# Understanding Te (and other extroverted functions)



## Grandeur (May 30, 2014)

Being a Te dom I'm classified as an extroverted type. I'm just trying to understand whether extroverted functions are always projected outward in a verbal fashion. For example, I often come across as quite reserved in a workplace setting as there's often no net benefit in me voicing my concerns I notice - mainly because I have an unreasonable manager who doesn't effectively take criticism. As a result I've learnt it's better to just keep my mouth shut majority of the time, but this does not mean I'm not actively thinking in a Te fashion. If i'm not verbalising my Te, but still consciously breaking down arguments and flaws in logic in my head, mentally making efficiency judgments in the environment etc - is this still considered Te? Sorry if this is an obvious question.

Just had the comment from a co-worker that he thought I seemed like more of an INTJ. When i'm in a non-workplace setting and don't have to worry about politics I'm much more verbal with my thinking, and come across much more ENTJ'ish I guess you could say. I know introverted functions tend to be perceptive, can this still be the case for extroverted functions? The question isn't designated to Te specifically either.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

I am under the impression that conscious minds of Ni-doms tend to be primarily focused on perceiving images in their heads that arise from "the collective unconscious" as a response to an outward stimulus. Most descriptions seem to suggest that these images are very "visual", as in "seen by the mind's eye", but some users here have suggested that Ni isn't necessarily like that all the time.

I am a fan of Lenore Thomson's work with type. Basically, in her book _Personality Type: An Owner's Manuel_, she describes how auxiliary functions are often only used to support the aims of the dominant function. In this way, the mind of an INTJ would look different from an ENTJ's in so far as INTJs are primarily concerned with the ontological meaning of data and are very finely tuned to biases and assumptions that might limit accurate perception. Some Ni descriptions also suggest INJs frequently divine the future outcome of an event, or get strong hunches about what they ought to do, what's true/false, why a person is behaving in a particular way, etc. Whatever Ni does exactly, it's very much oriented toward just gathering information instead of judging it. In fact in Psychological Types, Jung differentiates between two Ni-types. One is content to simply focus on his/her Intuition for the sake of it, whereas the other starts to ask "how is this relevant to the world?" In other words, the latter develops a Judging function while the former does not. ENTJs, on the other hand, like they'd be more interested in organization and outward goals just for the sake of them. With auxiliary Intuition to support the aims of Te by reframing what they know in order to refine systems of operations.

From what you described above, it seems like your cognition falls well in line with what one might expect from a Te-dom, even if you're not vocalizing your judgments. I imagine that INTJs would more likely be concerned with a certain philosophical question/topic/subject that they approach through Ni. From there, Te wants to test the information methodically in the real world. Despite that, I would imagine that a lot of INTJs aren't very concerned with efficiently managing people/companies unless it's very personally interesting to them. Then again, that's just my guess. I'm not an INTJ.

I wonder if ISTJs too are particularly concerned about finding a job that suits their subjective interests instead of one that just pays the bills. If they don't have the luxury of loving their work, so to speak, they'd probably use Te to carve out a lot of spare time where they can be undisturbed and just let their Si take over and focus their attention on what's really interesting to them


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

Ramon said:


> Being a Te dom I'm classified as an extroverted type. I'm just trying to understand whether extroverted functions are always projected outward in a verbal fashion.


Extraverted = Objective
Introverted = Subjective

Jung did not use those words as they are defined in the dictionary though. If a function is extroverted it is fixated on the object. If a function is introverted it is fixated on the subject. 

The object and subject alike, differ, depending on the preference (T, F, S, N) in question. For thinking specifically, "objective" alludes to the empirical aspect of a thing. In fact, if you take the definitions of the words empiricism and pragmatism, you basically have the definition of Te.



> *Empiricism* is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions. Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.





> *Pragmatism* is a philosophical tradition that began in the United States around 1870. Pragmatism is a rejection of the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. Instead, pragmatists consider thought to be a product of the interaction between organism and environment. Thus, the function of thought is as an instrument or tool for prediction, action, and problem solving. Pragmatists contend that most philosophical topics—such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, belief, and science—are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.


Likewise Ti is best embodied in the school of rationalism, in which "truth" is discovered through "pure reason," and by virtue of being an introverted and subjective function, it will in extreme cases, exclude the "empirical" aspects of a thing believing said aspects to be deceitful. 

I think Te and Ti are the easiest functions to figure out because they're utterly polarizing and emerge so clearly within two fields, science and philosophy respectively. "Projecting outward in a verbal fashion" sounds like the stupid shit you read in the top ten hits of a google search. Even when sites discuss the functions they dumb them way down.




> If i'm not verbalising my Te, but still consciously breaking down arguments and flaws in logic in my head, mentally making efficiency judgments in the environment etc - is this still considered Te? Sorry if this is an obvious question.


Start looking into epistemology.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

On Extraverted Rationals:



> The rationality that characterizes the conscious conduct of life in both these types involves a deliberate exclusion of everything irrational and accidental.





