up, not top-down. When I say different, both are acceptable but take different points-of-view.



Allostasis said:


> Feeling is an act of making judgements too. However, the difference is in the "glue" that connects elements together.
> In the case of Thinking, it is the conceptual/intellectual properties of pieces that are orthogonal to the emotional state of the thinker.
> In the case of Feeling, however, the state/mood of the feeler IS the glue that binds things together into judgments.
> 
> 
> Allostasis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already gave it, just months ago in a different thread. And I already expressed my criticism.
> In short : you are differentiating thinking from feeling, but you are not defining the "essence" of Thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> the fluidity of the mood, concordantly, makes connections just as fluid.
Click to expand...

You could call me a minimalist who wants to go after foundations leaving out as much as possible to grasp the essence of differences. What you just said is descriptive. For feeling it is very close to "flow"; for thinking it is very close to "jump." Glue is like flow (continuous). Orthogonal is like jump (different, separate, discontinuous). I picked the closest words to differentiate and grasp the essence of thinking and feeling. Those words ain't so perfect so they require further analysis or bottom-up definition.



Allostasis said:


> Te and Ti (types, not functions) both formulate theories/conjectures/ideas and such, just as independently. It says nothing about the quality, rigour, level of abstraction, practicality, efficiency, pragmatism, creativity or whatever. You can be more empirical and practical than Te, while Te can be more abstract and theoretical than you. All of this is irrelevant. This must be understood first before we will try to seek differences between types.
> 
> Whenever you are thinking of someone who doesn't care about being creative in his thinking, who cares only about results and less about understanding, who delegates thinking to others and needs to know what others are thinking in order to get to the conclusions, who just "organizes external things" - you are not thinking about T dom.


I'd say all of that is valid. I see description, overlap, a recognition one can't generalize. Yet does our intuition recognize, in spite of commonness, that there is something worthwhile to get at Te/Ti differences? Maybe we are trying too hard and the answer is Te is about external world content while Ti is about internal mind content. Could that be enough?



Allostasis said:


> You already gave it, just months ago in a different thread. And I already expressed my criticism.
> In short : you are differentiating thinking from feeling, but you are not defining the "essence" of Thinking.


I'm glad you said this as I've forgotten. I wonder what was said? Perhaps there were unfinished loose threads that were not final so I didn't care to remember something not finished.



Allostasis said:


> "Jumps" can be viewed as a characteristic of thinking, but it isn't sufficient in isolation. You can have a free flow of associations, jumping from one idea to another and I wouldn't call this "thinking" personally.


Now you've said it. Love that critique. It questions jumping. Maybe this lies just at the boundary of feeling/thinking. Being at a boundary is allowed. I have to ask, what lies motivationally behind doing a free flow of associations? Answer: feeling. I have to ask, what is the content of these different associations? Could it be said this is passive thinking? At the moment my answer is yes. This is thinking. What you have come up with is an example of feeling and thinking combined, interlaced, tied up together. This is what humans can do over the lower animals. It has other names: contemplation, survey, examination, even rumination.

Here is another thought. I could have begun by puzzling about what goes on in the mind. Then I could have observed, sometimes it is continuous and sometimes discontinuous. What causes each because they are not the same? Continuous seems to go with feeling. Why not call it feeling? Discontinuous makes no sense. Why would a person be interested in one thing and then depart to go to another? They won't do that unless the first thing isn't doing the job. Answer: they jump to get a better deal. Let's call this thinking!

See what has just happened? That was a bottom-up operation where the bottom comes up and tries to meet the top. Is it any good? I guess that depends on if it is useful in understanding. Should I have gone with the words continuous and discontinuous instead of flow and jump? Well the former is colder ... not as sensual or provocative. The former is weak on associations.


----------



## Allostasis

BigApplePi said:


> Life precedes all definitions. A definition is a definition. The tools used are irrelevant.


Thinking isn't just a tool in relation to its definition, but it's object. If thinking is a 3-dimensional shape, then its definition is 2-dimensional projection. Multiple of such images under the right angles might offer a very good approximation to what definition really us, but no set of projections will be equal to the original shape.

It is another potentially big topic of whether we can make a universal definition of thinking, what "universal" even means, do universals even exist in the first place and etc, so it is best to not go further with it unless necessary, as it is not very relevant.



> Is that your definition (I haven't read further)? It is an okay definition but is a descriptive top-down definition. This is okay to grasp intuitively what thinking is but invites disputes. Why? Because it uses so many terms that need definitions in themselves: compilation, judgment, conceptually, differentiate, conclude. I may not have been precise about this, but do you get what I'm saying? I propose another different definition but which is bottom up, not top-down. When I say different, both are acceptable but take different points-of-view.


Yes, I just made it up. It can be optimized if some words are too difficult, but I accept that it relies on some concepts/ideas. I assumed you were sufficiently familiar with them.
I believe that disputes are likely inevitable regardless of the definition strategy. I will always find something to dispute, rest assured.

I am not convinced whether this top-down vs bottom-up classification makes sense just yet. 
My goal was to get to the essence, general idea of thinking abstracted from its characteristics that are inessential to it or its consequences, such as its differences from other things.




> You could call me a minimalist who wants to go after foundations leaving out as much as possible to grasp the essence of differences. What you just said is descriptive. For feeling it is very close to "flow"; for thinking it is very close to "jump."


I wouldn't call you a minimalist.
I would say our goals are exactly the same. Essence/foundations. However, what you are saying is differential in its method. This approach isn't exactly closer or further from the foundation in my view. I see the value in it, but I do see its limitations.

To name the few of them : 
1. How thing is different from others doesn't tell you what this thing is exactly. You can't redraw the painting only by knowing how it is different from all the others without seeing it.
2. The differential definition depends on the other things with which it was initially compared. Thinking becomes impossible without Feeling. But why it has to be? 

By "bottom-up" you seem to understand grasping of minimal substances of a thing and rebuilding it back from them, but, from what I already stated, I don't think this is what you are doing. I don't think "jump" is an essential property of thinking. What can identify as a "jump" can be descriptive of a countless amount of processes.

To rebuild a structure back from its elements, you need to know its scheme. Its atoms/resources aren't enough.



> Glue is like flow (continuous). Orthogonal is like jump (different, separate, discontinuous). I picked the closest words to differentiate and grasp the essence of thinking and feeling. Those words ain't so perfect so they require further analysis or bottom-up definition.


"Glue" was used for its function and its function is to connect. Your consciousness/attention may "jump" from premises to their conclusions, but it is possible only because connections existed between them.

The nature of those connections, how continuous/stable they are and such depends on the psychological process that takes place in such a reaction.

If jumps occurred randomly, or, in general, if an intellectual connection between contents wasn't the driving cause behind the jump, then the psychological process behind the whole reaction can be anything but Thinking.

The words that you used ain't so perfect indeed. However, they ain't particularly insightful in my view either. They can't saying anything about what thinking is in the end so far.



> Now you've said it. Love that critique. It questions jumping. Maybe this lies just at the boundary of feeling/thinking. Being at a boundary is allowed.


As I said before, it isn't the essential property of Thinking to exist at the boundary. It is just the consequence of the way in which Thinking manifests in most humans particularly. Unless you claim that Thinking is impossible without Feelings, which is cool and can be a topic on its own.



> I have to ask, what lies motivationally behind doing a free flow of associations? Answer: feeling.


I can tell you more: I _love _thinking. And you probably too. Does it implicate that we are F doms? 

No. Because motivation behind killing a person is irrelevant to the essence of this act. It always follows a certain logic, each action follows from another and all of them collectively lead to and culminate in someone's death. You may or may not feel very excited by this idea, but its execution doesn't care about this.

Concordantly, the motivation behind such a free flow of associations says nothing about its content and the process as a whole. Content doesn't say us anything about the process either here. 

In order to grasp the nature of the process, it is enough to recognize that we are dealing with a "free flow of associations."

It means that the most crucial principle that strings mental contents of the flow aren't their intellectual relationships or emotional resonance with the subject, but patterns common for any two adjacent objects. And such patterns can be of any nature. It doesn't matter. Only "sameness" matters.

The fact that this process is "free" means that no expectations exist for "sameness" and it can be of any kind. 

As such, this process cannot be classified as thinking at all.
At best, it can be called as "intellectual flow" if and only if the sameness that connects elements together is consistently intellectual in nature. By "flow" I am not characterizing the experience of movement from A to B, it isn't important in my view.



> I'd say all of that is valid. I see description, overlap, a recognition one can't generalize. Yet does our intuition recognize, in spite of commonness, that there is something worthwhile to get at Te/Ti differences?


Possibly. But I would say that the extent of this difference when projected onto the Thinking process is not particularly interesting due to how superficial it is.
The difference between E and I, however, is quite interesting.



> Maybe we are trying too hard and the answer is Te is about external world content while Ti is about internal mind content. Could that be enough?


No, it can't be enough.
We (well, not exactly "we", mostly you), paradoxically, overcomplicate things that don't have any foundation and potential (8 function model, "masculine functions", "Blast-Consume magic" and etc) while oversimplifying more substantial ones (extraversion is just being practical/superficial/social, while introversion is just being awkward/shy/smart and etc)

We should try as hard as it will be necessary, but, most importantly, be very mindful of the exact question that we are trying to answer. Answers are easy.

The exact reason why your classification is insufficient is because in order to engage with the external world content intellectually, you inevitably construct the internal mind content and there are no reasons to be somehow any less motivated to keep it rigorous/polished/accurate/whatever it is you want and the capacities that you possess.
Each of them are about both.

If one decides to take up one while uselessly sacrificing the other, then that is their very personal flaw/choice, rather than reflective of some psychological type.



> Here is another thought. I could have begun by puzzling about what goes on in the mind. Then I could have observed, sometimes it is continuous and sometimes discontinuous. What causes each because they are not the same? Continuous seems to go with feeling. Why not call it feeling?


Because I don't see why we should call it feeling. The fact that feeling is experienced as a "fluid"/continuous process doesn't tell us anything about feelings and doesn't allow us to reliable classify its opposite as "thinking."


----------



## lww23

To add a note here:
When Thinking is Extroverted, the outcome of Thinking involves active interaction with and transformation of the outside world, so to the outsider, the effect of Thinking can be directly observed.

When Thinking is Introverted, the outcome of Thinking turns inward and involves the transformation of the internal mental construction. The effect of Thinking is not directly observable unless the Introverted Thinker externalizes it.

Where to drive the line between Ti and Te? There is no such line.

Thinking, regardless of E or I, involves various forms of abstraction. Without abstracting, thinking will become impossible.

Thus it would be meaningless to assume, e.g.,
ENTP in MBTI (NeTi) = focusing on theories and accuracy
ENTP in Jungian type (NeTe) = focusing on efficiency and application.
The point is, type ENTP is about Ne leading T, or T serving dominant Ne. The T, whether written as Ti or Te, does not make a substantive difference.

What about doing science?
Doing an experiment, publishing a paper, working together to solve a problem, etc. These all involve externalization (output), one way or another. If something is purely internal, then no one will be able to know it except for the self.



Allostasis said:


> Furthermore, it is a very common thing among introverts to see extraverts as more shallow people.


Shallow people can be of any type. Some introverts I've met are very superficial. It's not E or I. And, shallowness or depth tend to be relative. It would be a misconception to see a group of people, at least 50% of the global population, as shallow.

Theoretically, some types may be shallow simply based on the function order, and this refers to a general situation without considering individual cases. I won't elaborate on it since this may be seen as 'politically incorrect'.



Allostasis said:


> In other words, they judge them by their appearance, which, ironically, makes their conclusion superficial, contrary to their belief that they are "deeper" and "more abstract."


Right. Great point here.



BigApplePi said:


> A Ti thinker is an analytical thinker. They look at things, question them, grab pieces, take them apart to see what's in there, put them back together to see if the starting point is returned to. If not, take them apart again, change something. See if that does the job, if it changes anything.
> 
> The Te thinker is different. They are the opposite. Instead of taking things apart, they take things and put them together: synthesis. They want things to work and work correctly. If it is not correct, something has to change and change it will because it is the end that counts, not the means.


IMO, both Ti and Te do these things. The end matters to Ti as well, just like the means also matters to Te.

Many people seem to have misunderstood Jung.

When he explains what it is like for a Thinker to be extraverted, and what it is like for one to be introverted, his key point is on Introversion and Extraversion. He used the entire book to explain these two concepts, trying to make a point that 1) E and I do exist, and 2) There are real examples everywhere.

Contemporary readers misread him by looking into the details of each function (Ti v. Te, Ni v. Ne, etc.), thus failing to see the whole picture.

The topic of this discussion - "Te and Ti difference in Logic", is an example of how Jung's idea was inaccurately reduced to a false dichotomy of Te v. Ti.


----------



## intranst

Te: If you drop a ceramic plate on concrete it will likely crack, so I’ll apply similar reasoning in situations that call for it.

Ti: But what about wind resistance, the height at which it’s dropped, and the density of the plate?

Te: It’s just a plate, bro.


----------



## BigApplePi

lww23 said:


> IMO, both Ti and Te do these things. The end matters to Ti as well, just like the means also matters to Te.


Of course ends and means matter to any kind of thinker. But which one is emphasized the most by which? Which one is more conscious and which one is let lie more in the unconscious?



lww23 said:


> Many people seem to have misunderstood Jung.
> 
> When he explains what it is like for a Thinker to be extraverted, and what it is like for one to be introverted, his key point is on Introversion and Extraversion. He used the entire book to explain these two concepts, trying to make a point that 1) E and I do exist, and 2) There are real examples everywhere.
> 
> The topic of this discussion - "Te and Ti difference in Logic", is an example of how Jung's idea was inaccurately reduced to a false dichotomy of Te v. Ti.


There are different ways to analyze something. A room can be divided into north and south. Or east and west. Both are legitimate. If Jung emphasized extroversion and introversion, that can be applied to Te and Ti. For Te and Ti we have a Jung oriented interpretation. That will have a Jungian degree of clarity.

It can be applied to analysis and synthesis as well. If one feels that is unconventional or disrespectful to work with Te and Ti that way, we can use Ta and Ts instead. Consistent with this thread, it has made a division into two kinds of thinking. Analysis versus synthesis have another kind of clarity.



lww23 said:


> Contemporary readers misread him by looking into the details of each function (Ti v. Te, Ni v. Ne, etc.), thus failing to see the whole picture.


As an INTP individual, I can decide how I wish to look at and divide thinking. One can look at a whole picture ... at a whole personality or they can look at a process. Synthesis is not the same as analysis. One can look into what is operating in the thinking process and see if it has any value.


----------



## Allostasis

BigApplePi said:


> As an INTP individual, I can decide how I wish to look at and divide thinking.


There is nothing unique or special about being INTP that allows you to decide how to wish to look at whatever.


> One can look at a whole picture ... at a whole personality or they can look at a process. Synthesis is not the same as analysis.


