# 'thinking', making decisions ? Te vs Ti ?



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

Most descriptions almost imply that Te types dont think internally. I know, Tx functions doesnt correlate with 'thinking' but more like paying attention and making decisions based on 'objective facts' vs 'subjective facts'. I dont believe, Te can be just organizing environment and being sadistic.

It may be interesting to see the differences between their thinking style and making decisions. Can I get some Te and Ti people here to comment ? roud:


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

I quote my post from the other thread:




KraChZiMan said:


> *Te* - Most energized when they manage to find the most effective way of getting something done, when they can apply themselves and make a large profit from what corresponds to their productive actions. Te-user is the kind of person to first assume that the low productivity of somebody is most likely coming from using bad and outdated tools, being misinformed or not being up to date with the knowledge in the field, rather than lack of character, will or motivation. When Te-user can recognize the problem and solve it, they feel satisfied, knowing that their knowledge can be applied in real life matters.





KraChZiMan said:


> *Ti *- Most energized by gaining a full understanding of a new technical knowledge. Ti-user is exactly the kind of person who needs to take the toaster apart, and see what's inside of the toaster, just to learn what the toaster actually is. As opposed to Te-users, the Ti-users are not concerned with productivity and application of knowledge, but about the clear theoretical insight. They learn new information just because they want to learn it, and when it can be applied, it's an extra bonus. In the toaster example, there might be no other motivation than just a pure curiosity towards the machine - "I want to see what causes the bread to become crisp" or "I wonder what's causing the heat within the toaster" or "how the electricity interacts with the other components" etc. Ti-users believe that maintaining a clear theoretical insight in different fields might allow them to, for example, invent something new, or repair the existing machine.




As you can see, one of the main differences is how Te's main questions behind making a decision would be "Who is going to benefit from this choice, and who benefits from the other choice? What changes are being made as a result from this decision? Are these changes for the worse, or for the better?", while Ti's main questions would be "How could the subject under the question be exactly defined as? What is exactly being asked? Is this institution/person in a correct standing to propose such a thing for me to consider?"


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

While I appreciate your view, doesnt that rule out most xxTJ people on this forum as irrelevant/mistyped unless they happen to be MBTI consultants or planning to apply it to their work environment to increase efficiency?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

*An example of Ti*: Last night I was lying down thinking about a triangle, and how two triangles make a diamond, and a diamond is equivalent to a square. That means that a triangle must be half a square, so then I started thinking if I put a triangle in a square, and the sides of the triangle is equivalent to the sides of the square then the base of the triangle will line up with the side of a square while the other two sides of the triangle will connect in the middle of the opposite side of that square. The two empty parts of the square, thats not part of a triangle, must be equivalent to the triangle. Since the triangle is equilateral then it's sides are 60° each equalling 180°, meaning those two empty sides of the square are 180°. Since half a square is 180° then a whole square must be 360° which is equivalent to a whole circle. Circle=Square=Diamond=Triangle^2. Now if I take that triangle and put it inside the circle, so that all points of the triangle touch an edge of the circle, then that leaves three empty spots of the circle which have to be 60° each since the triangle is already taking up 180°. So that leaves those three empty spots of the circle to be equivalent to the two empty spots of the square, which in their own respects are half of themselves. When considering that Pi (3.14) is half a circle, then it becomes undeniable that Pi is also equivalent to half a square, and equivalent to one triangle. Pi=Circle/2=Square/2=Triangle

Thats introverted thinking, when you take concepts then break them down into parts and see how those parts relate to other parts, or how parts of one concept relate to parts of another concept, logically and consistently that is. The Ti user doesnt see how they relate to facts, but how objective facts relate to other objective facts logically (ie. how a line is the distance between two points, so the distance from my house to the quickest department store is equivalent to a line). The subjective nature of introverted thinking is the *Process* of taking those objective facts and organizing them internally to see how they logically relate to each other.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

^^that example sounds a bit marginal but was really helpful !



Shadow Logic said:


> Last night I was lying down thinking about a triangle, and how two triangles make a diamond, and a diamond is equivalent to a square. That means that a triangle must be half a square, so then I started thinking if I put a triangle in a square, and the sides of the triangle is equivalent to the sides of the square then the base of the triangle will line up with the side of a square while the other two sides of the triangle will connect in the middle of the opposite side of that square. The two empty parts of the square, thats not part of a triangle, must be equivalent to the triangle. Since the triangle is equilateral then it's sides are 60° each equalling 180°, meaning those two empty sides of the square are 180°. Since half a square is 180° then a whole square must be 360° which is equivalent to a whole circle.


There is sth wrong with this, though.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

crashbandicoot said:


> ^^that example sounds a bit marginal but was really helpful !
> 
> 
> 
> There is sth wrong with this, though.


The example is the process, are you saying the process is marginal? If so, may you explain?

If you could explain to me what is wrong with my analysis, that would be helpful also.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

Marginal as, I think only a small percentage of people will deal with geometry like that. I cant back this up since I cant know how people think. 
Anyway it's rare for me go *that *deep about how things are related, maybe they are not marginal but I'm just unaware of such things. 

That the angles of triangle should be 45-45-90, if they are 60 each, triangle cant divide square into two parts.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

crashbandicoot said:


> Marginal as, I think only a small percentage of people will deal with geometry like that. I cant back this up since I cant know how people think.
> Anyway it's rare for me go *that *deep about how things are related, maybe they are not marginal but I'm just unaware of such things.
> 
> That the angles of triangle should be 45-45-90, if they are 60 each, triangle cant divide square into two parts.


The angles of an equilateral triangle is 60° each totalling 180°, I dont know where you got 45-45-90. The angles of a square are 90 degrees each (a square is made up of 4 right angles) totalling 360°. 360/2 is 180 equalling to half a square, also equalling to a whole triangle, also equalling to half a circle, also equalling Pi.

I agree that a small percent deal with geometry like that, but its the process you should focus on when looking at Ti. Not all Ti users like geometry, but all Ti users think in a way where they take a concept, break it down into parts and see how those parts relate to eachother and how those partd of that concept relate to another part of another concept. If youre not a Ti user, It would make sense that you rarely break concepts down that in depth, looking for how parts of a system dont relate or do relate. So I wouldnt say its marginal, instead its the fact that groups of people that think differently then other groups of people, so how I process is different from the person who doesnt process that way. If two people process completely different then they should rarely process like the other.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

It makes sense to call Ti users 'analysts', then. what a shock, a stereotype turning out to be sound  :shocked:




Shadow Logic said:


> if I put a triangle in a square, and the sides of the triangle is equivalent to the sides of the square then the base of the triangle will line up with the side of a square *while the other two sides of the triangle will connect in the middle of the opposite side of that square*.


^^This cant happen.


