# Describe Te and the differences between it and Ti.



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

default settings said:


> What if I was to tell you that arguably what we want isn't always what we need?
> 
> As a slight aside,
> 
> ...


Ok, I'm sorry, but something is going on with the way you're wording things, like you don't directly get to your point immediately, and is probably one of the first times I have been genuinely confused by something.... Ever, I mean I understand, but I had to read either it multiple times or just the end once.... so yeah, just something that was glaring at me every time I tried to read, like what is going on, is this Te:Ti confusion, or what is this


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

Sorry off topic, but you can definitely tell Ti and Te even by their sentence structure I think. Te definitely has a set purpose, while Ti sort of discovers the purpose in process. I find that since functionality is found in humans, I tend to subjectively look at specific opposing argue-mentors and justify which is which. Sorry I'm getting off topic. But most of the things said here are crazy accurate (props to ya..) but Ti is definitely more in depth while Te just wants results, too general, sorry XP, but I find both extremely useful in society while both have their faults, if Te wasn't there, no one would do anything, if Ti wasn't there, everyone would just make points without questioning them and no one could ever meet on equal grounds, just extremes v extremes


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hell, I know that Ti is _about_ being able to take things apart and put them together...Even so, I assume that Ti needs to _do _something, in order to see if it will work or not, anyway. Maybe that's an odd thought, I dunno.


I. Thought. That. Was. Se. I've been stressing myself out, thinking that my skill (and liking) for taking things apart and putting them back together, my interest in becoming an engineer, and my need to try things for myself was all indicator that I was a woefully mistyped Sensor.

Then again, I've also wondered if my understanding of the need to empirical data or my desire to be some sort of problem solver are actually indicators of Te use....


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Antipode said:


> Te solves problems.
> 
> Ti points out why the solution doesn't work.





Arceus301 said:


> Sorry off topic, but you can definitely tell Ti and Te even by their sentence structure I think. Te definitely has a set purpose, while Ti sort of discovers the purpose in process. I find that since functionality is found in humans, I tend to subjectively look at specific opposing argue-mentors and justify which is which. Sorry I'm getting off topic. But most of the things said here are crazy accurate (props to ya..) but Ti is definitely more in depth while Te just wants results, to general, sorry XP, but I find both extremely useful in society while both have their faults, if Te wasn't there, no one would do anything, if Ti wasn't there, everyone would just make points without questioning them and no one could ever meet on equal grounds, just extremes v extremes


Sorry I had to edit this I messed up what I was saying...

Results oriented types: ISFP, ESFJ, INTP, ENTJ, ISTJ, ESTP, INFJ, ENFP
Process oriented types: INTJ, ENTP, ISFJ, ESFP, INFP, ENFJ, ISTP, ESTJ

I think that's right...


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> What you're saying here isn't really true about Te and Ti as much as it is about Se/Ni and Si/Ne. ISTPs and ESTPs are getting stuff done all the time, powering through obstacles and getting results, because Se and Ni types are decisive types. Ni and Se types are in a naturally active state of being on top of whatever they're doing and not stopping until it's done. INTPs and ENTPs aren't like this, they are naturally at a state of rest but consider moving to a action is considered a big push, so they're going to spend way more time talking things out and considering options etc.
> 
> I just mentioned these types, but this really applies to all types with Si/Ne and Se/Ni regardless of where the functions are in their stack.


I wasn't suggesting one couldn't do the other job--that is why we have multiple functions, instead of solely relying on one function.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

Antipode said:


> I wasn't suggesting one couldn't do the other job--that is why we have multiple functions, instead of solely relying on one function.


Right, sorry I was trying to write something else, I summed it up where I have my original post.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

@CellarDoor I do that allll the time, it's probably just a ti thing where we never can say exactly what we mean, then end up changing 20 times


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Antipode said:


> Te solves problems.
> 
> Ti points out why the solution doesn't work.


I use my Te to try to understand objective situations even before I become aware of problems that may exist.

Your theory doesn't work. 

Or is at best overly simplistic.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Arceus301 said:


> Ok, I'm sorry, but something is going on with the way you're wording things, like you don't directly get to your point immediately, and is probably one of the first times I have been genuinely confused by something.... Ever, I mean I understand, but I had to read either it multiple times or just the end once.... so yeah, just something that was glaring at me every time I tried to read, like what is going on, is this Te:Ti confusion, or what is this


Don't worry. The point I was making was... esoterically worded.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

default settings said:


> Don't worry. The point I was making was... esoterically worded.


Aha..... See what you did there, actually that was rude on my part but I didn't mean for it to be  OH WELL, classic ENTP insensitivity, luckily this a Te ti conversation and not an Fe Fi conversation.... Oh god


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

default settings said:


> I use my Te to try to understand objective situations even before I become aware of problems that may exist.
> 
> Your theory doesn't work.
> 
> Or is at best overly simplistic.


So have you tested for INTJ before or have any version of Ni... cause that would poke a whole in your theory....


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Arceus301 said:


> So have you tested for INTJ before or have any version of Ni... cause that would poke a whole in your theory....


If you aren't aware of how a ball works, a hole in a ball doesn't seem like a problem. 

It just is. There is no what it should be. 

There is no means to be taken to fix things, because there doesn't seem to be anything to fix.

Ergo understanding what is and what it should be within a strategy, to an irrational dominant type user, may come before identification of a problem.

Just because Ni can work quickly doesn't mean it works all its processes simultaneously or instantaneously. And just because many people don't understand Ni doesn't mean it cannot be understood.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

default settings said:


> If you aren't aware of how a ball works, a hole in a ball doesn't seem like a problem.
> 
> It just is. There is no what it should be.
> 
> ...


Fascinating, explain, I think there's a more precise meaning than what I'm understanding


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

default settings said:


> I use my Te to try to understand objective situations even before I become aware of problems that may exist.
> 
> Your theory doesn't work.
> 
> *Or is at best overly simplistic*.


Exactly what I was shooting for; hence the use of just two sentences.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

> Exactly what I was shooting for; hence the use of just two sentences.


Just as planned? Yet plans so _rarely_ survive their encounter with reality unscathed.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Arceus301 said:


> Fascinating, explain, I think there's a more precise meaning than what I'm understanding


I'm being abstruse again. 

I'm mocking the general online MBTI population's understanding of Ni while hoping people in general don't actually improve on their understanding of Ni.

Explaining would go against my own goals. Sorry.


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

default settings said:


> I'm being abstruse again.
> 
> I'm mocking the general online MBTI population's understanding of Ni while hoping people in general don't actually improve on their understanding of Ni.
> 
> Explaining would go against my own goals. Sorry.


Funny, I was mocking the average ignorant mbti population saying words they don't know the meaning to....


----------



## Arceus301 (Dec 27, 2013)

:3


----------



## XDS (Sep 4, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Nope. I tried Debian. Didn't like it. My huz swears by it, though. :kitteh:
> 
> I also tried Arch, Slackware (Similar to Debian, but I might like it less) a _little _dabble with Gentoo which I might extend at a later time, and Fedora. I really tried to like Fedora, hardcore, but it just didn't measure up.
> 
> Arch Linux is my favourite so far.


I find that interesting. I use Ni-Te as well, but I find Debian to be too... "entangled". Everything depends on something else and changing one thing means you need to change some other things too. With Arch I can have everything set up just the way I like it just by editing a few configuration files.

I also replied to your other topic on Linux.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Rationalism vs. Empiricism.


----------