Yet this is irrelevant to the topic. Te and Ti, regardless of the theory, are psychological categories. 
However, there is no meaningful division on the level of personalities that distributes synthesis and analysis among Te and Ti. Such a division would even contradict with the common stereotype that "Ti is theoretical abstract thinker" that you, apparently, just can't give up. Theories can't be built without synthesis. 
Those operations are too fundamental, it makes as much sense as hypothesizing that Ti looks through left eye, while Te prefers to look through the right.
Thinking with only one operation or with a substantial preference for only one will just make you unnecessarily limited.



intranst said:


> Te: If you drop a ceramic plate on concrete it will likely crack, so I’ll apply similar reasoning in situations that call for it.
> 
> Ti: But what about wind resistance, the height at which it’s dropped, and the density of the plate?
> 
> Te: It’s just a plate, bro.


In other words, "Te" is a primitivistic thinking that isn't even trying to go beyond trivial observations, while "Ti" is actually applying brain to think about them, is this what you are trying to say?
Does it really make sense to you that one of the thinking modalities barely has any "thinking" to it?


----------



## BigApplePi

.


----------



## BigApplePi

I wrote the below earlier and on rereading find it a little hard to read. What I find important is the *bold face *where I better define what "jump" means.




Allostasis said:


> The point is that feeling follows a path between mental objects. Mental objects have to exist in a certain relationship with the feeler for the path to continue, beyond just being perceived.


That is a very general statement. I can't buy it until I see an example. Am I also guilty of not giving thinking examples? Can you give me a feeling example you are thinking of so I know what to work with?


Allostasis said:


> You are talking about practical impossibility that is a consequence of human nature, rather than the consequence of the principle of thinking. Therefore, the "foundation" that you are looking at is not thinking in abstraction/essence, but its manifestation in the context of a human mind contrasted with others competing for its resources processes.
> 
> I think what you are trying to say by "jump" is more or less the same to what I am trying to say. The act of transitioning from one mental content to another. I am just focusing on why exactly this transitioning happens. Why out of all possible things we selected only one, because this, I believe, is no less foundational to the process of thinking.


I read that as saying "jump" is only one characteristic of thinking so I leave out all the others which define thinking. I need how you define feeling before answering.



Allostasis said:


> You are enjoying nature and then suddenly you receive the notification from PerC where Allostasis tells you that all your definitions are very wrong and now you feel very sad. Isn't your flow of feeling being interrupted and replaced by another flow of feeling in this case?


*Great. An example.* No. Not a valid example. I will explain why. When I'm out enjoying nature that is one feeling. When I learn a poster doesn't like my definitions with my resultant curiosity as to why, that curiosity is an entirely different feeling. True, there is a jump (change) from one feeling to another, but the original feeling of enjoying nature only changed from more to less to more to less enjoyment experience as a flow. That is not the jump I'm referring to. Good try, but rejected.

You may venture that thinking can do the same thing. That is, thinking about one thing can change to another thing. That is not what is mean by "jump." *What I intend to point out is the comparison within a particular thought. In the case of the umbrella example, the topic is my fear of getting wet. Dark cloud/ getting wet jumps to not getting wet/ umbrella. The topic is wetness. *Do you see the difference?



Allostasis said:


> What I understand by "Te" isn't the partition of T. It is a composition of T with another element.


Unless I misread you, in a later post I allude to exactly that. Ti does the partitioning; Te unites and is called synthesis.
"Great minds think alike", lol.



Allostasis said:


> The hypothesis that personality differences are associated with the usage of different partitions of Thinking turned out to have lesser explanatory power in my view.


Do not underestimate your thimking power.



Allostasis said:


> Same old ridiculous idea that Te mostly cares about practicality/results/"what works."
> While Ti, somehow, is the one who is "analytical" and cares about the "deeper meaning."
> Again those dichotomies are introduced for no reason and reflect nothing of substance.
> Your proposal is rejected.


I thought you don't have any definition yourself of Te or Ti. If that is the case, no wonder you reject a particular definition. Besides you said, "practical " and "deeper." I would reject those.
============================================
============================================




Allostasis said:


> There is nothing unique or special about being INTP that allows you to decide how to wish to look at whatever.


INTP is very different from ENTJ.



Allostasis said:


> Such a division would even contradict with the common stereotype that "Ti is theoretical abstract thinker" that you, apparently, just can't give up.


I never used the words, "theoretical abstract." You just synthesized those words into what you're saying.


Allostasis said:


> Theories can't be built without synthesis.


True, but it is a matter of emphasis. I am much more analytical than you.


----------



## Allostasis

BigApplePi said:


> I thought you don't have any definition yourself of Te or Ti. If that is the case, no wonder you reject a particular definition.


I did and stated it many times in conversations with you, you just can't read. But this isn't the reason behind rejecting. Exact reasons were stated million times, no need in wondering.



> INTP is very different from ENTJ.


And how this relates to what I said. Unless you are assuming that ENTJ for some reason can't choose how to think about things. Although that would be in line with your delusions.



> Unless I misread you, in a later post I allude to exactly that. Ti does the partitioning; Te unites and is called synthesis.


I am beginning to think that you are projecting some kind of personal disability onto the way in which you model thinking.
Normal people are capable of engaging in both analysis and synthesis without any special emphasis between the two.



> True, but it is a matter of emphasis. I am much more analytical than you.


Endlessly gazing at your own navel and never evolving past your retarded ideas/biases doesn't make you any more analytical in my view.
I won't bother continuing, I find it harder and harder to respect your intellectual capacities and you as a person with each post.


----------



## BigApplePi

@Allostasis. I accept that we are having trouble communicating. There are many posters on this thread. What would you say to having any of them try to mediate? I'm not saying that would work, but it's a try.


----------



## intranst

Allostasis said:


> In other words, "Te" is a primitivistic thinking that isn't even trying to go beyond trivial observations, while "Ti" is actually applying brain to think about them, is this what you are trying to say?
> Does it really make sense to you that one of the thinking modalities barely has any "thinking" to it?


It was more so emphasizing that Te doesn’t bother going in depth when going in depth isn’t relevant, in general. Though I do see IxTJs and ExFPs as especially quick to apply surface logic.


----------



## Dalien

Could we say that when thinking internally it goes in depth and when thinking externally it goes in width?


----------



## skyboy

What it you go in diagonals ?


----------



## Dalien

skyboy said:


> What it you go in diagonals ?


What about circles?


----------



## intranst

BigApplePi said:


> @Allostasis. I accept that we are having trouble communicating. There are many posters on this thread. What would you say to having any of them try to mediate? I'm not saying that would work, but it's a try.


I believe, I could be of service.

-INFP (The Mediator)
jk


----------



## skyboy

intranst said:


> I believe, I could be of service.
> 
> -INFP (The Mediator)
> jk


I was thinking of you. Bring a sense of love, mystery and mutual acceptance to this arid intellectual world.


----------



## BigApplePi

intranst said:


> I believe, I could be of service.


Gofer it.


----------



## lww23

I hope my two cents could help this discussion continue,
Here is my response:


BigApplePi said:


> It can be applied to analysis and synthesis as well. If one feels that is unconventional or disrespectful to work with Te and Ti that way, we can use Ta and Ts instead. Consistent with this thread, it has made a division into two kinds of thinking. Analysis versus synthesis have another kind of clarity.


It is not about convention or respect. I'm not taking the position of a Jungian fundamentalist. I'm here to find out more about Thinking. However, my point is, *since we are discussing Te and Ti, by this it means Thinking in Extraversion and Thinking in Introversion (or alternatively, the Introverted Thinker and the Extroverted Thinker), ultimately, it boils down to the differences between Extraversion and Introversion.*

While Ti and Te do not have their exclusive styles of logic, the extraverted thinker and the introverted thinker are different in many ways.

How about this: We discuss what it is like for a Thinking dom to be introverted, and what it is like for one to be extroverted?
We may also discuss the differences between empirical thinkers (T-S) and creative thinkers (T-N).

So there are four types of Thinking doms:
1. The extroverted empirical thinker (Te-S), ESTJ
2. The extroverted creative thinker (Te-N), ENTJ
3. The introverted empirical thinker (Ti-S)
4. The introverted creative thinker (Ti-N)
I didn't put the specific types behind the introverted thinkers because it depends on which function model we'll adhere to.


BigApplePi said:


> Synthesis is not the same as analysis. One can look into what is operating in the thinking process and see if it has any value.


To synthesize is to analyze, and to analyze involves synthesizing. They are interrelated.
The topic of this discussion, "Ti and Te difference in logic" makes no sense because these are not different in logic.

They are different in the E/I attitude. Also, Thinking does not operate on its own. Nothing is done by a single function. What feeds T matters, so you have the differences between T-S and T-N.

Are Ti and Te polars? Really?
Simple example - We all post here. What you are thinking about in your head, will not be known to others, unless you EXTERNALIZE it. In order to externalize, you need to actively interact with the outside world. You make a discussion post, and it is a way of externalizing (extroverting). You just didn't realize you were engaging in thinking with an extroverted attitude. 

*Ti and Te are one and the same. They are both Thinking. They are mutually transformative.* You are a Ti dom because you are introverted as a person AND because you are a Thinker.


----------



## Dalien

Question:

If we look at MBTI and including the Grant stack…










It looks to me like there are only four types that have thinking as their dom, ISTP and INTP—Ti, and ESTJ, ENTJ—Te.

My question is, since Jung‘s psychological types would have problems with this, why are auxiliary and even tertiary not included in the thinking game? Do T doms have monopoly on thinking or something? I’m seeing in this thread (and, yes I read it) that there’s a going back and forth with no clarity (but momentarily) between Jung and MBTI (with Grant on top of it). Leave out the use of doms, if there is going to be a discussion on thinking within personality types. I’ve seen many of longer threads take many of turns. So what if no one’s keeping up with the title. 🤷‍♀️ I’m actually interested in this threads actual posts.


----------



## intranst

Te and Ti are not polar, that would be Te-Fe, Ti-Fi, Ne-Se, and Ni-Si. Your 7th function is often referred to as a weakness because the 2nd function is heavily used for evaluation. This is always the case.


----------



## lww23

Dalien said:


> My question is, since Jung‘s psychological types would have problems with this, why are auxiliary and even tertiary not included in the thinking game? Do T doms have monopoly on thinking or something? I’m seeing in this thread (and, yes I read it) that there’s a going back and forth with no clarity (but momentarily) between Jung and MBTI (with Grant on top of it). Leave out the use of doms, if there is going to be a discussion on thinking within personality types. I’ve seen many of longer threads take many of turns. So what if no one’s keeping up with the title. 🤷‍♀️ I’m actually interested in this threads actual posts.


Here is my understanding:

1. In MBTI, Grant, and Jungian types, T doms have the strongest preference for thinking. In Jungian types, only the dominant/primary function is fully conscious all the time. All the others serve the leading function. The secondary or auxiliary may be (semi-)conscious but because it serves the dominant, it is not independent. It is thus weaker and less conscious than the dominant. The tertiary, for many people, is unconscious. If it is conscious, then it still serves the dominant but is weaker than the auxiliary because it is farther from the dominant. 

2. In MBTI and Grant, all the functions are conscious and can operate independently. Whereas in Jungian types, there is a clear hierarchy of functions with the dominant at the top and the inferior at the bottom. If the other four are added, the 8th, aka the demon, tends to be unconsious and the weakest. This is because the futher away a function is from the dominant, the weaker it becomes. 

3. Theoretically, with Te types and Ti types, Thinking is of the top preference. This means, compared with their other functions, Thinking is relatively the strongest and the most developed. This does not mean their thinking is stronger or weaker than others. 

4. Some F types, say, e.g., ENFPs, tend to be highly analytical and can be mistaken for thinking types. If the tertiray T of an ENFP is more effective in thinking than a T dom, it only means that the ENFP person tends to be more intelligent and capable of cognition, than that T dom. So the point is, one's tertiary T is not necessarily weaker than another's dominant T. However, the tertiary T is definitely weaker than the ENFP's dominant Ne.


----------



## Dalien

intranst said:


> Te and Ti are not polar, that would be Te-Fe, Ti-Fi, Ne-Se, and Ni-Si. Your 7th function is often referred to as a weakness because the 2nd function is heavily used for evaluation. This is always the case.


Throwing Beebe in the mix, eh.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> Nope, if you want to continue the discussion, then read what I already wrote above. Ask me what I meant if things are unclear after reading it fully.


Read what above? Immediate or all your posts? I'm not going to do that. Since you didn't say what, I will pick #106 as representative. It is your conversation with @tanstaafl28.


Allostasis said:


> One way to crystallize Te and Ti:
> Ti - Introvert who leads with Thinking. They form an attachment to a certain set of ideas/ways of thinking/explaining/intellectualizing phenomena. They would try to fit reality in their framework of it first and change the framework only if really necessary. Prioritize evidence that supports their conclusions. And for that reason, they can be classified as "subjective."
> Strengths : Greater and continuous focus on some specific set of ideas naturally helps with their development/sophistication, a higher chance to produce something original.
> Weaknesses: Risk of becoming narrow-minded, stagnant, reluctance to change/adapt and internalize new ideas and ways of thinking.
> 
> Te - Extravert who leads with Thinking. They form an attachment to phenomena, even an empathetic connection with them. They would try to question the adequacy of their framework first, it is always a work in progress. Any idea, conclusion, or method will be discarded immediately if it proves to be inadequate in its attempt to connect with the phenomenon and comprehend it. And for that reason, Te can be classified as "objective." Instead of focusing on its sphere of interest, Te will prioritize its expansion and evolvement to better incorporate phenomena.
> 
> Strengths: Openmindedness, objectivity, a typically wide range of interests, naturally compatible with the "scientific method" due to its very impersonal nature, welcomes changes and all new/unknown.
> Weaknesses: Risk of becoming somewhat more shallow due to being interested in everything, as less time might be spent on developing already existing interests.
> 
> Maturity in both cases eliminates/compensates for weaknesses. Ti learns to cope with the world against his own reluctance, while Te learns to be more personal and selective.


My reactions are too multi-faceted to summarize. My first reactions are the whole thing is a top-down description. You cherry-picked. Ti and Te can be like that. But maybe not. Top-down descriptions are fine to present impressions. They are intuitive, sort of. The problem comes when one looks at details. Does one have to or want to? Well I think ahead to the ultimate goal of separating Ti and Te and doing so so everyone, including both you and I like it. If my memory serves, somewhere we both wondered if that could be done. Yet I have to doubt it can't be done.



Allostasis said:


> Ti - They form an attachment to a certain set of ideas/ways of thinking/explaining/intellectualizing phenomena.





Allostasis said:


> Te - They form an attachment to phenomena, even an empathetic connection with them.


I like this. Ti for ideas; Te for phenomena. Ideas is more ethereal, internal. Phenomena is more solid, external. I don't buy the empathetic as a necessity for Te. Why can't Te be manipulative, ruthless?


Allostasis said:


> Ti - They would try to fit reality in their framework of it first and change the framework only if really necessary. Prioritize evidence that supports their conclusions. And for that reason, they can be classified as "subjective."


