# What is Te? What is Ti?



## Jakuri (Sep 7, 2015)

magi83 said:


> The Ti oriented lawyer can also be successful in the same areas as the Te lawyer. The difference is that the Ti lawyer is going to be far more inclined to understand the ins and outs of an entire area of law in order to fully understand it as a 'system' (this is maybe why I find so many Ti lawyers gravitating towards tax law!). It isn't necessarily important for a piece of knowledge (e.g. a case or a statutory provision) to be important in the here and now because it forms part of the Ti lawyers systems based understanding which he knows will be useful at some point in the future. By understanding the system first and worrying about practical implementation second, the Ti lawyer is more inclined to think of novel solutions and ways of applying the law (such as tax schemes and loopholes!). This is because once they have developed a detailed internal understanding of the law, they will see all the possible outputs of that system (especially if Ti is combined with Ne).
> 
> Basically, ENTJs tend to be fantastic commercial lawyers with strong business acumen. INTPs tend to have a staggering level of knowledge of their chosen area of expertise - think of them as engineers with a complete understanding of an abstract system, its individual components, its inter-dependencies etc.


Noting the fact that someone mentioned the Te/Ti difference in the context of law, I will pick that up as an inspiration and go to slightly different directions. As one following the SCOTUS (not in law school though ), I believe Te and Ti justices approach cases differently. Law is predominantly a TJ field, according to Myers, not surprisingly. Out of the nine justices, I think Justice Breyer exemplifies a Ti-Ne way of approaching cases. But anyway. All of them uses hypotheticals to some extent, but Breyer is particularly notorious for getting verbose as he likes coming up with rather complex hypotheticals. That has been dubbed as his main MO, making him the most verbose justice out of the nine. As the article says, he also used hypothetical situations in his teaching too, and during the hearing. He gets lost in his own hypotheticals as it gets more complex. It seems to me a Ti-Ne approach, Ne being used to come up with hypothetical scenarios to express his Ti, trying to analyze how things will pan out not just in the case in front of him but in possible similar cases. This runs into danger of things getting overly complex as he tries to be precise about everything, and the quotes from that link illustrate this pitfall. Not to mention he is known for a long question and then goes "ok, yes or no?" "ok, so what's the answer?" I feel his unique quirks are the type of Ti-ish quirks that distinguish his style from his other more Te-oriented colleagues apart from Kagan (she is apparently an ENTP, according to CelebrityTypes).


----------