----------



## Mutant Hive Queen (Oct 29, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> The angles of an equilateral triangle is 60° each totalling 180°, I dont know where you got 45-45-90. The angles of a square are 90 degrees each (a square is made up of 4 right angles) totalling 360°. 360/2 is 180 equalling to half a square, also equalling to a whole triangle, also equalling to half a circle, also equalling Pi.


Well, the angles at the edges of the triangle would have to be 90 degrees to match up with what the square angles need to be--otherwise you might get a rhombus instead. XD

I agree with the actual point of your post, though. :tongue:


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Te wants to accieve a result Ti don't care as long as it gets to explore.
Fi balances out Te with an inner reasoning process that care about exploring values, 
but care as little about outer result as Ti.
Fe balances out Ti with an outer value based result oriented approach.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@crashbandicoot, @Chained Divinity, thank you both for showing me where I went wrong. This helps in trying to tackle the problem of squaring a circle, and circling a square



crashbandicoot said:


> It makes sense to call Ti users 'analysts', then. what a shock, a stereotype turning out to be sound  :shocked:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Stereotypes are usually right, its the connotations behind the stereotypes that most people have a problem with. Yes I would call Ti users analyst, but that implies other types are not analyst, or at least not to that degree of analyzing and that makes people feel insecure for whatever reason. If you were to take the definition of an analyst and the definition of the introverted thinking, they completely overlap each other. Obviously an analyst can be wrong, as I just demonstrated, because the most detrimental aspect of the analyst is their reliance on "factual" information. If an analyst puts together a concept to understand a system but leaves out a piece of information about the system when making the concept, then the concept will fail in being able to explain the system. Hence why Ti users, especially those accompanied by Ne, like to analyze as in depth as possible to see how all the parts relate and where a piece of information could be missing due to to the flaws in the concept that goes against the truths in the system.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Shadow Logic said:


> @_crashbandicoot_, @_Chained Divinity_, thank you both for showing me where I went wrong. This helps in trying to tackle the problem of squaring a circle, and circling a square
> 
> 
> 
> Stereotypes are usually right, its the connotations behind the stereotypes that most people have a problem with. Yes I would call Ti users analyst, but that implies other types are not analyst, or at least not to that degree of analyzing and that makes people feel insecure for whatever reason. If you were to take the definition of an analyst and the definition of the introverted thinking, they completely overlap each other. Obviously an analyst can be wrong, as I just demonstrated, because the most detrimental aspect of the analyst is their reliance on "factual" information. If an analyst puts together a concept to understand a system but leaves out a piece of information about the system when making the concept, then the concept will fail in being able to explain the system. Hence why Ti users, especially those accompanied by Ne, like to analyze as in depth as possible to see how all the parts relate and where a piece of information could be missing due to to the flaws in the concept that goes against the truths in the system.


What struck me with your "analysis" was the big question in my mind.
WHY????
I certainly could deal with the same issue, but only if I needed to or some outer necessity
or some inner value moved me to engage it.
Just trying to figure out for the sake of figuring out deeply troubles me.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

hornet said:


> What struck me with your "analysis" was the big question in my mind.
> WHY????
> I certainly could deal with the same issue, but only if I needed to or some outer necessity
> or some inner value moved me to engage it.
> Just trying to figure out for the sake of figuring out deeply troubles me.


Why the triangle appeared in my head, I dont know, but its when I put two triangles together to make the diamond that I realized that a triangle must be half a square if a diamond is equivalent to a square. So my mind (Ti) went to go prove why the triangle is half a square. On the way to proving that, I realized a triangle is 180° which meant that if a triangle is half a square then a square must be 360° making each angle 90°. This next part may be a little Ne tainting Ti, but as soon as I got to the 360° being equivalent to triangle^2 and also a whole square, my mind immediately noticed the other shape that is 360°, the circle. If a circle and a square are both 360° and a triangle is half a square then it _must_ in every case be also half a circle. If a triangle is half a square and not a circle, then a flaw must exist somewhere, but since a triangle is equivalent to a half a square and half a circle then no flaw exists, and it becomes logically sound.

I guess the "why" would be because I unconsciously want to *understand* the underlying logic under everything. The more underlying logical components I can find and store, the more accurate my assessment of reality becomes.

Also I believe every type/function can achieve what another type/function can also achieve, but its the reasons and ways there that differ between the different types/functions. As you said, it deeply troubles you to try to figure things out just for their sake, while I do it just to understand the world around me with that orientation, meaning we can both come to the same conclusions, but the process there is different, leading us to understand new perspectives or completely misunderstanding the other person.


----------



## Oprah (Feb 5, 2014)

My view is that Ti is rumination - have you ever been thinking so much that you give yourself a headache? imo that's Ti.

I think it's safe to say that Ti users will be more prone to debates/arguments than Te users... maybe? Because Ti users need everything to make sense, and if someone spews BS they need to set them straight. If I'm not misunderstanding things, a Te user would be like, "that person is wrong" and move on with it.


I think... feel free to yell at me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

UglierBetty said:


> My view is that Ti is rumination - have you ever been thinking so much that you give yourself a headache? imo that's Ti.
> 
> I think it's safe to say that Ti users will be more prone to debates/arguments than Te users... maybe? Because Ti users need everything to make sense, and if someone spews BS they need to set them straight. If I'm not misunderstanding things, a Te user would be like, "that person is wrong" and move on with it.
> 
> ...


Ti (Fe)






Te (Fi)


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

I think people confuse Te with "getting things done efficiently." Te alone is more about consistency in its ideas with the outer world. It is combined with Si or Ni that the Te-Pi dynamic becomes about getting something done.

Te- responding to the question "does it work?"

Pi- responding to the question "what do I know that works?"



Ti on the other hand:

Ti- responding to the question "does it make sense?"

Pe- responding to the question "how can I see if it make sense"


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

S8on said:


> I think people confuse Te with "getting things done efficiently." Te alone is more about consistency in its ideas with the outer world. It is combined with Si or Ni that the Te-Pi dynamic becomes about getting something done.
> 
> Te- responding to the question "does it work?"
> 
> ...


hmm, but something that 'makes sense' usually works or something that 'works' usually makes sense. I cant see those as separate approaches.

How about this ?

Te needs real life proof to see if an idea works and Ti needing the idea making sense to the user ?


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> hmm, but something that 'makes sense' usually works or something that 'works' usually makes sense. I cant see those as separate approaches.
> 
> How about this ?
> 
> Te needs real life proof to see if an idea works and Ti needing the idea making sense to the user ?


Yes that adds to a better explanation of Te.


A good hypothetical thing to think about is how would a Te and a Ti user distinguish between the value of say a person's skill.