This I can't generalize. I use Ne and Si as my source. I do not have a framework until I do some induction. But it is also true once I have the framework, I will try it out. The inductive creation of a framework is the Ti thinking and no one can see it. It is hidden, internal, and takes an enormous amount of time and effort. Working with a framework is more external which is what a Te would see.


Allostasis said:


> Te - They would try to question the adequacy of their framework first, it is always a work in progress. Any idea, conclusion, or method will be discarded immediately if it proves to be inadequate in its attempt to connect with the phenomenon and comprehend it.


That sounds like what I would say about Ti. It may be true, but what I tend to see is the Te presented as a finished result and thus subject to a critique by a Ti person who can't accept a finished result as gospel.

I will stop here and see if you judge this so far as okay or bullshit. If it is okay I'll continue. If bullshit, I will conclude we are far apart.


----------



## Allostasis

@BigApplePi
No, I meant #150 It is not about your intentions, but about the way in which you split Te and Ti.

I am not saying that Te and Ti cannot be different just in general. But they can't be different in the way that you think they are.



> I like this. Ti for ideas; Te for phenomena. Ideas is more ethereal, internal. Phenomena is more solid, external. I don't buy the empathetic as a necessity for Te. Why can't Te be manipulative, ruthless?


My point was missed. You again assign "Ti" to being intellectual/deep/conceptual, while "Te" - dull thinking about trivial/concrete matters/logistics.



> The inductive creation of a framework is the Ti thinking and no one can see it. It is hidden, internal, and takes an enormous amount of time and effort. Working with a framework is more external which is what a Te would see.


Invalid. Te not only doing that. It has to do that. No difference. More about that in #150



> Working with a framework is more external which is what a Te would see.


Just because you fail to see my/others frameworks/internal meanings, it doesn't mean that they don't exist or are less developed.



> , but what I tend to see is the Te presented as a finished result and thus subject to a critique by a Ti person who can't accept a finished result as gospel.


You don't see Te. You are starting from the assumption/expectation that "Te" is about "concrete results" and then you see "Te". Te isn't about finished practical results


----------



## Dalien

lww23 said:


> This is a very good question. I've been thinking about it for a while. This is how I see the differences, at least based on my current level of understanding:
> 
> 1. *Assuming that Ti and Te are meaningful distinctions of Thinking, then these are not two unique or distinctive styles of thinking but rather, Internalized Thinking and Externalized Thinking.* Thinking, when internalized, means that you play with ideas in your head, e.g., contemplation, having an imagined discussion, debating with someone in your head, etc. All the thought processes are internalized so to an observer, nothing is going on. Unless you offer an output of your thinking and explain to them what you are thinking about, there is no way for any outsider to know. *Pure internalized thinking, without export or output, will have no impact on the outside world. It's all in your head, and it is you yourself that is both the author and the recipient of the product/outcome of your thinking. *
> 
> Externalized Thinking happens when you decide to share your thoughts with the outside world, by whatever means. Making a discussion post, talking with others, teaching, publishing a book, doing an experiment, etc., all these activities involved *Thinking in the Externalized mode. There is active interaction with the world.* Another example, I do a lot of contemplation but when I think, I prefer to think out loud, so I often talk to myself. This involves internalized plus externalized thinking, even though I'm just talking to myself. What is in my mind, has been externalized, so there is an output. Having an audience or not, does not make a difference.
> 
> *So at least to me, as a Ti dom, I do externalized thinking a lot. But you might ask, why do you see yourself as a Ti dom then? *
> 
> 2. This comes to my second point - how should Ti and Te be interpreted. In order to elaborate on my point, I make it clear that the Jungian model is applied here. Say, I am a Ti dom. What does that mean? *It means, I am an Introvert plus I'm a Thinking type. There are two components in this identity - introversion and the thinking type.* I'm an introvert, by this I mean as a person I'm introverted. The E/I attitude, according to Jung, is not about the specific functions but rather, *the E/I of the whole person*. If you are an E, you are an extroverted as a person. Next, I'm a Thinking type, so that is T, not F. *Why Ti then? It is not because I use a particular type of logic that is mislabeled as "Ti thinking", it is because I'm an Introvert. So there is Introversion plus Thinking.*
> 
> I assert that Jung refrained from simply using "Ti" in order to avoid confusion. His "Introverted Thinking Type", for example, means an introvert who is the Thinking type.
> 
> *Next, what about the auxiliary?* Here I'm gonna explain why I find the Grant model to be BS. People delve into the details about such things as "How do I use my Ne as an introvert?" and stuff. Meaningless questions, IMO. The Jungian model, written as EEII or IIEE, seems more convincing to me because *it is clear that to every I, the I part (I+I) is conscious and the E part (EE) is unconscious. To the E, the opposite is true.* *This means everyone has two sides to their personality. *It is your overall attitude as a person, E or I, that determines which side of your personality is conscious. If you are an I, your I+I is conscious and EE unconscious. If you are an E, vice versa. The unconscious part is so, not because it is not functioning but because it is opposite to your general attitude, E/I, hence, it is suppressed. If the unconscious is suppressed too much, it may cause a mental disorder. So everyone must pay attention to the unconscious part of their personality as well.
> 
> Say, you are an INTP in MBTI terms. It means you are overall, Introverted, plus, your top preference is thinking, T, plus, your preferred perception is N over S. *T-N-s-f.* *It's TiNi and SeFe. *Your dominant function is written as "Ti" because you are introverted. *Ti is not a unique brand of logic you use.
> 
> Why not TiNiSiFi then?* - IMO, it is because a person who is completely internalized is unhealthy. And, such an individual might not exist. Even a hermit more or less interacts with the outside world. The Tibetan monks who willingly go into the mountains and shut themselves inside a cave for a lifetime, in an attempt to reach nirvana might be such a type, but they are very rare. Note that even if such a type does exist, it is forced, not natural, as in the Tibetan monks.
> 
> According to Jung, there has to be an I side and an E side for an individual to be seen as having a whole personality.
> 
> *You might also ask, "what is the difference between TiNi and TiNe?", "But I do use Ne not Ni...", etc.*
> 
> Again, same as the Ti and Te debate here, *Ni and Ne do not represent two distinct types of intuition but rather, the attitude of your N depends on your overall attitude as a person, that is, E or I.* If you are an E, then you have conscious Ne, not Ni, if you are an I, vice versa.
> TeNe
> TiNi
> This does not make a person smarter or dumber. This makes more logical sense, at least to me, in understanding personalities as expressed in cognitive functions.
> 
> *Do TiNi and TiNe act very differently? NO.* If you believe your auxiliary is N, not S, it is Ni because you are an introvert. It does not make you a psychic or mastermind because of that Ni. It is Introversion plus Intuition. Simple.
> 
> Hope it makes sense and contributes positively to the debate here.


From your above post:



> *Next, what about the auxiliary?* Here I'm gonna explain why I find the Grant model to be BS. People delve into the details about such things as "How do I use my Ne as an introvert?" and stuff. Meaningless questions, IMO. The Jungian model, written as EEII or IIEE, seems more convincing to me because *it is clear that to every I, the I part (I+I) is conscious and the E part (EE) is unconscious. To the E, the opposite is true.* *This means everyone has two sides to their personality. *It is your overall attitude as a person, E or I, that determines which side of your personality is conscious. If you are an I, your I+I is conscious and EE unconscious. If you are an E, vice versa. The unconscious part is so, not because it is not functioning but because it is opposite to your general attitude, E/I, hence, it is suppressed. If the unconscious is suppressed too much, it may cause a mental disorder. So everyone must pay attention to the unconscious part of their personality as well.
> 
> Say, you are an INTP in MBTI terms. It means you are overall, Introverted, plus, your top preference is thinking, T, plus, your preferred perception is N over S. *T-N-s-f.* *It's TiNi and SeFe. *Your dominant function is written as "Ti" because you are introverted. *Ti is not a unique brand of logic you use. *


First I agree completely with your explanation on E and I.
I believe Jung looked upon conscious and unconscious—this one, I might be confusing because of Jung’s last chapter—in the same sense that he saw extraversion and introversion as well as judgement and perception (E/I and J/P, I have no confusion)—Separate from the polars of T/F and N/S.

Yet, I’m confused about when breaking down each cognitive polars in Jung’s theory: T/F, N/S from MBTI: EEII and IIEE (without Grant)—where in Jung’s Psychological Types says this? I’m gathering that Jung did use conscious and unconscious and Myers/Briggs used EEII/IIEE in replacement of the conscious/unconscious? (Then Grant/Broward step in using alteration of I and E and then there is Beebe’s shadow functions).

In your example of INTP, it’s using the order of MBTI including grant: (Bare with me, I’ll explain just below)









Why is the INTP’s functions start with T (2nd letter after I attitude) then N, S, F? When an INFJ’s functions start with N (1st letter after I attitude) then F, T, S? The J and P throws everything off. According to Jung, wouldn‘t the groupings look like this:

NF
FN
NT
TN
ST
TS
SF
FS
(Tell me if I missed something just above.)
Of course, each set of these could be with either Introverted or Extraverted attitude.

As for a 4 letter combination from Jung as the tertiary and inferior functions for the unconscious, I’ve not found it in his ”Psychological Types”or anywhere else online.
Granted, I haven’t read the entire thing word by word, but skimmed it reading quite a bit. Hell, I kept going back and re-skimming (looking at what I passed by or trying too). I felt for me that he wrote in such away that I wasn’t quite grasping exactly what he meant. Hence, re-reading and looking at other places (don’t ask me to name them—I discarded some and was able to see more from others) to see if I was understanding enough.

Spoiler—From C.G. Jung’s“Psychological Types”—Last Chapter—11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions

* *






> 11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions
> 
> Pg. 51
> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice. The are, as it were, only Galtonesque family- portraits, which sum up in a cumulative image the common and therefore typical characters, stressing these disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced. Accurate investigation of the individual case consistently reveals the fact that, in conjunction with the most differentiated function, another function of secondary importance, and therefore of inferior differentiation in consciousness, is constantly present, and is a -- relatively determining factor. [p. 514]
> 
> Pg. 52
> For the sake of clarity let us again recapitulate: The products of all the functions can be conscious, but we speak of the consciousness of a function only when not merely its application is at the disposal of the will, but when at the same time its principle is decisive for the orientation of consciousness. The latter event is true when, for instance, thinking is not a mere esprit de l'escalier, or rumination, but when its decisions possess an absolute validity, so that the logical conclusion in a given case holds good, whether as motive or as guarantee of practical action, without the backing of any further evidence. This absolute sovereignty always belongs, empirically, to one function alone, and can belong only to one function, since the equally independent intervention of another function would necessarily yield a different orientation, which would at least partially contradict the first. But, since it is a vital condition for the conscious adaptation-process that constantly clear and unambiguous aims should be in evidence, the presence of a second function of equivalent power is naturally forbidden' This other function, therefore, can have only a secondary importance, a fact which is also established empirically. Its secondary importance consists in the fact that, in a given case, it is not valid in its own right, as is the primary function, as an absolutely reliable and decisive factor, but comes into play more as an auxiliary or complementary function. Naturally only those functions can appear as auxiliary whose nature is not opposed to the leading function. For instance, feeling can never act as the second function by the side of thinking, because its nature stands in too strong a contrast to thinking. Thinking, if it is to be real thinking and true to its own principle, must scrupulously exclude feeling. This, of course, does not exclude the fact that individuals certainly exist in
> whom thinking and feeling stand upon the same [p. 515] level, whereby both have equal motive power in consciousness. But, in such a case, there is also no question of a differentiated type, but merely of a relatively undeveloped thinking and feeling. Uniform consciousness and unconsciousness of functions is, therefore, a distinguishing mark of a primitive mentality.
> 
> Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the leading function : thus, for example, thinking, as primary
> function, can readily pair with intuition as auxiliary, or indeed equally well with sensation, but,
> as already observed, never with feeling. Neither intuition nor sensation are antagonistic to thinking, i.e. they have not to be unconditionally excluded, since they are not, like feeling, of similar nature, though of opposite purpose, to thinking -- for as a judging function feeling successfully competes with thinking -- but are functions of perception, affording welcome assistance to thought. As soon as they reached the same level of differentiation as thinking, they would cause a change of attitude, which would contradict the tendency of thinking. For they would convert the judging attitude into a perceiving one; whereupon the principle of rationality indispensable to thought would be suppressed in favour of the irrationality of mere perception. Hence the auxiliary function is possible and useful only in so far as it serves the leading function, without making any claim to the autonomy of its own principle.
> For all the types appearing in practice, the principle holds good that besides the conscious main function there is also a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the main function. From these combinations well-known pictures arise, the practical intellect for instance paired with sensation, the speculative intellect breaking through [p. 516] with intuition, the artistic intuition which selects. and presents its images by means of feeling judgment, the philosophical intuition which, in league with a vigorous intellect, translates its vision into the sphere of comprehensible thought, and so forth.
> 
> Pg. 53
> A grouping of the unconscious functions also takes place in accordance with the relationship of the conscious functions. Thus, for instance, an unconscious intuitive feeling attitude may correspond with a conscious practical intellect, whereby the function of feeling suffers a relatively stronger inhibition than intuition. This peculiarity, however, is of interest only for one who is concerned with the practical psychological treatment of such cases. But for such a man it is important to know about it. For I have frequently observed the way in which a physician, in the case for instance of an exclusively intellectual subject, will do his utmost to develop the feeling function directly out of the unconscious. This attempt must always come to grief, since it involves too great a violation of the conscious standpoint. Should such a violation succeed, there ensues a really compulsive dependence of the patient upon the physician, a 'transference' which can be amputated only by brutality, because such a violation robs the patient of a standpoint -- his physician becomes his standpoint. But the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of itself, and with more adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development is via the secondary function-thus in the case of a rational type by way of the irrational function. For this lends the conscious standpoint such a range and prospect over what is possible and imminent that consciousness gains an adequate protection against the destructive effect of the unconscious. Conversely, an irrational type demands a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function [p. 517] represented in consciousness, in order to be sufficiently prepared to receive the impact of the unconscious.
> 
> The unconscious functions are in an archaic, animal state. Their symbolical appearances in dreams and phantasies usually represent the battle or coming encounter of two animals or monsters







I‘m, also, inviting everyone who has been participating in this thread recently to respond to this, if they choose… I do want to know everyone’s thoughts…
@Allostasis @BigApplePi @intranst @17041704


----------



## intranst

I kinda wanna touch on what was said about Ti being abstract and Te being concrete. If we are defining abstract as something purely theoretical, than I don't believe it is accurate to ascribe it to functions at all. Metaphysical is not the same as abstract. If functions were just "in theory" than we wouldn't be seeing them manifest the way that they do in everyday life.


----------



## Dalien

intranst said:


> I kinda wanna touch on what was said about Ti being abstract and Te being concrete. If we are defining abstract as something purely theoretical, than I don't believe it is accurate to ascribe it to functions at all. Metaphysical is not the same as abstract. If functions were just "in theory" than we wouldn't be seeing them manifest the way that they do in everyday life.