> but on the other hand the independence and influence of the psychic functions *which aid the perception of life’s happenings are consequently restricted*. Naturally this restriction of sensation and intuition is not absolute. These functions exist as before, but their products are subject to the choice made by rational judgment. I*t is not the intensity of a sensation as such that decides action, for instance, but judgment.*





> The rationality of both types is object-oriented and dependent on objective data*. It accords with what is collectively considered to be rational. *For them, nothing is rational save what is generally considered as such.


 @Octavian, I would hardly call Te empirical, its focus is Judgment over perception, whereas empiricism is strictly Perception over Judgment. I agree with Jung that Se and Ne are the empirical functions because for them perception always comes before Judgement. There are no such things as accidental and irrational for the extraverted perceivers, things just happen and we grasp on to them as their happening. 

On Extraverted Irrationals:



> From the standpoint of the rational type, the other might easily be represented as an inferior kind of rationalist— when, that is to say, he is judged by what happens to him. *For what happens to him is not accidental— here he is the master— instead, the accidents that befall him take the form of rational judgments and rational intentions, and these are the things he stumbles over*.





> To the rational mind this is something almost unthinkable, but its unthinkableness *merely equals the astonishment of the irrational type when he comes up against someone who puts rational ideas above actual and living happenings. Such a thing seems to him scarcely credible. As a rule it is quite hopeless to discuss these things with him as questions of princi*ple, for all rational communication is just as alien and repellent to him as it would be unthinkable for the rationalist to enter into a contract without mutual consultation and obligation.





> Since these are in no way based on the principle of reason and its postulates, they are by their very nature irrational. That is why I call the perception types “irrational” by nature. *But merely because they subordinate judgment to perception, it would be quite wrong to regard them as “unreasonable.” It would be truer to say that they are in the highest degree empirical. They base themselves exclusively on experience— so exclusively that, as a rule, their judgment cannot keep pace with their experience.*


Anyone who places reason or Judgment over Perception can hardly be called empirical. Its more so the antithesis to empiricism.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@Ramon

I don't think Te or any other extraverted function is necessarily synonymous with thinking out loud; however, extraverts in general are more likely to think out loud. Thinking out loud tends to provide that external feedback that extraversion likes.


----------



## Grandeur (May 30, 2014)

@PaladinX

Thanks, this makes sense. Normally I am really compelled to voice my thoughts and deconstruct arguments wherever I notice flaws - I actually get frustrated if I don't do this. But like I said, in this specific work setting I've learnt there is no benefit in doing this, so as hard as it is I just keep quiet.


----------



## Grandeur (May 30, 2014)

@Octavian

Thanks for the in-depth explanation, definitely makes things clearer for me. There seems to be a lot of misinformation about the nature of objective / subjective functions and their relationship to judgmental (T,F) and perceptive (N,S) functions, or perhaps it's just taken me a bit of time to grasp.

I definitely relate to the empiricism and scientific method in the nature of my thinking, seems to be the basis of any judgement I make. I really struggle to accept things that don't have some form of evidence behind it.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

I also experience the same thing. I am not particularly verbal in the workplace. I reserve my thoughts and opinions on things that I feel will be affected. (Same as you).

But if someone glanced in, they're probably assume I was an INFJ.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Octavian said:


> Extraverted = Objective
> Introverted = Subjective
> 
> Jung did not use those words as they are defined in the dictionary though. If a function is extroverted it is fixated on the object. If a function is introverted it is fixated on the subject.
> ...





Shadow Logic said:


> On Extraverted Rationals:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yet Locke and maybe Berkeley, both empiricists, were INTPs. Empiricists and rationalists are labels that describe people. People are more than a single cognitive function, even the dominant one. A Ti-dom may prefer to use logic to _judge _but prefers to use his intuition (Ne) to _perceive_, so his judgments will be shaped by his perceptions. So logic informed by perception may lead an INTP to conclude that all knowledge comes from those perceptions. This is Locke and empiricism. Or logic aided by perception may lead an INTP to decide that all theories need to be confirmed by experiment. This is Galileo and science. Theories are nothing more than explanations for and concise summaries of _facts_. And it's the facts (or the truth) the INTP is ultimately interested in. Because of Ti-Ne.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> Yet Locke and maybe Berkeley, both empiricists, were INTPs. Empiricists and rationalists are labels that describe people. People are more than a single cognitive function, even the dominant one. A Ti-dom may prefer to use logic to _judge _but prefers to use his intuition (Ne) to _perceive_, so his judgments will be shaped by his perceptions. So logic informed by perception may lead an INTP to conclude that all knowledge comes from those perceptions. This is Locke and empiricism. Or logic aided by perception may lead an INTP to decide that all theories need to be confirmed by experiment. This is Galileo and science. Theories are nothing more than explanations for and concise summaries of _facts_. And it's the facts (or the truth) the INTP is ultimately interested in. Because of Ti-Ne.