Example being:

Bill Russell won 11 NBA championships in 13 years, beating Wilt Chamberlain's team multiple times, BUT his individual stats were pretty terrible

Wilt Chamberlain had the better individual stats and set some of the most unbreakable records in the NBA, BUT he only won 2 championships

The question now is where is the line drawn between what "makes sense" and what is "observably consistent"


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Shadow logic is actually Teing up the place and calling it Ti. He is still thinking scientifically, mechanically, and lifelessly. You can use Te without once appealing to the outside world. Going by some rigid interior logical system IS Te. Me pointing that out, is Ti. Math is Te. Logic is Te. Ti is synthetic and is a heretic to the kind of rigid logic being applied here. It stands outside those systems. Logic, is just as much Te as empiricism.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

But to cut him off at the pass, I'll explain further:

Te sacrifices its brain to a higher system. In this case, logic. Like the extrovert sacrifices it to a higher system, like science or sensing. It's the same thing. Still grabbing onto objective relations. One is just internalized. There is actually no interpretation going on. The system excludes interpretation, but interpretation is what Ti actually is. That is what is subjective about it. Like that stuff about geometry. Those are objective relations. A triangle is hardly an interpretation of your own. You're just moving around objects inside, the same way one does outside. There is no difference. It is the same mechanics. It has just been internalized. Internalization does not change thought mechanics. All that shit about geometry is still Te. It's like saying a theoretical physicist uses Ti, but a experimental physicist uses Te. lol no. They are both using Te.


----------



## eb44345 (Mar 9, 2014)

I've been having a hard time myself understanding Ti vs Te, but I found one thing that helped me from here: Jung - Psychological Types



> But just as little as it is given to extraverted thinking to wrest a really sound inductive idea from concrete facts or ever to create new ones, does it lie in the power of introverted thinking to translate its original image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical heaping together of facts paralyses thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency [p. 482] to coerce facts into the shape of its image, or by ignoring them altogether, to unfold its phantasy image in freedom. In such a case, it will be impossible for the presented idea to deny its origin from the dim archaic image. There will cling to it a certain mythological character that we are prone to interpret as 'originality', or in more pronounced cases' as mere whimsicality; since its archaic character is not transparent as such to specialists unfamiliar with mythological motives. The subjective force of conviction inherent in such an idea is usually very great; its power too is the more convincing, the less it is influenced by contact with outer facts. Although to the man who advocates the idea, it may well seem that his scanty store of facts were the actual ground and source of the truth and validity of his idea, yet such is not the case, for the idea derives its convincing power from its unconscious archetype, which, as such, has universal validity and everlasting truth. Its truth, however, is so universal and symbolic, that it must first enter into the recognized and recognizable knowledge of the time, before it can become a practical truth of any real value to life. What sort of a causality would it be, for instance, that never became perceptible in practical causes and practical results?


I believe that this is saying something like:
Te tends to gather a bunch of facts, then look at what those facts say, and try to form a theory from them.
Ti comes up with a theory first, then evaluates that theory against the facts to see if it's correct.

So, the Te user can get overwhelmed with facts/data.
The Ti user can believe theories that have not been objectively proven by external data.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

eb44345 said:


> I've been having a hard time myself understanding Ti vs Te, but I found one thing that helped me from here: Jung - Psychological Types
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Te is about objective relations. Te users do not have to appeal to external data to have objective relations. Somebody mentioned in another thread that Te users wouldn't like mysticism, like Tarot cards. But Tarot cards can create a conceptual system, that, while having no basis in objective reality, still have objective relations. As in being consistent, and able to be referenced. It's the same kind of thinking that allows one to make a logical argument for God, without appealing to the outside world. It is still Te. It is within a rigid system, and following its rules. The framework is just internalized. Things like reason and logic are just internalized science. They are all Te.

There's an old saying in movies, that you create a world with rules, and abide by those rules. Nothing is ridiculous as long as it goes along with the rules you initially set down. People flying is not ridiculous, if you already established that people can fly in the world. That's what Te does, it creates a system, and follows those rules. So even fantasy could be "objective", because it is an internal, detached system that abides by its own, eternal rules. There is no interpretive element. It has its own natural laws, like any other place. Whereas Ti can be whimsical and just do whatever the fuck it wants.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

This is confusing me a bit. Using the Tarot card example based on MY understanding:

Te could make sense of the conceptual objective relations within the system, but reject the system because it has no basis in objective reality.

Ti could also understand how the system makes sense, but would reject the system in its entirety because its basis in reality is a part of what the system is supposed to be?


I am not sure if that is right. What do you think Ti would say about the tarot cards.


----------



## eb44345 (Mar 9, 2014)

Being a Te user myself, I'm usually interested in "How do I apply this to the real world?"

In practice, among people that I know I've seen this...

STPs - tend to just do whatever they want to do. Whatever makes sense to them. Think in the short term and go by their own rules.

NTPs - tend to reject the status quo. Non-conformists. Oftentimes will argue with you about why this theory is right even if it may fly in the face of reality. Tend to be very intelligent but hard-headed.

STJs - go by the book, follow the rules, respect authority and highly value competence. Believe that rules are there for a reason.

NTJs - more independent than the STJs. Want their worldview to conform to reality. Want to understand why reality is the way that it is.

So, perhaps a common theme of Ti users is that they question reality more. They question everything more. Te users accept reality as it is. An ENTJ or INTJ will accept that reality but still want to understand why it is that way. This is due to Ni, which like Ti is always asking 'why?'


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

S8on said:


> This is confusing me a bit. Using the Tarot card example based on MY understanding:
> 
> Te could make sense of the conceptual objective relations within the system, but reject the system because it has no basis in objective reality.
> 
> ...


Te does not need reality. Doesn't need to appeal to the outside world at all. 

I think Ti would find the things that are not included in the rules, or explained explicitly in the game, to be most interesting. The interpretative elements, that are left up to the user. Ti is a heretic to every system. It disturbs every system. Te may enjoy the challenge of properly sorting the objective relations. Like a puzzle.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> Te is about objective relations. Te users do not have to appeal to external data to have objective relations.


Objective relations is a theory within psychoanalytical psychology that outlines the way that people interpret and predict social behaviors...What are you talking about here. Are you using a self made definition.



> Somebody mentioned in another thread that Te users wouldn't like mysticism, like Tarot cards. But Tarot cards can create a conceptual system, that, while having no basis in objective reality, still have objective relations. As in being consistent, and able to be referenced. It's the same kind of thinking that allows one to make a logical argument for God, without appealing to the outside world. It is still Te. It is within a rigid system, and following its rules. The framework is just internalized. Things like reason and logic are just internalized science. They are all Te.


No. That's Ti. 

Let's remove all of the fluff. Te seeks out logical soundness, Ti seeks out logical validity. Soundness means that the premise is proven true *and* the argument is valid. Validity means the premise has not been proven true, but the argument is valid (and this is when you get Ti users claiming that the validity of the argument is evidence of soundness. Which It is not.)