> Concrete thinking is reasoning that’s based on what you can see, hear, feel, and experience in the here and now. It’s sometimes called literal thinking, because it’s reasoning that focuses on physical objects, immediate experiences, and exact interpretations.
> 
> Concrete thinking is sometimes described in terms of its opposite: abstract thinking. This is the ability to consider concepts, make generalizations, and think philosophically.
> 
> Concrete thinking is a necessary first step in understanding abstract ideas. First, we observe and consider what our experiences are telling us, and then we can generalize.


We as a person do both.

Even though, one may lean heavier one way or the other? Is this the offering from your question?


----------



## intranst

Dalien said:


> We as a person do both.
> 
> Even though, one may lean heavier one way or the other? Is this the offering from your question?


I'd say that's accurate on it's own, though I was more referring to functions only.


----------



## BigApplePi

lww23 said:


> This is a very good question. I've been thinking about it for a while. This is how I see the differences, at least based on my current level of understanding:


A good thinking post. I'll see what I can tackle. At the present I feel (intuition really) I am weak on Te thinking. Wait. Maybe not.



lww23 said:


> *Pure internalized thinking, without export or output, will have no impact on the outside world. It's all in your head, and it is you yourself that is both the author and the recipient of the product/outcome of your thinking. *


This sounds good. It is a Ti specialty. However the Te person could claim to do that too. It's just that they of necessity have to go external as well.



lww23 said:


> *Thinking in the Externalized mode. There is active interaction with the world.*


In other words, one may be doing just as much thinking, but the subject matter involves more of the outside world rather than what is exclusively in one's head.



lww23 said:


> So at least to me, as a Ti dom, I do externalized thinking a lot.


I'm not ready to say talking to oneself is externalized thinking. One is still interfacing only with oneself.



lww23 said:


> Externalized Thinking happens when you decide to share your thoughts with the outside world, by whatever means. Making a discussion post, talking with others, teaching, publishing a book, doing an experiment, etc., all these activities involved *Thinking in the Externalized mode. There is active interaction with the world.*


Those are good examples. Interaction with the outside world I see two kinds of thinking. One is a continuation of the inside thinking. The other is the thinking about how to present oneself to be understood to others. The latter is external thinking I guess.



lww23 said:


> I assert that Jung refrained from simply using "Ti" in order to avoid confusion. His "Introverted Thinking Type", for example, means an introvert who is the Thinking type.


Umm. What about the ENTP? They are extroverted but use Ti. Maybe we can say their Ne runs rampant with extroversion but their thinking is hidden from view until they present it to us. I'm not sure what to say about Jung.



lww23 said:


> *Next, what about the auxiliary?* Here I'm gonna explain why I find the Grant model to be BS. People delve into the details about such things as "How do I use my Ne as an introvert?" and stuff. Meaningless questions, IMO.


I don't know what the Grant model is. Anyway I assume I am Ti, then Ne/Si. To do Ti I need input. Best to take it from the outside world so I'm not living in a fantasy. Ne is my intuition about the outside world. Si is my experiential memories. This means I use a so-called extroverted function because the intuition is about the world outside of me.


lww23 said:


> *Why not TiNiSiFi then?* - IMO, it is because a person who is completely internalized is unhealthy.


Why are they unhealthy? Because they are living in a fantasy land. No reality as input. They could get lucky and be okay, but the odds are against it.



lww23 said:


> Again, same as the Ti and Te debate here, *Ni and Ne do not represent two distinct types of intuition but rather, the attitude of your N depends on your overall attitude as a person, that is, E or I.* If you are an E, then you have conscious Ne, not Ni, if you are an I, vice versa.


I would like to separate Ne and Ni. Like you said earlier, Ne would be intuition taken from the real outside world. Ni would be intuition taken from inside one's head. You have referred to E or I as to the overall person. I'm going to guess (before examination) that the overall person is not the same as one's cognitive function. For example, if I use Ne, I am still an introvert if I am more Ti than Ne. Said a better way, Ti is my interest, Ne is my servant. That doesn't mean I couldn't chat with someone about something Ne.



lww23 said:


> *Do TiNi and TiNe act very differently? NO.* If you believe your auxiliary is N, not S, it is Ni because you are an introvert.


At this point my mind is getting distracted as I am called to go outdoors before dark. (I wrote that before dark, but it is dark now.) I see Ti and Ni as not going well together, though they could. That is because internal thinking wants to be accurate and internal intuition is about guessing, not accuracy.


----------



## Dalien

intranst said:


> I'd say that's accurate on it's own, though I was more referring to functions only.


Look at how I write and how the others in this thread write. I don’t know if I can explain it exactly, because according to MBTI, my Ti is tertiary. I do know that Ni will kick off something and my Ti will research the heck out of it until I find something(s) that coincides (and no it’s not me making it up) with what my Ni was telling me.


----------



## intranst

Dalien said:


> Look at how I write and how the others in this thread write. I don’t know if I can explain it exactly, because according to MBTI, my Ti is tertiary. I do know that Ni will kick off something and my Ti will research the heck out of it until I find something(s) that coincides (and no it’s not me making it up) with what my Ni was telling me.


To me this is even more evidence that INFJs and ENTPs are naturally compatible. You hint at an idea and they run with it to help you better understand your thought process while barely batting an eyelash.

I'm just gonna keep shamelessly plugging my thoughts on type compatibility here and there unless anyone has any objections.


----------



## intranst

TiNiSiFi is not possible because external data is necessary to make sense of the world. There's also the polarity between various functions to take into account.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> No, I meant #150 It is not about your intentions, but about the way in which you split Te and Ti.


At the moment I am too tired to look at #150. I'm guessing if I didn't do a good job of splitting Te and Ti, then I probably was just tossing about an idea to be looked at, nothing final. It does help me when you give the post #. Did I waste my time on what you said to tanstaafl28? 



Allostasis said:


> My point was missed. You again assign "Ti" to being intellectual/deep/conceptual, while "Te" - dull thinking about trivial/concrete matters/logistics.


I see this as a matter of different conceptualizations possibly because we have different backgrounds. I put Ti with ideas and Te with phenomena. Correction. Look at #106 again. It was YOU who used those words! 

Now comes an important point. Ideas need not be intellectual or deep. They can be trivial or superficial. There are plenty of terrible ideas so there is no need to elevate them. As for phenomena, phenomena can be extremely hard to deal with. It can involve putting many diverse and opposing things together. It can take a lot of skilled Te thinking. No way need handling phenomena be the derogatory things you said. I wonder why you came to that conclusion ... or were you just being provocative? 

I have to stop here because we need to settle why we give different interpretations to words. Tell me if you still want me to look at #150 as maybe it won't be necessary.


----------



## Allostasis

@Dalien 


> Why is the INTP’s functions start with T (2nd letter after I attitude) then N, S, F? When an INFJ’s functions start with N (1st letter after I attitude) then F, T, S? The J and P throws everything off.


Because in the MBTI P/J specifies the style of interaction with the world (Judging or Perceiving) iirc.
xxxP means they use extroverted perceiving function, while xxxJ use extroverted judging function.
The order of letters is irrelevant. Both INxP and ENxP use extroverted perceiving function (Ne) to interact with the world.



> According to Jung, wouldn‘t the groupings look like this:


There are many ways to set up groupings. Your suggestion seems sound. Most people tend to use an already established 4-lettered convention to avoid confusion (it is questionable whether it actually helps instead of obscuring communication)



> As for a 4 letter combination from Jung as the tertiary and inferior functions for the unconscious, I’ve not found it in his ”Psychological Types”or anywhere else online.


He isn't defining that explicitly as it wasn't in his goal to assign a precise technical classification of each personality. 
There are only 8 types defined with I/E + one of 4 functions. Auxiliary and tertiary functions aren't something as fixed and clearly separated as in other modern typologies. It is possible for some people to live with just one clearly differentiated function while having semi-conscious auxiliary functions intertwined with each other.

For instance, an N dom with poorly differentiated auxiliary might have a need to put judgments on their perceptions, but their character can be inconsistent, sometimes emotional, sometimes intellectual, and other times both. And it isn't because of some complexity of character, but due to a poor conscious grasp of those processes.
Even a well differentiated second function is conscious only to an extent, never matching the intensity of the dominant one. In the intuitive type, F as an auxiliary function won't have the same level of conscious presence as it is for F dom. It is F with a little bit of T to it. The same level of consciousness would lead to competition.

I imagine it wouldn't make sense for Jung to compress this complexity into fixed letters.



intranst said:


> TiNiSiFi is not possible because external data is necessary to make sense of the world. There's also the polarity between various functions to take into account.


Extraversion isn't really about interaction with the world/data. It holds true only for MBTI and other modern typologies.


----------



## intranst

Allostasis said:


> Extraversion isn't really about interaction with the world/data. It holds true only for MBTI and other modern typologies.


Even without MBTI terminology, I think the idea behind Se for example as taking in info via the 5 senses, would be necessary to extrapolate from in general. The senses being outside of the self and taking them in. As someone with Se as a 7th function, how that works is there is a very vague focus on the immediacy of sensation as it is experienced for the first time, though the sensation is still there. If I couldn't smell that rose, Ne wouldn't hone in on that sensation and want to discovery what other types of roses there are and find the best smelling one, though that process is more INFP specific.


----------



## Allostasis

BigApplePi said:


> At the moment I am too tired to look at #150. I'm guessing if I didn't do a good job of splitting Te and Ti, then I probably was just tossing about an idea to be looked at, nothing final. It does help me when you give the post #.
> 
> I have to stop here because we need to settle why we give different interpretations to words. Tell me if you still want me to look at #150 as maybe it won't be necessary.


You can read it at your convenience. Disregard sarcasm as it isn't the point of it. Definitions of words can be found either in a dictionary or provided by me if necessary.
I still think it may or may not address some questionable parts of your splitting.



> Did I waste my time on what you said to tanstaafl28?


Possibly. I may or may not return to it later if I will feel like it.



> I see this as a matter of different conceptualizations possibly because we have different backgrounds. I put Ti with ideas and Te with phenomena. Correction. Look at #106 again. It was YOU who used those words! Now comes an important point. Ideas need not be intellectual or deep. They can be trivial or superficial. There are plenty of terrible ideas so there is no need to elevate them. As for phenomena, phenomena can be extremely hard to deal with. It can involve putting many diverse and opposing things together. It can take a lot of skilled Te thinking. No way need handling phenomena be the derogatory things you said. I wonder why you came to that conclusion ... or were you just being provocative?


I agree with that.
However, the work with complex phenomena may just as well lead to the invention of new physical theories, mathematics, and other idea-heavy collections of concepts. There can be no difference in the amount or quality of ideas used in the phenomena-driven personality with no less amount of internal thinking.
On the other hand, the development of a certain set of fixed ideas may involve a lot of experimentation and externalization, and those ideas may still have quite a lot of practical value.

Note that in both cases there can be a comparably equal intensity of focus on ideas/internal thinking and their externalization/interaction with phenomenon, yet there is a big difference in terms of the direction of energy/emphasis.

In the former case, the interest flows toward the phenomenon. Internal thinking/ideas continuously adjust/adapt in order to internalize it.
In the latter case, the interest flows towards the ideas. More specifically, internal thinking revolves around a particular set of ideas in an attempt to prove/develop/investigate them for their own sake.
However, nothing can be assumed about who will end up being more practical/theoretical/abstract/conceptual, and so on.
Both cases allow for any combination of traits.

Your way of splitting I see as a very special and very concrete case of what I described.
Let me know if you want something defined in some other way or if there are parts that are questionable.


----------



## BigApplePi

Dalien said:


> I do want to know everyone’s thoughts…


I may be missing what you are after. I am by no means an expert on this.

I see the MBTI as a follow on and refinement of Jung. The MBTI is meant to have a "naturalness" (whatever that means) to it and can easily be thrown off by life circumstances.

The four letters of the MBTI have meaningful representations. The first one tells you if your overall personality is introverted or extroverted. Go for Jung with that. The 2nd one is N or S. (N has to be chosen as I is taken to mean introversion.) The 3rd one is F or T. 

Now you have to figure out what is the order of functions you are most at ease with. ("At ease" is not well defined but it is better than "what is most valued.") This is called "the stack." The P or J is determined by the first extroverted function in the stack. For example, INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se. Here the first extroverted function is F. F is a judgmental function so the last letter is J. 

I hope I have this right. Correct me if I have an error. 
===========================

I never tried to reverse this process. That is, given the four letter code can you figure the stack?

The 1st letter tells you e or i. It doesn't tell you the function. What is the 1st function? Answer: It's complicated. Go figure.


----------



## intranst

You're on the right track, and yeah you can figure out the letters with the functions and vice versa. They always follow the same patterns, that's why the theory works, it has consistency within itself. The manifestations of functions in real life wouldn't be trackable if it wasn't. I am referring to the 8 function MBTI model, just to be clear. Just look at the functions and the letters side by side between types and you'll notice them.


----------



## intranst

Allostasis said:


> Just because you fail to see my/others frameworks/internal meanings, it doesn't mean that they don't exist or are less developed.


Hmm are you guys sure you're arguing on Ti vs Te? Internal meaning sounds more like Fi, and in combination with Ni would create a strong value system within the user. Strong referring to conviction of the framework but not necessarily highly conscious or refined.

Edit: I definitely took this outta context, sorry about that. I saw the word meaning and went full NF on it. Carry on.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> You can read it [#150] at your convenience.


Okay.



Allostasis said:


> Disregard sarcasm as it isn't the point of it. Definitions of words can be found either in a dictionary or provided by me if necessary.


Okay again. Bringing my Ne into play, I find sarcasm distracting. I don't know whether to respond to it or ignore it. Sarcasm, like humor carries double meanings. Using it can convey a meaning but which do we select? It makes things complicated, at least for me. Someday I'll take a look at what sarcasm and humor have in common, but not now. EOR = End of Rant.

Next I want to comment on what you said and how I receive it as a whole. It see it as descriptive rather than ordered logic or analytical. I'll bet other readers will like it especially if the description is close to what is being described. I could just leave it, say thank you and go. The alternative for me it to analyze it piece by piece looking for anything missing or in error. That trouble with this is it ruins the overall description. It will look like a critique. It's a clash of styles.

Another comment I can hazard is such a description looks external to me. It is the result of thinking, not the thinking itself. If I were to tear it apart to look at it I would have to do internal thinking. You would see the rifts but not what motivates me to do that.



Allostasis said:


> Your way of splitting ...


 What way? What did I split?



Allostasis said:


> Let me know if you want something defined in some other way or if there are parts that are questionable.


Appreciated, but if I were to ask for a definition of every word you use, that would create a real mess. Apparently teasing apart this Te/ Ti can be done in more than one way. Same with likenesses. What is needed is a simplification ... if that's possible.


----------



## BigApplePi

I am currently a little overwhelmed with responding to so many posts on so many things by so many people. I thought of this last night. Apparently going directly after teasing apart Te and Ti thinking as if they existed in isolation is not so easy. If we try internal to the mind and outside the mind or objective and subjective, those overlap and we get into trouble. It's the going after the primary function when there are 2ndary and the other functions always operating.