The easiest way to tell the two apart, is to figure out if the individual orients towards soundness or validity. Point blank. Soundness involves empiricism, validity involves _sheer reasoning._

I find it odd that you likened Te to internal frame-working when that is the literal definition of Ti. I find it even stranger that you referred to reason and logic as internalized science because that sounds like a simplified definition of philosophy, which is a primarily Ti practice. Hm.


* *




Anecdote: I personally grew up playing with ouija boards, reading demonology books, being obsessed with the occult and mythology. Ni by nature, is attracted to the archetypal. I even dated an ENTJ that was into the aforementioned and we spent hours discussing myths and the psychology of the various characters (we made a game out of typing gods for example.) Te paired with Si would probably not tolerate the aforementioned or even entertain it.






> There's an old saying in movies, that you create a world with rules, and abide by those rules. Nothing is ridiculous as long as it goes along with the rules you initially set down. People flying is not ridiculous, if you already established that people can fly in the world. That's what Te does, it creates a system, and follows those rules. So even fantasy could be "objective", because it is an internal, detached system that abides by its own, eternal rules. There is no interpretive element. It has its own natural laws, like any other place. Whereas Ti can be whimsical and just do whatever the fuck it wants.


Going to quote myself here as your understanding of objective and subjective seems a bit simplistic.



> What we have to understand is that objective and subjective in the Jungian sense, differs greatly from the standard understanding of those terms.
> 
> Because that isn’t widely understood, “objective” functions are associated with the scientific notion of objectivity, in which bias, a priori judgements, and emotions are suspended if not eliminated. Following that is a sense of superiority. Te sneers at Ti. Fe expresses self righteousness while slamming the “selfishness” of Fi. Ne screams that Ni is closed minded and tunnel visioned.
> 
> ...


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> Objective relations is a theory within psychoanalytical psychology that outlines the way that people interpret and predict social behaviors...What are you talking about here. Are you using a self made definition.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am using Jung's definition, mixed with my own. Which is what Ti users do. You try to fit anything into a Te framework. There is no room for interpretation for you. THAT is Te. You are already accusing me of heresy, which is exactly what Ti does. 

Ti does no such thing. Ti does not adhere to such rigidity of any system. That is my point. It is arbitrary. You are making Ti fit the rules of logic, of some system. It has a system of its own. That is exactly what makes it Ti. It doesn't adhere to a larger framework. It is a critic of everything. You are applying Te reasoning to Ti, which cannot be done. 

Induction and deduction are both Te. Science is a philosophy. Western philosophy, religion and science are the products of an extroverted world. Philosophy may seem introverted to you, but only within the larger system of extraversion. Extroversion is not just something you pick up, it is ingrained into our society from the bottom up and permeates everything. Western religion is Te, Western Philosophy is Te. Christianity is friggin Te, just like science. The average christian has no different mindset than the average scientist. It's all Te. Intellectual disavowal, or acceptance, of an idea says nothing, or does not affect, any underlying psychology. 

Ti is philosophical in that it is a critic of abstractions. Best definition of philosophy I have heard is that it is the "critic of abstractions" from Whitehead. Te worships abstractions, throws them around, but never explores their antecedent. Ti realizes EVERYTHING is an abstraction. The logic in your head is just as much an abstraction as matter or energy. And none of them are above the other. They are arbitrary systems of confinement. They are all equally weak and disposable to a Ti user. Nothing is sacred. A Ti user, an introvert, is a heretic to everyone and everything but himself.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> I am using Jung's definition, mixed with my own.


I have nearly all of Jung's work but I'm guessing you're referencing Psychological Types. Source where he alludes to your definition. Which of his books, what page, what paragraph, then explain what you mixed it with.



> Which is what Ti users do. You try to fit anything into a Te framework. There is no room for interpretation for you.


An Ni dominant for which there is no room for interpretation? Hilarious.

How am I to comprehend your personal definition for an established theory that has little to nothing to do with the Cognitive Functions? That's like me giving you a vocabulary test but arbitrarily resetting the definitions and grading you by said definitions, without even alerting you that I'm doing so. 

Any sane individual would expect another to convey their ideas and thoughts in such a way that is understandable especially when they're trying to define something that appears in individuals of the same type across the board. Never have I seen a Ti user give a definition, nor have I read a Ti description that was even remotely close to what you typed. 



> Ti does no such thing. Ti does not adhere to such rigidity of any system. That is my point. It is arbitrary. You are making Ti fit the rules of logic, of some system. It has a system of its own. That is exactly what makes it Ti. It doesn't adhere to a larger framework.


If it has a system of it's own, that system acts as it's framework. You cannot be arbitrary while working within a framework. The framework has rules for logic, very rigid rules for logic. We can look at every dom/aux Ti philosopher and observe this, we can read every major Ti description and observe this. 



> "It does not lead from concrete experience back again to the object, but always to the subjective content. External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so [...] It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts, its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate. Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake. If ever this happens, it is merely a concession to the extraverted style [...] It wants to reach reality, to see how the external fact will fit into and fill the framework of the idea [...] Its task is completed when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they *actually prove its validity.*"





> "Introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image [...]"





> "Just as we might take Darwin as an example of the normal extraverted thinking type, the normal introverted thinking type could be represented by Kant [...] Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge [...] His style is cluttered with all sorts of adjuncts, accessories, qualifications, retractions, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which all come from his scrupulosity [...] With the intensification of this type, his convictions become all the more *rigid and unbending* [...] The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in developing ideas *which approximate more and more to the eternal validity of the primordial images.*"





> "For Kant, reason is the source of the idea which he defines as a rational concept whose object is not to be found in experience containing the archetype of all practical employment of reason . . . a regulative principle for the sake of thorough *consistency in our empirical use of the rational faculty* [...] As with the introvert, thinking is oriented by active apperception, reason, fantasy, and the rest acquire the value of basic functions, of faculties or activities operating from within, because for him the accent of value lies on the concept and not the elementary processes covered and comprised by the concept. This type of thinking is synthetic from the start. It organizes the stuff of experience along the lines of the concept and uses it as a filling for ideas [...] For the thinking type draws the energy for his thought processes neither from *arbitrary choice* nor from experience, but from the idea, from the innate functional form which his introverted attitude has activated."


Jung, Carl. Psychological Types. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1971. Print. 

(p.397-310 "Rationalism versus Empiricism," p.380-386 "Thinking, The Introverted Thinking Type.)

Somehow my descriptions ended up more accurate than yours? Odd.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

I am agreeing with Octavian more on the definitions of Te and Ti.

Here is my outlook on the functions and it does include some of the ideas of FearandTrembling which I agree with:

Te is capable of seeing the truth from an established perspective. Truth depends on context of interpretation

Was JFK a good president?- It depends on which criteria you are basing him on. Decide the criteria, then draw upon the evidence that fits the criteria. Usually the criteria most people degree on is what you usually use to determine a "truth". This is the one that will be most practical.


Ti is about singling out the absolute truth. It draws upon all the available information and weighs the importance of each point to narrow down to a single response. This is why a Ti user might be a heretic or might take a longer time to think. They won't settle for looking at it from a certain perspective. They want the absolute truth in their own vision.

Was JFK a good president?- Well it was during his presidency in which the Civil Rights Movement peaked, but then there was the Bay of Pigs incident, etc.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> Induction and deduction are both Te. Science is a philosophy. Western philosophy, religion and science are the products of an extroverted world. Philosophy may seem introverted to you, but only within the larger system of extraversion. Extroversion is not just something you pick up, it is ingrained into our society from the bottom up and permeates everything. Western religion is Te, Western Philosophy is Te. Christianity is friggin Te, just like science. The average christian has no different mindset than the average scientist. It's all Te. Intellectual disavowal, or acceptance, of an idea says nothing, or does not affect, any underlying psychology.


All I have to say is that your understanding of Te and Ti, is flat out inaccurate.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> I have nearly all of Jung's work but I'm guessing you're referencing Psychological Types. Source where he alludes to your definition. Which of his books, what page, what paragraph, then explain what you mixed it with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jung explicitly said that Te -- objective relations-- does not require outside validation. So your equivalence, with empiricism, is wrong. 

Take the playing card example. There are objective relations there. An Ace is higher than a Jack, there are different colors, there is consistency, etc.. They are external, objective relations. That type of thinking does not change in kind just because it is all in my head, and not represented in the actual physical world as playing cards. I can create a similar system to playing cards in my head, and it would still be objective relations. They don't require physical manifestation. Just because the friggin physical element is removed doesn't change Te to Ti. You're only moving around different abstractions. BUT MOVING THEM IN THE SAME EXACT WAY. You can have objective relations to an *idea* that has no basis in reality. 

When Jung first introduced the concept of introverted thinking, he said most people, including his colleagues, would not even believe such a type of thought exists. As Te constitutes everything we know about thinking. Why is that, such students of Western philosophy, would have such a difficult time understanding such a train of thought that supposedly dominates philosophy, even exists? Because Ti isn't what you, or most people think it is. I mean most religious people thinks this religious myth means X. I don't care. They don't understand their own creed. I see very little Ti on this forum, and understanding of it. For the same reason I see little understanding of religion by religious people. Also should note than Jung said that the introverted type was often untrue to his kind, where the extrovert never was. The introvert could never see his extroversion. Which is why we live in such an extravert dominated world. The friggin introverts don't even understand their own thought process.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> All I have to say is that your understanding of Te and Ti, is flat out inaccurate.


No, my interpretation of it is different than yours.

See the difference between Ti and Te again? You're trying to turn subjective concepts into objective truths. We are arguing interpretations of interpretations.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> Te is about seeing the truth from different perspectives. Truth depends on context of interpretation
> 
> Was JFK a good president?- It depends on which criteria you are basing him on. Decide the criteria, then draw upon the evidence that fits the criteria.


Yes, the key to Te is external reference. If you are going to measure an object use something within the metric system don't make up your own unit of measurement and scream about how the metric system is inaccurate compared to yours. If you are going to examine performance determine the factors that create an elite, good, and bad performance, and evaluate accordingly. While Te does take on different perspectives, the content gained in each is still matched to the same universal measuring tool. Seeing things from different perspectives sounds more like Ni.



> Ti is about singling out the absolute truth. It draws upon all the available information and weighs the importance of each point to narrow down to a single response. This is why a Ti user might be a heretic or might take a longer time to think. They won't settle for looking at it from a certain perspective. They want the absolute truth in their own vision.


Well just to give my two cents, Ti commits heresy when it does what I mentioned above. It creates its own frameworks and rules from which it chases after validity rather than soundness. From there it claims that validity is automatic evidence of soundness - not the case. 

My main issue with her definition was that she's asserted that there is no rhyme, reason, frame-working, or system building to Ti. Every INTP/ENTP I know would vehemently disagree. To be honest I think she's confusing her own Ni for Ti, as I did relate to some of what her typed, but I can recognize when it clashes with my Te as the immediate result is dissonance.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> Jung explicitly said that Te -- objective relations-- does not require outside validation. So your equivalence, with empiricism, is wrong.


Source.

And this statement is hilarious as I quoted Jung himself, in which he compared empiricism and rationalism by way of comparing Te and Ti. I literally sourced and put the page numbers. What the actual fuck. 



> Take the playing card example. There are objective relations there. An Ace is higher than a Jack, there are different colors, there is consistency, etc.. They are external, objective relations. That type of thinking does not change in kind just because it is all in my head, and not represented in the actual physical world as playing cards. I can create a similar system to playing cards in my head, and it would still be objective relations. They don't require physical manifestation. Just because the friggin physical element is removed doesn't change Te to Ti. You're only moving around different abstractions. BUT MOVING THEM IN THE SAME EXACT WAY. You can have objective relations to an idea that has no basis in reality.


Not once did I argue that a lack of physical element is indicative of Ti. My entire argument is that Ti orients towards validity, and that Te orients towards soundness. Both orient towards those things through *structured, systematic, methods* As outlined by Jung himself. You dispute that for reasons I do not understand, that I cannot find mirrored within Jung's work, and that simply fail to make basic sense.



> When Jung first introduced the concept of introverted thinking, he said most people, including his colleagues, would not even believe such a type of thought exists. As Te constitutes everything we know about thinking. Why is that, such students of Western philosophy, would have such a difficult time understanding such a train of thought that supposedly dominates philosophy, even exists? Because Ti isn't what you, or most people think it is. I mean most religious people thinks this religious myth means X. I don't care. They don't understand their own creed. I see very little Ti on this forum, and understanding of it. For the same reason I see little understanding of religion by religious people. Also should note than Jung said that the introverted type was often untrue to his kind, where the extrovert never was. The introvert could never see his extroversion. Which is why we live in such an extravert dominated world. The friggin introverts don't even understand their own thought process.


Ok it is obviously a waste of time talking to you.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Octavian said:


> Yes, the key to Te is external reference. If you are going to measure an object use something within the metric system don't make up your own unit of measurement and scream about how the metric system is inaccurate compared to yours. If you are going to examine performance determine the factors that create an elite, good, and bad performance, and evaluate accordingly. While Te does take on different perspectives, the content gained in each is still matched to the same universal measuring tool. Seeing things from different perspectives sounds more like Ni.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My mistake with the perspectives thing. I always think of INTJs when I think of Te lol.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

S8on said:


> My mistake with the perspectives thing. I always think of INTJs when I think of Te lol.


Yeah the behavior of Te changes drastically depending upon the perceiving function paired with it.