Using the MBTI concepts (the others can be tried also), Te can go with Ni or Si. Ti can go with Ne or Se. Just taking the Ni or Ne, look at how differently that choice affects thinking. Ne can go all over the place in the outside world while Ni tends to be a more inner choice. Look at how that affects thinking. One can argue Ne and Ni aren't like that, so go ahead. It doesn't stop one from saying intuition can either range all over the place or be fixed. Same with Si and Se. One could suggest Si has a more diffuse range than Se. Even if I am wrong, there is a difference. Look at how those affect Te and Ti. 

If Te and Ti are so affected by 2ndaries, that means Te and Ti have more categories to separate.

Look at these categories:
ISTP - Craftsman
INTP - Analyst
ENTJ - Executive
ESTJ - Supervisor
They are not mine. I didn't make them up. Are they right or wrong or just tendencies? If there is any truth at all to them, then how would they affect Te and Ti?


----------



## Allostasis

@BigApplePi 


> It see it as descriptive rather than ordered logic or analytical.


I see most of your latest posts as very narrow-minded and poorly thought-out, but how that is relevant? I haven't asked you to tell how it looks to you.
If you want to make a claim that it is not an ordered logic, then make an argument that will show why this is the case.

I made an argument that explored the potential of the splitting between Ti and Te that you kept on making from lots of your posts.

It is not a "description," it as an assessment of how good (not good at all) your idea of splitting matches with/reflects the phenomenon by trying to examine consequences that I thought were crucial.
I intentionally dumbed it down in a very concrete way so that it will be very easy for you to follow and see potential mistakes.



> That trouble with this is it ruins the overall description. It will look like a critique. It's a clash of styles.


I guess I am aware that it will look like a criticism, since I explicitly asked you to criticise if you don't agree with the final conclusion.



> Another comment I can hazard is such a description looks external to me. It is the result of thinking, not the thinking itself.


Well, yes, it is a result of thinking, shockingly, because I did think before writing the post lol. 

Thanks for the reading. Your response kind of confirms that your brain just fails to work when communicating with me.
You missed every single point that I tried to express, produced more irrelevant comments and went back again to your undying biases and retarded fantasies about ESTJ supervisors and ENTJ executives, just like I thought you would.


----------



## Squirt

Dalien said:


> The point was not just about the emphasis/respect onto roots/origins. Yes, in a community/society that one lives in/grows up in does play a part in one’s being, as well as, the personality—this does not make the point, yet both do unfold one. But, the point was about where you start and where end you up.


I thought it was neat how you used an anecdote to emphasize a point about learning and gaining knowledge. It had a lot of layers in itself, really, so I can see how the facts of it/details could be ensnaring, lol.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> The first step that would be helpful to make is to try to not judge just by behaviours/surface alone. For @BigApplePi, extraversion is limited to this only. He thinks that all that is shown is all that there is, he doesn't bother thinking if there could be something beyond the surface. Only he and other introverts are allowed to have any depth.


I am quoting you. My first reaction is, I wonder where this came from? It could be true and it could be questionable. Assuming you are an ENTJ, I tried for an explanation in #214 . All I see is a statement. I see no quoting of me or steps leading up to it. I'm not going to read all my posts for proof. That leaves Ni. You must have something in your mind that leads up to that. Whether it is me or all introverts I can't tell. It is a mystery to me. It could be a clever way to get me to talk, but it seems too personal to get me thinking. Maybe you would like a feeling reaction instead of thinking.


----------



## Dalien

Squirt said:


> You provided references to Jung's definitions without any analysis, except for your equivalencies later on, which I don't think are accurate enough from what he wrote. Have I missed something else?


Sorry about such a short response. My mind is filled with so much info and I’m slowly (and probably painfully for others) pulling it out in a sensible way and have it make sense to me too. I’m not as quick as other people in putting what I‘m learning and understanding in a clear way like going one, two, three factual way (in my head I’m seeing facts)—I end up with a more abstractual manner with those factual points.

This is a bit of those previous posts that triggered my looking at Jung’s definitions.

* *







intranst said:


> I kinda wanna touch on what was said about Ti being abstract and Te being concrete. If we are defining abstract as something purely theoretical, than I don't believe it is accurate to ascribe it to functions at all. Metaphysical is not the same as abstract. If functions were just "in theory" than we wouldn't be seeing them manifest the way that they do in everyday life.





Dalien said:


> We as a person do both.
> 
> Even though, one may lean heavier one way or the other? Is this the offering from your question?





intranst said:


> I'd say that's accurate on it's own, though I was more referring to functions only.





Dalien said:


> Look at how I write and how the others in this thread write. I don’t know if I can explain it exactly, because according to MBTI, my Ti is tertiary. I do know that Ni will kick off something and my Ti will research the heck out of it until I find something(s) that coincides (and no it’s not me making it up) with what my Ni was telling me.





intranst said:


> To me this is even more evidence that INFJs and ENTPs are naturally compatible. You hint at an idea and they run with it to help you better understand your thought process while barely batting an eyelash.
> 
> I'm just gonna keep shamelessly plugging my thoughts on type compatibility here and there unless anyone has any objections.







These other posts of mine were my basic starting in this thread…
And, yes the last two were in response to another.
Also, my very first post in this thread was not saying the difference between Ti and Te in the outer layers stemming from Jung’s psychological types, but his T type alone. This was N speaking, which triggered me to go deeper into the confusion surrounding so many interpretations of Jung and layers (I think I’ll just call them that from now on—easier—Myer/Briggs, Grant/Broward, Lenora Thompson, John Bebe, David Keirsey—probably missed somebody.) I’d been reading this thread and the Interest I’d already had drew me in further. As well as I just said to Allostasis, that I was seeing a lot of people talking past, over, under and around each other that it, also, triggered me to look harder at more information. It almost feels like a crash course to me; even though, I already knew some—hell, there are a lot of interpretations out there to sift through and that makes my head go boom at moments.


* *








Dalien said:


> Could we say that when thinking internally it goes in depth and when thinking externally it goes in width?





Dalien said:


> Question:
> 
> If we look at MBTI and including the Grant stack…
> 
> View attachment 909570
> 
> 
> It looks to me like there are only four types that have thinking as their dom, ISTP and INTP—Ti, and ESTJ, ENTJ—Te.
> 
> My question is, since Jung‘s psychological types would have problems with this, why are auxiliary and even tertiary not included in the thinking game? Do T doms have monopoly on thinking or something? I’m seeing in this thread (and, yes I read it) that there’s a going back and forth with no clarity (but momentarily) between Jung and MBTI (with Grant on top of it). Leave out the use of doms, if there is going to be a discussion on thinking within personality types. I’ve seen many of longer threads take many of turns. So what if no one’s keeping up with the title. 🤷‍♀️ I’m actually interested in this threads actual posts.





Dalien said:


> From your above post:
> 
> 
> 
> First I agree completely with your explanation on E and I.
> I believe Jung looked upon conscious and unconscious—this one, I might be confusing because of Jung’s last chapter—in the same sense that he saw extraversion and introversion as well as judgement and perception (E/I and J/P, I have no confusion)—Separate from the polars of T/F and N/S.
> 
> Yet, I’m confused about when breaking down each cognitive polars in Jung’s theory: T/F, N/S from MBTI: EEII and IIEE (without Grant)—where in Jung’s Psychological Types says this? I’m gathering that Jung did use conscious and unconscious and Myers/Briggs used EEII/IIEE in replacement of the conscious/unconscious? (Then Grant/Broward step in using alteration of I and E and then there is Beebe’s shadow functions).
> 
> In your example of INTP, it’s using the order of MBTI including grant: (Bare with me, I’ll explain just below)
> View attachment 909748
> 
> 
> Why is the INTP’s functions start with T (2nd letter after I attitude) then N, S, F? When an INFJ’s functions start with N (1st letter after I attitude) then F, T, S? The J and P throws everything off. According to Jung, wouldn‘t the groupings look like this:
> 
> NF
> FN
> NT
> TN
> ST
> TS
> SF
> FS
> (Tell me if I missed something just above.)
> Of course, each set of these could be with either Introverted or Extraverted attitude.
> 
> As for a 4 letter combination from Jung as the tertiary and inferior functions for the unconscious, I’ve not found it in his ”Psychological Types”or anywhere else online.
> Granted, I haven’t read the entire thing word by word, but skimmed it reading quite a bit. Hell, I kept going back and re-skimming (looking at what I passed by or trying too). I felt for me that he wrote in such away that I wasn’t quite grasping exactly what he meant. Hence, re-reading and looking at other places (don’t ask me to name them—I discarded some and was able to see more from others) to see if I was understanding enough.
> 
> Spoiler—From C.G. Jung’s“Psychological Types”—Last Chapter—11. The Principal and Auxiliary Functions
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I‘m, also, inviting everyone who has been participating in this thread recently to respond to this, if they choose… I do want to know everyone’s thoughts…
> @Allostasis @BigApplePi @intranst @17041704



* *


----------



## Squirt

Dalien said:


> Sorry about such a short response. My mind is filled with so much info and I’m slowly (and probably painfully for others) pulling it out in a sensible way and have it make sense to me too. I’m not as quick as other people in putting what I‘m learning and understanding in a clear way like going one, two, three factual way (in my head I’m seeing facts)—I end up with a more abstractual manner with those factual points.
> 
> This is a bit of those previous posts that triggered my looking at Jung’s definitions.
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These other posts of mine were my basic starting in this thread…
> And, yes the last two were in response to another.
> Also, my very first post in this thread was not saying the difference between Ti and Te in the outer layers stemming from Jung’s psychological types, but his T type alone. This was N speaking, which triggered me to go deeper into the confusion surrounding so many interpretations of Jung and layers (I think I’ll just call them that from now on—easier—Myer/Briggs, Grant/Broward, Lenora Thompson, John Bebe, David Keirsey—probably missed somebody.) I’d been reading this thread and the Interest I’d already had drew me in further. As well as I just said to Allostasis, that I was seeing a lot of people talking past, over, under and around each other that it, also, triggered me to look harder at more information. It almost feels like a crash course to me; even though, I already knew some—hell, there are a lot of interpretations out there to sift through and that makes my head go boom at moments.
> 
> 
> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * *


I end up referring back to Jung because the later derivatives seem to be more interested in defining a nicely packaged and simple logic structure of personality by playing with the dichotomies in various ways, rather than a useful reflection of (messy) psychological processes collected from observation. Mixing the different models also creates a lot of confusion. 

I haven't studied Socionics much, though. Many folks don't like Jung, I'm aware.

Please do not feel any pressure from me to respond quickly, if so inclined. That is why we like forums, yes?


----------



## Antiparticle

BigApplePi said:


> All I see is a statement. I see no quoting of me or steps leading up to it. I'm not going to read all my posts for proof.


It’s easy for Te-Ni users to observe patterns in thinking styles = understand how someone’s Ti works. By writing a lot of posts where you show your thinking you give away this pattern even if you don’t explain how you think.


----------



## intranst

Antiparticle said:


> It’s easy for Te-Ni users to observe patterns in thinking styles = understand how someone’s Ti works. By writing a lot of posts where you show your thinking you give away this pattern even if you don’t explain how you think.


I don't find this accurate as far as Fe-Ni is concerned though, they simply cannot read me, and what's worse is they don't question their assumptions meaning they don't consider them to be assumptions at all. Even with inferior Te I can sometimes deduce what someone is thinking when in the right frame of mind so maybe it's different with thinking functions.


----------



## Antiparticle

intranst said:


> I don't find this accurate as far as Fe-Ni is concerned though, they simply cannot read me, and what's worse is they don't question their assumptions meaning they don't consider them to be assumptions at all. Even with inferior Te I can sometimes deduce what someone is thinking when in the right frame of mind so maybe it's different with thinking functions.


I think Fe-Ni users should be able to understand your personal values / judge you as a person, adjust how to behave about things you like/dislike, understand what you would do in value-based scenarios… take your opinion into account, but not necessarily thinking details.


----------



## intranst

Antiparticle said:


> I think Fe-Ni users should be able to understand your personal values / judge you as a person, adjust how to behave about things you like/dislike, understand what you would do in value-based scenarios… take your opinion into account, but not necessarily thinking details.


I suppose it's possible, it just hasn't been my experience regardless of discourse, or at least they don't retain the information as important. The thinking functions do seem to have better potential when coordinating due to their relatively more linear nature.


----------



## Allostasis

Dalien said:


> @Allostasis
> 
> 
> I only clarified the USA because of speaking of a holiday that the country I live in holds it—this is an international website after all and it may lead to people going what the hell is she talking about. It was just clarifying circumstances.
> 
> The point was not just about the emphasis/respect onto roots/origins. Yes, in a community/society that one lives in/grows up in does play a part in one’s being, as well as, the personality—this does not make the point, yet both do unfold one. But, the point was about where you start and where end you up.
> 
> I’m seeing in this piece of conversation that you’ve taken each smaller piece (facts) of my anecdote and questioned it in the sense of literal, as in that they are each a fact on their own. When I wrote it and re-read it before I posted, I was making a statement of a whole—each piece was interconnected to make my point that one does need to know the beginnings of a concept to understand the furtherance of said concepts…
> 
> The confusion caused by so many layers added on Jung’s psychological types pushes me to go to the original source, including the sources of the layers added on, to unravel them (part of why I posted my other posts in this thread.) I was seeing that people were talking past, over, under and around each other in this thread.


Yes, I understood the point behind anecdote, but thought of questioning it anyway.
Recently, the thread tried to make an independent understanding of what Te and Ti can be, detached from its roots. At least to some extent.
I see the value in both approaches, because if what Jung offered has significance/value, then we are bound to re-discover similar ideas. Maybe they will add something new. In the worst case, they can just motivate us to read Jung more.


----------



## Ewok City

Everyone made really good points, I've enjoyed reading through all of them.

First, @BigApplePi states that Te is recognition of facts, and Ti is analysis of facts. A good starting premise but there are certainly some holes to poke. Main problem is the rigidity of the argument.

And then @Allostasis made a compelling counterargument: *you cannot merely recognise a fact without analysis or adding meaning to it. *And I totally agree. We are exposed to tons of information on daily basis. If we did not analyse and filter them before deciding which is relevant or valuable enough to store in our brain, how could our brain handle it? It would be information overload. So according to @BigApplePi's theory, how could Te-doms possibly survive that? They don't have the Ti filter to protect them from the flood of information or stimuli. I don't think it's possible for them to stay sane unless they are a superhuman with the memory of a supercomputer.

And so I'd like to make a point: *N/S*. I don't think there's any person who operates purely on Te or Ti. Maybe Te by itself is indeed, a tool used to "recognise" a fact or how it interacts with external system.* That's where the N/S functions comes in: to analyse, filter, and process information. *Te being a "logic recognition" tool does not imply that Te-doms as a person are capable only of that. It describes the function, not the person.

Same for Ti, but I would argue that Ti is not about analysis. Ti on its own is *incubation* of facts, whereas N/S are the ones responsible for the analysis. And both Te and Ti have them, so neither is more "analytical" nor "practical" than the other.