----------



## Azelll (Jan 19, 2011)

@Shadow Logic is right about the process for me though, i do that exact process with everything when it comes to learning or logic ..... i have to see rather if there is a pattern and why and than break it down to the simplest form, like math i suppose, I have to see how things connect with one another, like the second person who posted about the toaster but its much more than about why the toaster works its more like, is there a connection to how this toaster works vs something else works and how can i use this later ... I often find myself curious of how something works but not just because of simple curiosity but because I want to be able to use the knowledge of what i learned to better something else ..... or use it period really ....


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Octavian said:


> Source.
> 
> And this statement is hilarious as I quoted Jung himself, in which he compared empiricism and rationalism by way of comparing Te and Ti. I literally sourced and put the page numbers. What the actual fuck.
> 
> ...


But the thing about those kind of comparisons, is that they are only a god damn metaphor. Again, with the literal, Christian, extraverted thinking. Rationalism and empiricism are only imprecise metaphors. They are Te. Ti is what picks up everything that isn't actually in this imprecise metaphor. You have to do it yourself. You trying to understand Ti is like an evangelist, fundamentalist christian trying to understand religious stories as complex metaphors for psychological experiences, instead of literal happenings. They are all about surface thinking. The real truths of religion are unwritten, in some morass, that people with your mindset will never be able to touch. That is the great distortion of Christianity, and nearly everything else, the application of Te to Ti. The constant encroachment. Even the concept of Ti itself is under attack from this approach.

A real example of a concept of Ti would be some of Kierkegaard's work. That is true subjective thought.



> subjective thought—that which cannot be proven with logic, historical research, or scientific analysis





> These phenomena are not objectively provable—nor do they come about through any form of analysis of the external world; they come about through inward reflection, a way of looking at one’s life that evades objective scrutiny.


Something like Jesus or love can't be found through logic. It requires a subjectivity that is not universal. Hence, no system. It is about individual truths. And they vary..


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> But the thing about those kind of comparisons, is that they are only a god damn metaphor. Again, with the literal, Christian, extraverted thinking. Rationalism and empiricism are only imprecise metaphors. They are Te. Ti is what picks up everything that isn't actually in this imprecise metaphor. You have to do it yourself. You trying to understand Ti is like an evangelist, fundamentalist christian trying to understand religious stories as complex metaphors for psychological experiences, instead of literal happenings. They are all about surface thinking. The real truths of religion are unwritten, in some morass, that people with your mindset will never be able to touch. That is the great distortion of Christianity, and nearly everything else, the application of Te to Ti. The constant encroachment. Even the concept of Ti itself is under attack from this approach.


I think your Ti descriptions are heavily influenced by your lead function. I find myself not disagreeing with what you're saying in the intuitive sense, I even agree with some of it, it's just so clearly not Ti. A lot of what you said about heresy, a lack of frameworks, etc. it mirrors the many Ni descriptions I've read. It even reflects my own processing and inclinations towards things.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> My point is that nobody can agree on anything. This is actually the subjective factor I was talking about, that is the essential part of Ti. This subjective factor is what allows this debate to even exist the way it does.
> 
> Other people are trying to turn it into "objective relations" or bring subjective concepts into the factual. In other words, Te it up. That is my gripe. I have always said it is only my interpretation. Other people are acting they are discussing actual facts here. Like these truths are established and beyond reproach. This is the exact conflict Jung was talking about that causes so many problems. The encroachment of the subjective on the objective, or vice versa. This typology thing is subjective, if you try to bring it into the objective, you are going to lose. Because it wasn't made to sustain such scrutiny. Just like religion wasn't. It needs to stay in the subjective, where it belongs. Bottom line is, I see this whole subject as art. Others see it as science. Which again, is similar to the religious debate. I think religion has subjective truths, others believe it has objective truths.


Ah, okay. Here's the thing: we're trying to discuss it with _each other_. We don't have objective, proven truths in typing, but we are trying to communicate here, something that requires that we speak the same language. There may not be one narrow, specific, objective meaning to a word, but there is a sort of fuzzy circle of meaning. That is, there is a point where the word doesn't apply anymore. Anyone who uses language at all has to work within these sort of emergent meanings, and typing is no different. 

And the emergent meaning of judging functions is that they must draw that line between what is and what isn't. Everyone here is doing that, and that's not the different between Ti and Te, it's each of us using our own judging functions, whatever they may be, you included. 

Now, your distain for extroversion of any kind seems to extend to you being totally unwilling to accept or process others views on where those lines are, which is fine, but you can't expect others to just unilaterally accept _your_ views as correct. So I'm left with a question: why bother to talk to other people about this at all?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> Ah, okay. Here's the thing: we're trying to discuss it with _each other_. We don't have objective, proven truths in typing, but we are trying to communicate here, something that requires that we speak the same language. There may not be one narrow, specific, objective meaning to a word, but there is a sort of fuzzy circle of meaning. That is, there is a point where the word doesn't apply anymore. Anyone who uses language at all has to work within these sort of emergent meanings, and typing is no different.
> 
> And the emergent meaning of judging functions is that they must draw that line between what is and what isn't. Everyone here is doing that, and that's not the different between Ti and Te, it's each of us using our own judging functions, whatever they may be, you included.
> 
> Now, your distain for extroversion of any kind seems to extend to you being totally unwilling to accept or process others views on where those lines are, which is fine, but you can't expect others to just unilaterally accept _your_ views as correct. So I'm left with a question: why bother to talk to other people about this at all?


The way it is being done, is the difference between Ti and Te. This is Ti thought, like religion is Ti thought, that has been distorted by bringing into the extroverted/objective world. That isn't where it belongs. Which is why if you ask any cognitive scientist what the fuck Ti is, he'll laugh at you. Because it isn't taken seriously in the objective world. If you sat down Ephemeral Reality or any other supposed experts with a real scientist of the brain/mind, he would sound like a fucking madman. MBTI isn't even psychology. You won't find a textbook definition of Fi, or any of this stuff, anywhere.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The way it is being done, is the difference between Ti and Te. This is Ti thought, like religion is Ti thought, that has been distorted by bringing into the extroverted/objective world. That isn't where it belongs. Which is why if you ask any cognitive scientist what the fuck Ti is, he'll laugh at you. Because it isn't taken seriously in the objective world. If you sat down Ephemeral Reality or any other supposed experts with a real scientist of the brain/mind, he would sound like a fucking madman. MBTI isn't even psychology. You won't find a textbook definition of Fi, or any of this stuff, anywhere.


I fail to see how any of this is a response to what I said at all. Did you even read my post? I don't think typing is a science at all. I never said it was. I said it was a _language_.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> It may be interesting to see the differences between their thinking style and making decisions.


A plan without contingency factors and taking into account non-ideal conditions seems... like inviting pain or failure.

In terms of thinking style, I'm not fond of mistakenly selecting too few axioms or failing to account for parallels between what you do and your opponents do.


----------



## CodeGuru (May 25, 2012)

You may want to take a look at my other *post*.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> The way it is being done, is the difference between Ti and Te. This is Ti thought, like religion is Ti thought, that has been distorted by bringing into the extroverted/objective world. That isn't where it belongs. Which is why if you ask any cognitive scientist what the fuck Ti is, he'll laugh at you. Because it isn't taken seriously in the objective world. If you sat down Ephemeral Reality or any other supposed experts with a real scientist of the brain/mind, he would sound like a fucking madman. MBTI isn't even psychology. You won't find a textbook definition of Fi, or any of this stuff, anywhere.



Ti is about a personal subjective understanding. I agree. This is why we are having so much difficulty communicating

HOWEVER

The purpose of our communication in this thread is to try to share our ideas so we can all collectively agree upon a similar definition. This is what I believe a Ti type might have difficulty trying to do. They understand their own ideas so well that they don't bother trying to organize their ideas in a way that other people might understand them. 

Just because we don't understand what you say doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make sense. However it does mean that you have to do a better job in trying to reword what you are trying to say if you want us to understand you. If you don't, then there is little point in trying to share it with us, because a collective agreement is the purpose of this thread.

You say you see the subject as an art. This thread has been about trying to interpret this art in a more scientific manner so we can have a more consistent typology. Even if the entire subject is a matter of subjective interpretations, is there anything wrong in trying to objectify it for the purpose of typology? Many scientific facts we accept in the present were scrutinized a few hundred years ago. Do we give up on trying to objectify typology just because it can't withstand scrutiny? If we succeed, it can create a greater understanding of the subject for everybody. The worst thing that could happen is we fail, nothing wrong with that.


tl;dr

We are trying to organize our ideas coherently so we can have more consistent typology.
We will accept your ideas if you can productively contribute.
If you cannot, why do you insist on derailing our purpose?
Why can't we be allowed to try to objectify the subject?
We don't deny we might fail, but that doesn't mean we don't try.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

@_S8on_

um....
aren't you an infj?

NiFe*Ti*Se?

(unless you're going by socionics?)



in any case, it's false to say Ti doesn't organize their ideas or care about presenting them to others. especially given that Ti pairs with Fe...

edit: well, excluding FearAndTrembling, apparently, but he's off doing his own thing and doesn't represent Ti. annnd I see I'm stepping into some sort of complicated argument here so whatever. nvm. 


(but i do agree with typing being a language and really like that point. Peace)


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

crashbandicoot said:


> Most descriptions almost imply that Te types dont think internally. I know, Tx functions doesnt correlate with 'thinking' but more like paying attention and making decisions based on 'objective facts' vs 'subjective facts'. I dont believe, Te can be just organizing environment and being sadistic.
> 
> It may be interesting to see the differences between their thinking style and making decisions. Can I get some Te and Ti people here to comment ? roud:


_Everything _our brain does is from a subjective standpoint. But, from how I interpret it-- Te processing is more likely to weigh and consider objective, empirically accepted data as the highest priority, most useful, most informative. Such thoughts are obviously formed internally, but derived externally.

Someone who is using Te can still decide against the current, most widely viewed opinion. But, it's always going to be derived externally in some way, and other functions can bend it, or it can bend other functions-- And as a result, what you think you're seeing as Ti, might actually be Te. 'Everyone knows that spinach gives magical powers', as an example, might be disregarded to the Te-user, because, "Well, everyone also knows that spinach is a part of the *Amaranthaceae *family, and magic was bred out several hundred years ago from that family entirely."

Te is gonna be more broad, more generalized in its derivations, more quick and efficient, and more applicable and useful to the everyday. All formulated in the individual's noggin, but derived from the outer world.

Ti might seem slow, and silly to Te. It's just enjoying the process, doesn't wanna be rushed, and wants an in-depth understanding of the subject matter. It's also stubbornly close minded to its own way. It can't help it-- It's waiting for patterns to emerge and reveal themselves to it subjectively, so that it can then change. 

I have found it immensely annoying, with Te around me all my life, because it was always trying to rush me. As a child, I wanted to comply, but the results were... Well... Let's just say that at times, I could look like a dimwit when I was trying to think like everyone else. I was terrible at being put on the spot. I don't know how other Ti users are with that, and I'm sure it varies, but I _really _needed to take my time, when processing and considering information, and finding an answer. 

Kids _love _to judge your intelligence on how quickly you can answer questions, and how gullible you are... So, to them, I must've been the dumbest child on the block. And it showed, because I never really had any friends (Outside of school) until well into College.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Pelopra said:


> @_S8on_
> 
> um....
> aren't you an infj?
> ...


Yes I use Ti. My point was that ALL Ti types may often struggle with understanding what they want to say, but not knowing how to say it. I wasn't trying to say that a Ti user doesn't organize their ideas or doesn't care about doing so. I was trying to say that they might often understand an idea but not know how to put it in words until they think about it a bit more. This is why us Ti types are stereotyped for sometimes pausing in the process of talking to think about what we are trying to say.

In communication the Ti type will have to think about what they are trying to say and organize their thoughts so it can be more coherently understood. If they don't do so, then communication doesn't really work out. I was pointing out to FearandTrembling that some of us are not understanding what he is trying to say and it is his responsibility to try to express his ideas in a more easily understood way if he wished to properly communicate with us.

My Ti will have this great intense understanding of complex ideas. My Fe wants me to be understood so I put great effort in trying to make my language understandable.


----------



## MisterDantes (Nov 24, 2013)

So...does this mean that i'm some kind of abomination that learns and really tries to *understand* something as good as humanly possible, mastering that topic, but for the dual purpose of learning (for funzies) but also liking having practical knowledge ready and available when i think/know i might need that knowledge in the future?

As i understand things so far, Te seeks efficiency while Ti seeks depth, but what do you do when you desire both? What do you do when you need objective informational input (due to its convenience of being usable for both subjective and objective purposes) but doesn't disregard the subjective factor in ones analysis? 

For differentiating the two functions (for cognitive typing) they may not overlap too much in definition. However, there are overlaps, so how do you know where the line goes?

Sorry if this comes across as a aggressive questioning, but i still can't help but being frustrated as I've had such issue finding a proper and not too vague or generalized definition of Ti vs Te.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

What if I don't really relate to any of the Te descriptions (with stuff like "efficiency", "productivity", "facts", etc.), but I don't care about having my own personal definitions of things either? I would rather just use the dictionary definitions which are agreed upon to be used by everyone. And about the only time I use logic is when I'm interacting with people. But when I do use it, I think it seems like Ti because it's just pure logic, not bringing in any facts, usually. Does this make me a Ti type or a Te type?