@lww23 has mentioned that *in order to truly understand Te vs Ti, look for I vs E.* And I totally agree. Maybe all this time we should be debating about I vs E and not Te vs Ti logic after all. And again, I would emphasis, neither of them in any ways are better or more substantial than the other. *Ti has Ne/Se and Te has Ni/Si.* No one is pure introvert or extrovert. Both are capable of receiving and processing information.

In supporting those argument of mine, I would like to refer to @intranst's argument somewhere outside this thread: *cognitive functions cannot be analysed on its own.* Even Te-Si and Te-Se are already quite different. How do we decide if an attribute or behaviour is Te, when some parts of it is actually Si? If an attribute is 60% Te and 40% Si, how do we make out what is Te and what is Si from it?

My personal conclusion to this debate is: a healthy human being is balanced. Any arguments claiming that one archetype WILL ALWAYS be better in any ways than others are stereotypical at worst, and counterproductive at best. We should instead strive to avoid the "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail" phenomenon. A sugar tastes sweet, but it does not imply that it can only be used to make sweet dishes. We would miss out on pizzas and bolognaise then, which is a shame. If we assign all Te-doms for managerial roles and Ti-doms for theoretical scientists roles, how many inventions or discoveries would we have missed?

If I've made any wrong assumptions please feel free to correct me.


----------



## Allostasis

BigApplePi said:


> 2. Post 1. = #199
> 
> Speaking of abstractions, the MBTI is an abstraction, taken from a personality survey.
> 
> ENTJ = Te Ni Se Fi, the executive
> INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe, the analyst
> 
> Well what do you know? That looks like a lot of opposites. Such personalities are either going to be separate and clash/ crash or they are going to complement each other and make things whole. What is "up front" (conscious) in one is hidden (unconscious) in the other. Or at least that's the tendency.
> 
> What can be said about what is up front ? Neither Te nor Ti operate alone. They use intuition. This intuition can mislead the other thinker. And that doesn't even cover the other two functions.
> 
> Starting with the ENTJ, Their Te is up front for everyone. Their thinking is visible. Could it be Te questions Ti statements in two ways?
> (1) Te mistakes the Ne for Ti because Ne is the way an INTP communicates with the outside world. Since Ne is tentative, the ENTJ questions the truth of the supposed Ti. The real Ti is hidden.
> (2) The Ni intuition of the Te is hidden. Their Te expression doesn't explain this causing the INTP to not understand.
> 
> Ne is not thinking. Ne says, "her." Ni doesn't show up. Ni says, "this is me."
> 
> Oppositely, Look at the INTP.* They see the Te of the ENTJ which is out there for all to see. Could it be Ti questions Te statements in two ways?
> (1) It mistakes Te for Ne because Ne is the way an INTP communicates with the outside world. Since Ne is tentative, the INTP questions the truth of the Te.
> (2) The INTP fails to see the Te logic because the INTP cannot see the missing hidden Ni intuition.
> 
> Without defining thinking, thinking is a judgement of a temporary statement of truth which does not mean that judgement cannot be retracted. Thinking says, "go this way and not another for now." Any thinking is ready to rethink.
> Here is another set of thinkers:
> ESTJ = Te Si Ne Fi, the supervisor
> ISTP = Ti Se Ni Fe, the craftsmen
> Go figure.
> 
> *I'm dedicating all that is shallow in this post to @Allostasis.


I take it you want me to criticise this. I will take what is questionable and question it then.



> ... the executive,
> ... the analyst


What this supposed to mean? If I dream of being a scientist or some kind of analyst, then it would be in my best interests to abandon it and constrain myself to an executive position? Why one can't be an analyst and the other executive, or both? Why "Te" isn't analytical but "Ti" is, who decides that, from what it follows?



> Their Te is up front for everyone. Their thinking is visible.


From what does it follow, who decides that? What makes you think that it is limited only to what can be seen or that it is delegated to Ni, how do you know?
Why extraversion is external/visible and introversion is internal/hidden?
Why extraversion is interaction and introversion is processing?

I don't agree with those generalizations. Whoever made them looked only at the surface.
If they were derived from foundations, then foundations aren't sound enough. If it is a conjecture from experiences, then not enough experiences were made.



BigApplePi said:


> I am quoting you. My first reaction is, I wonder where this came from? It could be true and it could be questionable. Assuming you are an ENTJ, I tried for an explanation in #214 . All I see is a statement. I see no quoting of me or steps leading up to it. I'm not going to read all my posts for proof. That leaves Ni. You must have something in your mind that leads up to that. Whether it is me or all introverts I can't tell. It is a mystery to me. It could be a clever way to get me to talk, but it seems too personal to get me thinking. Maybe you would like a feeling reaction instead of thinking.


Did you expect a complete list of your quotes from many of your posts with all steps leading from premises to the conclusion, which no one will ever bother to look at fully?
Yes, it did come from your posts. It isn't that difficult to see which ideas factor into your posts. 
But you can continue to not think about it and assume that there is nothing more to it, as usual.

Although, I must admit, I do see some sign of the progress. You are beginning to make baby steps and hypothesize about what can be behind the observable. Good job.


----------



## Allostasis

Ewok City said:


> And so I'd like to make a point: *N/S*. I don't think there's any person who operates purely on Te or Ti. Maybe Te by itself is indeed, a tool used to "recognise" a fact or how it interacts with external system.* That's where the N/S functions comes in: to analyse, filter, and process information. *Te being a "logic recognition" tool does not imply that Te-doms as a person are capable only of that. It describes the function, not the person.
> 
> Same for Ti, but I would argue that Ti is not about analysis. Ti on its own is *incubation* of facts, whereas N/S are the ones responsible for the analysis. And both Te and Ti have them, so neither is more "analytical" nor "practical" than the other.
> 
> @lww23 has mentioned that *in order to truly understand Te vs Ti, look for I vs E.* And I totally agree. Maybe all this time we should be debating about I vs E and not Te vs Ti logic after all. And again, I would emphasis, neither of them in any ways are better or more substantial than the other. *Ti has Ne/Se and Te has Ni/Si.* No one is pure introvert or extrovert. Both are capable of receiving and processing information.
> 
> In supporting those argument of mine, I would like to refer to @intranst's argument somewhere outside this thread: *cognitive functions cannot be analysed on its own.* Even Te-Si and Te-Se are already quite different. How do we decide if an attribute or behaviour is Te, when some parts of it is actually Si? If an attribute is 60% Te and 40% Si, how do we make out what is Te and what is Si from it?
> 
> My personal conclusion to this debate is: a healthy human being is balanced. Any arguments claiming that one archetype WILL ALWAYS be better in any ways than others are stereotypical at worst, and counterproductive at best. We should instead strive to avoid the "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail" phenomenon. A sugar tastes sweet, but it does not imply that it can only be used to make sweet dishes. We would miss out on pizzas and bolognaise then, which is a shame. If we assign all Te-doms for managerial roles and Ti-doms for theoretical scientists roles, how many inventions or discoveries would we have missed?
> 
> If I've made any wrong assumptions please feel free to correct me.


Exactly. Good points.
Attempts to see Te and Ti as two different functions are doomed to be futile/counter-productive, but some still insist on entertaining this perspective.

Some notes:


> *cognitive functions cannot be analysed on its own.*


If we take Jungian-like framework (4 function model), then each function has its distinct and unique purpose, which can and should be analyzed in isolation from the rest to grasp its essence.
Differentiation implicates exactly that - discernment/subtraction of it from the whole.



> on Te as recognize of facts and Ti - incubation of them


I wouldn't say that the speciality of T is recognition of facts or if it even has anything to do with facts in isolation.

Its speciality is creation and recognition of conclusions imo.
More specifically, in linking together mental contents through their conceptual/intellectual properties.
Since it presupposes the ability to recognize those conceptual properties, it also entails the ability to recognize how one thing conceptually relates to another.

How analysis plays into that?
Analysis is a detailed examination, recognition of the whole as a composition of smaller elements.

Now, If will we take each function in isolation and follow its activity, we will see that analytical aspect can be attributed to each of them, as each function outlines a specific way to allocate our attention across the object, exposing a unique dimension in its own right.

There is just as much depth to F and S as there is to N and T. Most things which are judged as primitive/trivial is usually the consequence of inadequate lenses.

Sensing too ends up deconstructing concrete sensual experiences into rich sets of highly variable and nuanced components, each uniquely contributing to the whole picture.


----------



## Ewok City

Allostasis said:


> Attempts to see Te and Ti as two different functions are doomed to be futile/counter-productive, but some still insist on entertaining this perspective.





Allostasis said:


> There is just as much depth to F and S as there is to N and T. Most things which are judged as primitive/trivial is usually the consequence of inadequate lenses.





Allostasis said:


> Sensing too ends up deconstructing concrete sensual experiences into rich sets of highly variable and nuanced components, each uniquely contributing to the whole picture.


Well said! You've made really clear points and these deserve to be seen by more. 



Allostasis said:


> I wouldn't say that the speciality of T is recognition of facts or if it even has anything to do with facts in isolation.
> 
> Its speciality is creation and recognition of conclusions imo.


You're right actually, was this from Jung or your own conclusion? Because if it's the former then I might need to read more about it.


----------



## Dalien

Squirt said:


> You provided references to Jung's definitions without any analysis, except for your equivalencies later on, which I don't think are accurate enough from what he wrote. Have I missed something else?


I was on overload last night. I can not put my premise down just yet. My N and T (if you want to call it that) has been very busy collecting and rejecting that I’ve lost sight without losing sight—if one can imagine that. Quite confusing, wouldn‘t you say, much less the confusion of what is what in personality types. I’m, actually, working on putting down on paper the workings of the layers in the different theories—what changed from one to the next in a more simplistic way.


----------



## Dalien

intranst said:


> Him not staying in one place long enough may be a byproduct of being ENTP but it’s still an external factor in it’s own right which I tend to disregard when talking about type compatibility. Type compatibility should be about cognition only, that is, the ability of one type to communicate best with another type based on how (info give/take processing) they communicate.


I was not speaking of physical movement, but the mind. Hence, the push and pull for understanding.


----------



## BigApplePi

Allostasis said:


> I take it you want me to criticise this. I will take what is questionable and question it then.


Okay. Give it a try. I will critique your critique.



Allostasis said:


> What this supposed to mean? If I dream of being a scientist or some kind of analyst, then it would be in my best interests to abandon it and constrain myself to an executive position? Why one can't be an analyst and the other executive, or both? Why "Te" isn't analytical but "Ti" is, who decides that, from what it follows?


Words are meant to distinguish. They are not absolutes. That goes for executive/ analyst and Te/ Ti. It goes for sky blue/ ocean blue. You may criticize if you wish, but I frequently make statements to contrast. They are not stand-a-lones. The ocean can appear sky blue in shallow shores of the Caribbean. The sky can look ocean blue in a storm. Should one therefore never call something, "sky blue"? If my style of writing fails to make that distinction, go to it and criticize.

The rest of your post goes along those lines. If you are going to now say, "No it doesn't", I'll grant you that. 

Would you advise me to issue a disclaimer on all my future posts? Change Improve my style? Would you want me to make like criticisms when YOU make generalizations? Your Fi is showing.
========================================================

Has it been said the best way to distinguish Te from Ti is by introversion/ extroversion? That covers a lot of ground. Not perfect, but Te is "out there" for everyone to see, while Ti is hidden. One could also say, for any thinking, both are there but one is less conscious. And they are interchangeable. Now where are we?

BTW I once met a nice person. At least I thought they were nice. Someone said they were not nice. How could they tell? Maybe they were wrong. Maybe I was wrong. Were they nice or not? How important is it to know if someone is nice or not? Can we give this up to subjectivity? Suppose I wanted you to meet them but you didn't want to meet someone who was not nice. Should I assure them they were nice? Do they meet or not?



Ewok City said:


> First, @BigApplePi states that Te is recognition of facts, and Ti is analysis of facts.


I don't know what a "fact" is without definition. That word is not in my vocabulary.


----------



## Pianoman

The way I see it is that (Ti) is more of an abstract thinking and organizing where (Te) is more of a practical and external type of thinking. (Ti) users are more prone to dable about in unpractical matters and break barriers for the sake of discovery and at the expense of practicality and efficiency. However, (Te) focus more on practicality and will stay "inside the lines" and sacrifice discovery and sometimes (though rarely) even accuracy for the sake of practicality. 

A good example of the contrast is in a video I once saw called "the art of code" the story the presenter gave was about past discoveries in mathematics and programming and at one point he talks about a group ran into a roadblock and someone who I suspect is a (Ti) user suggested a rather unorthodox way to get that broke some "rules" to get around a problem. Then someone who is likely was (Te) user quickly said "you can't do that" (because it violated some objective rules) and the Ti thinker replied "we are mathematicians so we can do anything we want to" and though it was against the rules and unpractical the (Ti) users work around fixed the problem and resulted in new discoveries and methods in mathematics and programming. 

Another example and really my first discovery of Ti vs Te I ran into that was funny is when I was in high school and has to do with two of my close friends. One of them and I were very much Ti thinkers while the other was a Te thinker. My Ti friend and I got this game portal which is very much an abstract thinking game we loved it and took to it immediately and played it a lot. However one time we brought my Te thinking friend over who we considered far smarter than us as he always got good grades and was in all AP classes so we thought he will beat this game pretty quick and put us to shame. He couldn't get past the first few levels with out us showing and explaining the solutions to him because he couldn't grasp the abstract thinking of portal system and the implications of it. Me and my other (Ti) friend found it quite humorous that Mr super genius that out did us at ever turn academically couldn't grasp the basic concepts of this puzzle game.


----------



## Dalien

Allostasis said:


> Certainly. By "primitive" I was estimating the potency of "Algebras" that could've been built out of the suggested premises.





> We can't build anything abstract/complex out of concrete facts alone. We don't create/invent anything by recognizing something that is already existing. We need arithmetics to chain facts into conclusions about new facts or facts in general.
> However, we can't have that without abstractions.


And, where did arithmetics come from to begin with.

I do get and believe that we all use both concrete and abstract to develop concepts. The below statement’s meaning in its simplest form is true. It does not specify which type did what. Nowhere in any of my other posts did I say that an introvert was just abstract and an extravert was just concrete. I do understand why you went with that I was agreeing with the wrong premise (a stereotype)—it’s throughout this thread. I’ve also expressed that I don’t agree with the stereotypes and want to delve deeper into the workings of Jung that chained the other layers of theory of personality types on top of it. Hence, the arithmetics first then algebra and so on analogy—this had nothing to do with informal and formal logic; even though, mathematics carries logic to exist. Yet, wouldn‘t logic be carried through concrete and abstract thoughts to build a concept. I‘m not separating concrete and abstract here. Yet, I do understand how the below could be misconstrued.