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> What if I don't really relate to any of the Te descriptions (with stuff like "efficiency", "productivity", "facts", etc.), but I don't care about having my own personal definitions of things either? I would rather just use the dictionary definitions which are agreed upon to be used by everyone. And about the only time I use logic is when I'm interacting with people. But when I do use it, I think it seems like Ti because it's just pure logic, not bringing in any facts, usually. Does this make me a Ti type or a Te type?


sounds like Te to me, just probably an idea-oriented Te who therefore doesn't have as much efficiency/productivity/whatnot.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

MisterDantes said:


> So...does this mean that i'm some kind of abomination that learns and really tries to *understand* something as good as humanly possible, mastering that topic, but for the dual purpose of learning (for funzies) but also liking having practical knowledge ready and available when i think/know i might need that knowledge in the future?
> 
> As i understand things so far, Te seeks efficiency while Ti seeks depth, but what do you do when you desire both? What do you do when you need objective informational input (due to its convenience of being usable for both subjective and objective purposes) but doesn't disregard the subjective factor in ones analysis?
> 
> ...


It's not that Ti doesn't value practicality, it just needs to dissect an idea and understand it at its core before valuing it's practicality. 


Ni-Ti will start with the idea and work inward. How does one lose weight? → You'll need an understanding of how to diet and exercise but it all comes down to your attitude. If you don't have the right mindset, nothing will happen.


Ni-Te will start with an idea and work outward from it. How does one lose weight? → Read articles about proper dieting and exercising and plan out the process. The attitude is an accepted given.


----------



## KCfox (Mar 4, 2014)

Ti analyses and calculates.
Te directs and plans.

Ti is like Fi, introspecting and judging but on problems beyond ethics.
Te is like Fe, it focuses on the group and sees the objective.

In a business, Ti deals with and focuses with the matters directly and is task oriented, Te manages people and encapsulates the issues into a plan so to speak.

Ti is like solving maths and the like, Te is more on business meetings and blueprints.
Ti is going to decide on things like it's a problem to solve and think deeply using subjective knowledge, Te is going to try to be more efficient and look at some statistics and take a risk if it has to or it will brainstorm and discuss. Ti debates and holds a subjective ground, Te likes to settle on the most objective middle ground.

Everyone uses both, it just depends what energises you more. The functions that most energise you that most are the ones that come quicker to your mind subconsciously in everyday life, the MBTI typing merely attempts to sum what functions you most naturally use which in terms of function pairings and their compliments, transposing the two main functions (middle two letters) with the last and first letters (P means the perceiving function (N/S) is extroverted, J means the judging function (T/F) is extroverted; E means said extroverted function is the dominant function, I means said extroverted function is the auxiliary function). Te takes more effort to those who use more Ti, Ti takes more effort to those who use more Te.

One other thing is that Ti is prone to being overly subjective and prone to flaws, whereas Te is prone to directing without enough subjective analysis of the matter/group's state but it's going to like to see a second or third opinion/perspective. Both can be right or wrong. When using both in a situation, it can be hard to tell what you are using more. In the military, Te is a strict thing, the subjectivity of Ti is mostly removed to ensure order but the soldier is going to use Ti to decide the best in a grey area situation (or some Fi if it involves some personal ethics).

In the jung functions, all functions ending with i regard introspection and subjectivity, whereas those ending with e focus on people and reality.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Silveresque said:


> What if I don't really relate to any of the Te descriptions (with stuff like "efficiency", "productivity", "facts", etc.), but I don't care about having my own personal definitions of things either? I would rather just use the dictionary definitions which are agreed upon to be used by everyone. And about the only time I use logic is when I'm interacting with people. But when I do use it, I think it seems like Ti because it's just pure logic, not bringing in any facts, usually. Does this make me a Ti type or a Te type?


Personal definitions wouldn't matter to either type I'd think. Either way if you want to be understood you have to say what you mean. I do notice that some Te users get a bit mad or confused if you aren't using the definitions the way they learned them. Typically, I'm using an internal process to decode into words. The meaning stands as a strand of blue-white ethereal jelly in the air and the words get cast over them to best give the shape of the jelly. That sounds very Ni. Whatever... I probably don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

tangosthenes said:


> The meaning stands as a strand of blue-white ethereal jelly in the air and the words get cast over them to best give the shape of the jelly. That sounds very Ni. Whatever... I probably don't know what I'm talking about.


I do not understand this image-based idea of Ni. I've been studying cognitive functions for 6 months, and concluded that I have Demon Si, dominant Ni, Creative Te, etc, and I just don't get why Ni is supposed to be thoughtless and impossible to explain with almost hallucinogenic visions/images. My Ni is hard to explain, but I could explain it if I tried; it just wouldn't sound logically strong.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

I've read somewhere Te is more about cause&effect, understanding things leading to one other...

It sounds shaky to me, if so, what is Ti left with ? 

anyway, I think Te favors having instructions to do sth. more than Ti. Ti is likely want to figure it out by itself ? 

Te wants to 'know', while Ti wants to 'learn'.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Fried Eggz said:


> I do not understand this image-based idea of Ni. I've been studying cognitive functions for 6 months, and concluded that I have Demon Si, dominant Ni, Creative Te, etc, and I just don't get why Ni is supposed to be thoughtless and impossible to explain with almost hallucinogenic visions/images. My Ni is hard to explain, but I could explain it if I tried; it just wouldn't sound logically strong.


Doesn't have to sound logically strong. You take these perceptions and judge them with your extraverted judgement function. Ni is not just imagery, it is explaining things via primed symbolism. Metaphors I guess. The way Jung says it makes it sound even more extreme than that.

"Their archetypal distinctness is the more marked, the more frequently and intensely they have been experienced. The archetype would be -- to borrow from Kant -- the noumenon of the image which intuition perceives and, in perceiving, creates. "


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

crashbandicoot said:


> I've read somewhere Te is more about cause&effect, understanding things leading to one other...
> 
> It sounds shaky to me, if so, what is Ti left with ?
> 
> ...


Ti co-opts concepts into reality(to do this it verifies concepts by correspondence), Te does the reverse, co-opting reality into concepts.

Since reality can't be pushed very far in forming concepts, you get facts. Because concepts have plenty of room for reality, you get theory.

Maybe.

Clear Te users are those who do not argue theory on a wide scale, but push the facts resulting.
Clear Ti users are those who do not argue facts on a wide scale, but push the theory resulting.

This view is consistent with Jung, I'm pretty sure(at least in its results).


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> Te wants to 'know', while Ti wants to 'learn'.


That Te comment is how I am. I don't want to read a 10 page article that tells me the results at the very end. I'll skip to the end and get the results. Or when I ask someone "in the know" about something, I just want the answer. If they don't have the answer it can be frustrating, until I move on to another source and get the answer. 

I definitely don't want to solve something that has already been solved. I'm willing to fix flaws, but not start at the beginning, unless it hasn't been done before and then I'll help plan it out.


----------