Dalien said:


> Concrete—recognition of facts—extraverted
> Abstract—interpretation of facts—introverted






> Therefore, if we take the premise that Extraversion=concretism/recognition of facts, while Introversion=abstractions, then it follows that pure extravert is just a mindless recording device. And the best that he can do is to try being as introverted as he possibly can to put a little bit more meaning around his "facts."
> 
> And there we have it again : Extraverts - are simple concrete people with very trivial minds with no thoughts on their own, while Introverts are just a more superior sort of people who prefer to actually think instead of mindlessly running from one fact to another.
> 
> If this perspective is satisfying enough and explains everything, then I guess our task is achieved and the thread can be closed.
> But, if we really want to advance our understanding and go further, then we have to question our premises harder and consider something else.


I‘m not stuck there, obviously.



> I suppose USA or your generation puts greater emphasis/respect onto their roots/origins?
> I am not like that, I would've probably gotten into an argument about how my betterment of myself is the consequence of my decisions and the credit is all mine lol (and those who helped of course.) Although I don't like being needlessly negative in the first place.


I already responded to this. I came back to finish responding to the rest of this post. I was on brain overload last night and didn’t have the oomph to finish. Quite fun. Ugh.



> Yes, we have to utilize both. Is it just about the difference in proportions? Like, extraverts are "abstract" by 20-30% of their consciousness, so that they can color up their facts with some primitive abstractions?
> 
> Well, we are allowed to think this way. Moreso, we can even find a number of assholes "managers" who would fit the criteria or party-loving beasts as an evidence. And explain all sensitive/smart extraverts as just "introverts who learned how to talk with people." Why not.
> 
> I personally see more to this phenomenon and it can't be comprehended from the angle of those assumptions. Or even by just reading Jung, as he himself was a biased human and an introvert.


No, not by proportions. Is it in how we process to come to a conclusion or concept?

Yes, Jung had his biases—we all do don’t we? Yes, it’s good to notice them and express them for consideration and discussion. For that matter, “Psychological Types” was created stemming from analyzing people with psychological problems. With this many people make this point into his theories are unreliable.

Who said just reading Jung was the answer. Not me and I’ve said that Jung started personality typing through his “Psychological Types” and the others ran with it. I’m responding this way because you’re addressing me simply by responding to my post. Yet, I know that a piece of all this post is for the eyes of others and where you lay on the matter of stereotypes and misconceptions. I’ve expressed looking at Jung as well as the other layers and have even posted pieces of their basics (not completed yet)—done to delve deeper to bring forth conversation into understanding.




> The first step that would be helpful to make is to try to not judge just by behaviours/surface alone. For @BigApplePi, extraversion is limited to this only. He thinks that all that is shown is all that there is, he doesn't bother thinking if there could be something beyond the surface. Only he and other introverts are allowed to have any depth.


————————————————————————

Edit: What is your explanation for the difference between Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Thinking, if there is one? (notice that I’m not writing Ti and Te). Also when we step outside of Jung himself and go into the other layers of theory, some use Ti and Te and some throw the dichotomy of J and P having either e or i. These are just for the sake of conversation and unraveling it all. I have me as INFJ and you have you as ENTJ—we are utilizing them is the point of this statement, which leads me to believe that there is something with it.


----------



## Ewok City

BigApplePi said:


> I don't know what a "fact" is without definition. That word is not in my vocabulary.


Then let's start from there, because this is crucial for a healthy debate to take place. The middle ground cannot be reached if both party insists on staying inside their own "home". I don't know how you organise your belongings, and I don't know whether your house rules requires me to take off my shoes before entering. So, if you ask me to get your keys from "where you usually put it in", I definitely won't have any idea where is it. And most definitely not before I walk all over your bedroom with my muddy shoes. Basically, we won't understand each other unless we're talking in terms that we both understand. We need a standard. 

So I'd need you to bear with me and try to follow my train of thought. And then, I'll attempt to follow yours. Do you agree that this is the best way to go? 

I find that asking questions is a good way to go. Why do you not have the definition of a "fact"? What stops you from looking it up? And if you have done so, are you not happy with the definition that you've come across? Why?


----------



## IamAlexa

BigApplePi said:


> Words are meant to distinguish. They are not absolutes.





> The ocean can appear sky blue in shallow shores of the Caribbean. The sky can look ocean blue in a storm.


Can you do it in same way for executive/analyst or Te/Ti, just like you did for sky blue/ocean blue? 

You just can't relate one example with other. This is manipulation. Mind can't be compared with colours. Mind has different properties than colours.


----------



## Mark R

Antiparticle said:


> Te user will come after my post and use concepts and rules that everyone can understand, to explain the same thing.


Ti comes up with explanations that I can fit into a logical framework. Te's explanation has all these facts all over the place that just don't seem to fit unless I put in a bunch of work to fill in the missing gaps, and/or find explanations to eliminate the parts that don't fit, or hold the extraneous Te data in suspension.


----------



## Dalien

I must be damned stupid given that I’m only open.
That‘s ok.
I’ll deal with it.

Here I‘m the only one that is even considering the jumps between Jung, Myers/Briggs, Grant/Broward, Thompson, Beebe and Keirsey. No wonder there is so much confusion. Everyone is only posting about what one they know best.

Oh, maybe, it’s really because I’m just a damned INFJ and thinking skills aren’t strong enough—I’m going to laugh at that, truly. Oh, but I’m open.


----------



## Squirt

Red Panda said:


> not according to the Jungian concepts which Allostasis is referring to as well
> the attitude doesnt' change from dom to aux as it is the attitude of the person, not the function


If it is the attitude of the person, how can you say Einstein is an "extraverted thinker"? He would be an extraverted intuitive with thinking as auxiliary. 

Jung says nothing about whether the auxiliary is the same attitude as the dominant - however, he does say it is mostly unconscious (or partially conscious) and acts as a "bridge" to the most repressed function (inferior), which is of the opposite attitude. It seems that could be interpreted a number of ways. Myers-Briggs interpreted it to mean the aux was of the opposite attitude because Jung wrote it is "in every respect different from the nature of the primary function."

The way I've interpreted it is that the auxiliary doesn't have a consistent introverted or extraverted attitude. This is because it is not as developed and provides a "non-confrontational" path to the inferior.


----------



## Squirt

Dalien said:


> I must be damned stupid given that I’m only open.
> That‘s ok.
> I’ll deal with it.
> 
> Here I‘m the only that is even considering the jumps between Jung, Myers/Briggs, Grant/Broward, Thompson, Bebe and Keirsey. No wonder there is so much confusion. Everyone is only posting about what one they know best.
> 
> Oh, maybe, it’s really because I’m just a damned INFJ and thinking skills aren’t strong enough—I’m going to laugh at that, truly. Oh, but I’m open.


This is a consistent problem on this forum - mixing up different philosophies about these typing systems which use the same terms and have common origins without being clear about how they relate to one another. I mean, I am trying to be clear. Maybe failing?

Everyone's knowledge base is different. That is what makes discussion engaging - to fill in gaps, to provide different perspectives one might not think of on their own, to test one's own understanding, ask questions. At least, that is what keeps me posting, lol.


----------



## Dalien

Squirt said:


> This is a consistent problem on this forum - mixing up different philosophies about these typing systems which use the same terms and have common origins without being clear about how they relate to one another. I mean, I am trying to be clear. Maybe failing?
> 
> Everyone's knowledge base is different. That is what makes discussion engaging - to fill in gaps, to provide different perspectives one might not think of on their own, to test one's own understanding, ask questions. At least, that is what keeps me posting, lol.


I think you’re a pretty clear person and you ask questions while imparting knowledge. I agree whole heartedly with the rest of your post. This is why I’ve been trying to just roll with most of the responses to me. I know that I’m not quite clear at moments and don’t mind being corrected or explanations given to me. I sure as hell don’t know everything and don’t pretend to. I need to get the paper (the writing of basic explanations) I told you about done. Had to take a break. But, I don’t think anyone but you so far is hearing me.


----------



## Mark R

Squirt said:


> If it is the attitude of the person, how can you say Einstein is an "extraverted thinker"? He would be an extraverted intuitive with thinking as auxiliary.
> 
> Jung says nothing about whether the auxiliary is the same attitude as the dominant - however, he does say it is mostly unconscious (or partially conscious) and acts as a "bridge" to the most repressed function (inferior), which is of the opposite attitude. It seems that could be interpreted a number of ways. Myers-Briggs interpreted it to mean the aux was of the opposite attitude because Jung wrote it is "in every respect different from the nature of the primary function."
> 
> The way I've interpreted it is that the auxiliary doesn't have a consistent introverted or extraverted attitude. This is because it is not as developed and provides a "non-confrontational" path to the inferior.


Jung writes about undirected thinking. This isn't necessarily the same synthesis as mine (I'm still trying to figure it out), but your explanation sounds reasonable.


Squirt said:


> This is a consistent problem on this forum - mixing up different philosophies about these typing systems which use the same terms and have common origins without being clear about how they relate to one another. I mean, I am trying to be clear. Maybe failing?
> 
> Everyone's knowledge base is different. That is what makes discussion engaging - to fill in gaps, to provide different perspectives one might not think of on their own, to test one's own understanding, ask questions. At least, that is what keeps me posting, lol.


I agree with this assessment. I do try to listen and not pound my views so much.


----------



## Dalien

Mark R said:


> Jung writes about undirected thinking. This isn't necessarily the same synthesis as mine (I'm still trying to figure it out), but your explanation sounds reasonable.
> 
> I agree with this assessment. I do try to listen and not pound my views so much.


I do listen and is there anything wrong with wanting people to listen back? I don’t think people here are just pounding their views, but just want someone to acknowledge them and discuss. This thread has not been one sided, but just all over the place talking over, above, around and under each other and that is to do with too many theories and no one direction.


----------



## Red Panda

Squirt said:


> If it is the attitude of the person, how can you say Einstein is an "extraverted thinker"? He would be an extraverted intuitive with thinking as auxiliary.
> 
> Jung says nothing about whether the auxiliary is the same attitude as the dominant - however, he does say it is mostly unconscious (or partially conscious) and acts as a "bridge" to the most repressed function (inferior), which is of the opposite attitude. It seems that could be interpreted a number of ways. Myers-Briggs interpreted it to mean the aux was of the opposite attitude because Jung wrote it is "in every respect different from the nature of the primary function."
> 
> The way I've interpreted it is that the auxiliary doesn't have a consistent introverted or extraverted attitude. This is because it is not as developed and provides a "non-confrontational" path to the inferior.


the auxiliary being a bridge is a Myers-Briggs idea
tho the wording is a bit confusing in Psychological Types, and the idea is more implicit rather than explicit (takes some work to piece them together) there's another book that clears it up better: Dr. Jolande Jacobi's, in which she writes

_The differentiated and the auxiliary function are conscious and directed — they are often represented in dreams, for instance, by father and son; the other two functions are partly or wholly unconscious — they are often represented by mother and daughter. Since, however, the opposition between the auxiliary functions is far less acute than that between the differentiated and the inferior function, the third function can also be raised into consciousness, thereby becoming ‘masculine’. 1 It always brings with it, nevertheless, some- thing of its contamination with the inferior function and forms in this way a sort of mediator with the unconscious. The fourth function, which partakes of the unconscious, draws, as soon as the attempt is made to raise it into consciousness, the contents of the unconscious with it and leads thus to a confrontation with these and to the possibility of a synthesis between consciousness and the unconscious._

And this makes a lot more sense if we consider the broader context of the personality having to develop the auxiliary to conscious use, to bring balance thru the perceiving-judging pair completion.

I described him as an extraverted thinker in aux because his thinking had to be extraverted if it was conscious (which it was) and so I have to express that in order to contrast it to the idea that ENTPs are introverted thinkers. This means that everything that describes an extraverted thinker would describe him when he uses his Thinking, except he wouldn't be _led_ by the_ Rational attitude. _I hope this explains better where I'm coming from.


----------



## Dalien

Red Panda said:


> the auxiliary being a bridge is a Myers-Briggs idea
> tho the wording is a bit confusing in Psychological Types, and the idea is more implicit rather than explicit (takes some work to piece them together) there's another book that clears it up better: Dr. Jolande Jacobi's, in which she writes
> 
> _The differentiated and the auxiliary function are conscious and directed — they are often represented in dreams, for instance, by father and son; the other two functions are partly or wholly unconscious — they are often represented by mother and daughter. Since, however, the opposition between the auxiliary functions is far less acute than that between the differentiated and the inferior function, the third function can also be raised into consciousness, thereby becoming ‘masculine’. 1 It always brings with it, nevertheless, some- thing of its contamination with the inferior function and forms in this way a sort of mediator with the unconscious. The fourth function, which partakes of the unconscious, draws, as soon as the attempt is made to raise it into consciousness, the contents of the unconscious with it and leads thus to a confrontation with these and to the possibility of a synthesis between consciousness and the unconscious._
> 
> And this makes a lot more sense if we consider the broader context of the personality having to develop the auxiliary to conscious use, to bring balance thru the perceiving-judging pair completion.
> 
> I described him as an extraverted thinker in aux because his thinking had to be extraverted if it was conscious (which it was) and so I have to express that in order to contrast it to the idea that ENTPs are introverted thinkers. This means that everything that describes an extraverted thinker would describe him when he uses his Thinking, except he wouldn't be _led_ by the_ Rational attitude. _I hope this explains better where I'm coming from.


Interesting how she is bringing forth masculine (father and son) and feminine (mother and daughter) as dreams. Don’t worry, I didn’t not look at the rest. This dream thing caught my attention enough to ask about it.


----------



## Mark R

Dalien said:


> I do listen and is there anything wrong with wanting people to listen back? I don’t think people here are just pounding their views, but just want someone to acknowledge them and discuss. This thread has not been one sided, but just all over the place talking over, above, around and under each other and that is to do with too many theories and no one direction.


I wasn't criticizing you. I was just stating where I was at in this conversation. As an intuition dominant, I barely notice when conversations are all over the place. My brain is constantly trying to form a synthesis of all the viewpoints because none of the models has the whole picture. In simplest terms, Jung's model reminds me that all types share undirected thinking. The eight function model gives some flavor to that undirected core. I am most comfortable with Beebe's model, but each of these viewpoints has something to add that makes the whole picture more accurate.


----------



## Red Panda

Dalien said:


> Interesting how she is bringing forth masculine (father and son) and feminine (mother and daughter) as dreams. Don’t worry, I didn’t not look at the rest. This dream thing caught my attention enough to ask about it.


Yea I've no idea why. I've personally never found any of the dream symbols he describes in my dreams and I wonder if there are cultural elements to them as well. It's not something I've enough interest to look into at this time so I just put a mark on it.


----------



## Squirt

Mark R said:


> Jung writes about undirected thinking. This isn't necessarily the same synthesis as mine (I'm still trying to figure it out), but your explanation sounds reasonable.


Yes, there is much more to it. What is your synthesis? Or is that too big of a question? 



Red Panda said:


> the auxiliary being a bridge is a Myers-Briggs idea tho the wording is a bit confusing in Psychological Types, and the idea is more implicit rather than explicit (takes some work to piece them together)


Not entirely, they just expanded on it and codified it more. I don't think it was unclear in Psychological Types. It was fairly succinct on that point (I mean, for Jung):

"...the approach to the unconscious and to the most repressed function is disclosed, as it were, of its own accord, and with adequate protection of the conscious standpoint, when the way of development proceeds via the auxiliary function - in the case of a rational type via one of the irrational functions. This gives the patient a broader view of what is happening, and of what is possible, so that his consciousness is sufficiently protected against the inroads of the unconscious. Conversely, in order to cushion the impact of the unconscious, an irrational type needs a stronger development of the rational auxiliary function present in consciousness."



Red Panda said:


> there's another book that clears it up better: Dr. Jolande Jacobi's, in which she writes
> 
> _The differentiated and the auxiliary function are conscious and directed — they are often represented in dreams, for instance, by father and son; the other two functions are partly or wholly unconscious — they are often represented by mother and daughter. Since, however, the opposition between the auxiliary functions is far less acute than that between the differentiated and the inferior function, the third function can also be raised into consciousness, thereby becoming ‘masculine’. 1 It always brings with it, nevertheless, some- thing of its contamination with the inferior function and forms in this way a sort of mediator with the unconscious. The fourth function, which partakes of the unconscious, draws, as soon as the attempt is made to raise it into consciousness, the contents of the unconscious with it and leads thus to a confrontation with these and to the possibility of a synthesis between consciousness and the unconscious._




Huh. I've never read Jacobi. Jung considered the two most unconscious functions to show in dreams as antagonists: "The most unconscious functions exist in an archaic, animal state. Hence their symbolic appearance in dreams and fantasies is usually represented as a battle or encounter between two animals or monsters."

I guess Jacobi disagreed about how the functions are "elevated" into consciousness? Jung said you couldn't elevate both "middle functions" because they'd antagonize one another, just as the dominant and inferior do. Jacobi says it is not as acute. Why? Is that something she observes or is that reasoned (both)? For Jung, the general trajectory is one function becomes fully conscious, one "supports" the conscious function, and two become fused (concretistic) and remain archaic in the unconscious. Jacobi also sort of includes this fusion concept in saying that the 3rd function is contaminated with the 4th.

The truth of it might be there is no consistent break point for type development - and perhaps it is possible to hold a conflict of "opposing attitudes" consciously, even. Is Jacobi trying to look at more "healthy" individuals, as Myers-Briggs were, when it comes to how functions are used?



Red Panda said:


> And this makes a lot more sense if we consider the broader context of the personality having to develop the auxiliary to conscious use, to bring balance thru the perceiving-judging pair completion.
> 
> I described him as an extraverted thinker in aux because his thinking had to be extraverted if it was conscious (which it was) and so I have to express that in order to contrast it to the idea that ENTPs are introverted thinkers. This means that everything that describes an extraverted thinker would describe him when he uses his Thinking, except he wouldn't be _led_ by the_ Rational attitude. _I hope this explains better where I'm coming from.


So, you're saying Einstein had an exceptionally developed auxiliary? Or that the auxiliary is often well developed/conscious?



Dalien said:


> Interesting how she is bringing forth masculine (father and son) and feminine (mother and daughter) as dreams. Don’t worry, I didn’t not look at the rest. This dream thing caught my attention enough to ask about it.


I was curious about that, too.


----------



## Mark R

Squirt said:


> Yes, there is much more to it. What is your synthesis? Or is that too big of a question?


As I said, I'm still trying to separate the bones from meat. I explained it in vague terms in the next post:


Mark R said:


> In simplest terms, Jung's model reminds me that all types share undirected thinking. The eight function model gives some flavor to that undirected core. I am most comfortable with Beebe's model, but each of these viewpoints has something to add that makes the whole picture more accurate.


----------



## IamAlexa

Dalien said:


> Oh, maybe, it’s really because I’m just a damned INFJ and thinking skills aren’t strong enough


Thinking skills aren't strong enough + At the same time Feeling skills are strong enough. 
You don't need these theories in order to understand people. Believe in your own understanding of people and that will prove to be more benificial and applicable for you in real life.


----------



## intranst

I find INFJs have really good insight actually, it's just that Te being one of their harder functions makes it more difficult for them to explain their thoughts, or they choose not to since they are so personal to them.


----------



## Antiparticle

intranst said:


> I find INFJs have really good insight actually, it's just that Te being one of their harder functions makes it more difficult for them to explain their thoughts, or they choose not to since it's so personal to them.


Either you are close to INFJ, then you get all thoughts (Fe). 

Or you are not close, then it's not important, you probably get 0.

But think twice if you want to get all thoughts.


----------



## intranst

Dalien said:


> I was not speaking of physical movement, but the mind. Hence, the push and pull for understanding.


Do you see another type having a better mental connection with you or INFJs in general?


----------



## Red Panda

Squirt said:


> Huh. I've never read Jacobi. Jung considered the two most unconscious functions to show in dreams as antagonists: "The most unconscious functions exist in an archaic, animal state. Hence their symbolic appearance in dreams and fantasies is usually represented as a battle or encounter between two animals or monsters."
> 
> I guess Jacobi disagreed about how the functions are "elevated" into consciousness? Jung said you couldn't elevate both "middle functions" because they'd antagonize one another, just as the dominant and inferior do. Jacobi says it is not as acute. Why? Is that something she observes or is that reasoned (both)? For Jung, the general trajectory is one function becomes fully conscious, one "supports" the conscious function, and two become fused (concretistic) and remain archaic in the unconscious. Jacobi also sort of includes this fusion concept in saying that the 3rd function is contaminated with the 4th.
> 
> The truth of it might be there is no consistent break point for type development - and perhaps it is possible to hold a conflict of "opposing attitudes" consciously, even. Is Jacobi trying to look at more "healthy" individuals, as Myers-Briggs were, when it comes to how functions are used?


As far as we know, her work was endorsed by Jung as a good representation of his theories so this one isn't just her opinion but a simplified, more digestible version of them. She was a colleague of Jung and instrumental figure in their institute so from what I can tell this book is basically equivalent to reading Jung.
Yea I think Psychological Types is more of an investigation into the psyches of unhealthy people or how we might become unhealthy, while Jacobi's book is an overview of the whole theory and thus explains the more normal manifestations and dynamics of the typology. My impression is that with this dynamic of development there isn't exactly, or necessarily a constant threshold one develops and then stays there, it's more situational. Or perhaps the development happens gradually and it can go back and forth thru that threshold with decreasing frequency as the person develops and then settles in the more conscious side of things.

With that aside I recall in chapter 10 he mentions the tertiary can also be utilized albeit rarely so I'm not seeing that much of a contradiction here. I think it's a matter of situational use rather than leaning on them as a preference. I think I've observed some of that in other people and myself but the last word is of the auxiliary if the situation makes them too conflictual.

But anyways I'm not entirely convinced this conscious-unconscious model of dynamics is exactly how it works, however it's a work in progress as experience is necessary for this. Like, I think the other 2 preferences can play into the dynamic of the functions in a similar fashion to the dom-aux dynamic. So like an ENFP could be NFPE or NEFP or even not N dom but say, E or P first which manifests as having a strong extraverted irrational attitude that will utilize N or S to serve the E or P if necessary. It's a difference I see between ENP and EFP subtypes for example.





> So, you're saying Einstein had an exceptionally developed auxiliary? Or that the auxiliary is often well developed/conscious?


I think the aux is most often developed, maybe normally even. I've read the idea that the aux is not often developed but I'm not sure where it comes from as I don't remember reading something like that in Jung but I may have missed it.
But also as mentioned, I suspect the two attitudes (E/I and "P/J") can act in the same manner as a functional preference, so in a way can be the aux. Like someone may favor conclusions (Rational) without necessarily being too attached to them coming from T or F as long as they feel things are rationalized and concluded the drive is satisfied and this drive comes first before the functions. This is outside what I've read by Jung but it's something I've observed sometimes IRL. Which is why I'm not convinced the conscious-unconscious dynamic works this way. But like I said, work in progress.

And as for Einstein, idk if his was exceptional per se, but at the very least was developed to be able to do what he did, which was to have the will to eventually systematize his observations. I've often seen that in other ENTPs as well, but they're very strongly observant people first which means they don't just discard information that they can't rationalize yet, contrary to people who prefer the rational attitude. I think the differences between these two attitudes are very underappreciated by the mainstream typology understanding, prob because the MBTI overshadowed them with their interpretation of the J/P axis.


----------



## 17041704

Well gotta say I've had my fun in this thread and I think I've read all the posts here (which I seldom have the patience for). I have learned something and I'm a happy guy.

My focus in this discussion is rather the person's respective values placed on I/E and their own biased narratives employed by their dominant function to justify this preference with the assistance of the other three distorted, subservient and subconscious functions.

This is one of the few topics which I would rather prefer that people misunderstand and disagree with one another because I believe each as a master of their own dominant function should have achieved an understanding of its essence in a way that others would never be able to experience let alone fully understand.

Agreement in my eyes (as far as discussions of dominant functions is concerned) means at least one of the dominant functions submits and thereby failing to retain its essence and valid standpoints. One may say this is promoting bias and well yes that's exactly what I'm talking about and it is a tradeoff I think appropriate. All POVs from the dominant functions are highly personal and incomplete biased understanding of the world. They are all equally wrong but they are all equally right as well and therefore all should be preserved even if they are not perfect. I won't say this though if we are talking about aux or inferiors.

Only by refusing to accept conflicting POVs then the relevant essences and truths of the dominant functions can be preserved and not assimilated, twisted or subjugated like the auxiliary and inferior functions at the hands of the dominant. That's what I believe. And hopefully honest and open disagreements would help us identify the boundary and limits of our dominant functions and shed some lights on the truths and shortcomings of the way of life and perspectives we all take for granted.

Personally I totally enjoy the clashes in this thread unlike the others. These honest responses actually helped me understand people better than all the stuff they wrote and tried so hard to explain as to why they are correct. Basically we are all trying to convince the other kungfu masters why our kungfu style is da best - a pointless exercise in my humble opinion yet this is a painful but rewarding experience so this is not pointless after all (that's how my mind works please forgive me I constantly think of bs and then refute my own bs the next 0.5 sec that's why I do not like to type and talk about stuff bc it's pretty likely that I have already refuted what I am saying when I'm saying it). I suppose it would be similar for other dominant functions to summon their conflicting, subservient and distorted inferior functions as a defense mechanism? Imma stop derailing heheh😅.


----------



## Allostasis

Dalien said:


> And, where did arithmetics come from to begin with.


I went with your analogy. I didn't mean it literally.
And I meant that what was offered (Concrete/recognition of facts = Extraverted and Abstract/interpretation of facts=Introverted) cannot be used as some kind of basis/foundation for higher-order concepts, as it won't lead to anything meaningful or consistent with works of Jung. 
I agree that an interplay between concrete and abstract is inevitable, but there is no special relationship between them and attitudes. 



> No, not by proportions. Is it in how we process to come to a conclusion or concept?


I think so. Attitude certainly has to influence something, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in conceptualizing it. I will provide my own version later in the post.



> Who said just reading Jung was the answer. Not me and I’ve said that Jung started personality typing through his “Psychological Types” and the others ran with it. I’m responding this way because you’re addressing me simply by responding to my post. Yet, I know that a piece of all this post is for the eyes of others and where you lay on the matter of stereotypes and misconceptions. I’ve expressed looking at Jung as well as the other layers and have even posted pieces of their basics (not completed yet)—done to delve deeper to bring forth conversation into understanding.


Yes, many things weren't directed personally at you and I don't think you were stuck or anything. I do appreciate and recognize your contributions and intent to figure things out. Apologies for possible misunderstandings.



> Edit: What is your explanation for the difference between Extraverted Thinking and Introverted Thinking, if there is one? (notice that I’m not writing Ti and Te). Also when we step outside of Jung himself and go into the other layers of theory, some use Ti and Te and some throw the dichotomy of J and P having either e or i. These are just for the sake of conversation and unraveling it all. I have me as INFJ and you have you as ENTJ—we are utilizing them is the point of this statement, which leads me to believe that there is something with it.


Yes, it is okay to utilize them.

So, the difference. As I stated before, I see Te (Extraverted Thinker) and Ti (Introverted Thinker) as two types that rely on same for both function, Thinking.
Extraverted (or Introverted) Thinking is the Thinking function that is consciously conducted by an Extravert (or Introvert.) Nothing new.

All difference is rooted in the difference between E and I, which doesn't change what T is, or what it can do or how it can do it, or how frequently it does it and etc. 

There are Te dom who are interested and continuously engage with philosophy/mathematics/programming and anything intellectually stimulating (like me), and there are Ti doms who like doing people management.

Hence, when we are talking about the difference in Te and Ti (as opposed to E/I or T in isolation,) we are talking about the difference between two applications of T, superficial characteristics or general patterns among effects that only appear as some different form or specialization Thinking, rather than something substantial.

Stereotypes can classify as those general patterns and some of them can even be valid to some extent.
For instance, this frequently mentioned pragmatism/efficiency/rationality associated to Te is one of those generalizations.
However, it is merely an effect, the appearance that is accessible to the Introvert, which barely scratches the surface.

What would explain this generalization then, why it is observed more among Te rather than Ti?
Extraversion, obviously.

Under Extraversion, the "libido" / energy of psyche (or just interest) flows into the object.
There is a common (mis)understanding that "an object" is an immediate observable concrete external reality or dry facts/information without any interpretation.
"Object" does have a relation with external reality, but at all times introverts and extraverts both work with mental contents only.
Extraverts don't move in physical world and physically arrange objects, it is stupid. Objects are mental contents and can be summoned into the mind with memory.

What distinguishes things that we call as "objects" is that they are conditioned primarily by the external reality (or, to simply put, not by the ego, they exist independently)
Subjective content, conversely, is conditioned by the subject (self/ego) and attaches to it.

As such, Extraverts are those who habitually adjust/align their subjective contents in line with the object.
That is why they are "objective." They are conditioned by the objects and such attitude naturally leads to flexibility that is frequently mistaken as "shallowness" or "pragmatism," not caring about "meanings," which is the opposite of what is going on.

Extraverts aren't those who prioritize concrete reality over ideas/abstractions.
They prioritize adjustment/changes within their abstractions/ideas to match the reality. All subjective contents that are in the way can be ruthlessly discarded. Changes are exciting.

Conversely, Introverts are those who habitually adjust/align objects with their subjective contents.
Their interest flows into themselves, their ego and reality ideally should conform to it.
That is why they are "subjective." There is a noticeably greater influence of attachments that introvert formed towards his views/ideas/interpretations/etc.

Introverts aren't those who prioritize ideas/abstractions over concrete reality. 
They prioritize preservation/protection of THEIR ideas/abstractions over something that threatens to replace them. It is the attachment to ideas rather than increased usage or complexity of them that is different.

Hence why it is so easy to make an assumption that everyone who isn't as attached must have nothing substantial going on in their minds, just moving mindlessly from one idea/fact to another.

In the worst case Introvert can, indeed, end up being very close-minded/delusional and defensive of his little world to the point of becoming stagnant.
And Extravert, too, can be too open minded and adaptable to the point that his "big world" gets diluted and self disappears in it without any direction or purpose.


----------