That's where you are wrong, the Ti-Ne users perception doesn't shape their judgements, its their judgements that shape their perception:



> .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. *Facts are of secondary importance for this kind of thinking; what seems to it of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea*, of the initial symbolic image hovering darkly before the mind’s eye.





> However clear to him the inner structure of his thoughts may be, *he is not in the least clear where or how they link up with the world of reality*.


Like I said, anyone who uses Judgement before perception is not empirical, and instead are the antithesis to empiricism. Ti/Te, along with Fi/Fe, form their perceptions around their judgements, hence why they are judger's first and perceivers second. What you described wasn't Ti-Ne but instead Ne-Ti. Ne-Ti is focused on the empirical nature of the external world and the logical analysis of all the properties in the external world. Ne's focus on empiricism is on object possibilites, or the potential of an object (including the potential of the whole outside world). Its through these objective possibilities that we acquire our understanding then we use our judgement to give a logical analysis of what we perceive.

This also brings up my biggest pet peeve on this site, the fact that all the things Ne-Ti does gets attributed to Ti-Ne because for some reason people think Ti-Ne analyzes what it perceives but that would be contradictory to having an introverted judgement as their dominant, in of itself. Ti-Ne will always put judgement before perception and coerce objective facts and possibilities to fit within their judgement, this is what makes them not empircists. So you may want to reconsider the types of people you consider Ti-Ne if this is your rationalism because its wrong.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> That's where you are wrong, the Ti-Ne users perception doesn't shape their judgements, its their judgements that shape their perception:


But what does Ti judge? Facts, ideas, observations, all, if you think about it, traceable back to perception. Locke was an INTP. Berkeley probably also INTP. You have too rigid a view of the functions. Why can't Ti logic conclude that the scientific method is the surest way to secure knowledge of the world? Why can't Ti logic conclude that all knowledge rests on perception?



> Like I said, anyone who uses Judgement before perception is not empirical, and instead are the antithesis to empiricism. Ti/Te, along with Fi/Fe, form their perceptions around their judgements, hence why they are judger's first and perceivers second. What you described wasn't Ti-Ne but instead Ne-Ti.





> *Ti-Ne will always put judgement before perception and coerce objective facts and possibilities to fit within their judgement, this is what makes them not empircists. *So you may want to reconsider the types of people you consider Ti-Ne if this is your rationalism because its wrong.


Really? Well, you're Ne-Ti, yet you seem to be hung up on theory, aren't you? Otoh, I am simply pointing out the _fact _that there are INTPs who are scientists, engineers, lawyers, etc who let the facts decide what is true or false, _not _theory. Like I said, theory is nothing more than a concise summary of facts. It's the facts that INTPs and Ti are interested in. 

So get your facts straight, Ne-Ti.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> But what does Ti judge? Facts, ideas, observations, all, if you think about it, traceable back to perception. Locke was an INTP. Berkeley probably also INTP. You have too rigid a view of the functions. Why can't Ti logic conclude that the scientific method is the surest way to secure knowledge of the world? Why can't Ti logic conclude that all knowledge rests on perception?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


None of this makes any sense. 



> .Facts are of secondary importance for this kind of thinking; what seems to it of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, of the initial symbolic image hovering darkly before the mind’s eye.


Facts aren't the objective for Ti, they instead coerce facts to fit into their theories which is based off of a subjective notion not objective reality. Jung literally defines Ti as not being factual oriented, he literally states that facts are of secondary importance. I'm not hung up on theory, I'm hung on the facts of the theory, if what Jung says defines the Ti user then it is a fact that Ti Dom's don't care for facts, in of themselves, they only care about coercing facts to fit their subject idea. For goodness sake he even stated that they can barely link up their thoughts to the outside reality, so no they are not focused on the outside reality.



> External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, though the introvert would often like to make his thinking appear so.





> . With regard to the establishment of new facts it is only indirectly of value, since new views rather than knowledge of new facts are its main concern.


In the following quote he even states that they want to reach reality which means that their thinking isn't based on reality.



> .It wants to reach reality, to see how the external fact will fit into and fill the framework of the idea, and the creative power of this thinking shows itself when it actually creates an idea which, though not inherent in the concrete fact, is yet the most suitable abstract expression of it.


These are the facts of the concept, this isn't my theory, nor do I have any say in this theory. If you want to go against the concept of introverted thinking to make up your own, then go ahead, but the fact stands that what Jung, the inventor of cognitive functions, defined the concept of introverted thinking and the quotes I'm presenting are the facts of the concept of introverted thinking.

Here's even more facts of the concept to prove my point:



> .But no more than extraverted thinking can wrest a sound empirical concept from concrete facts or create new ones *can introverted thinking translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts*.





> .Under ordinary circumstances, not even the attempt to get to the “other side” will be successful— and still less the redeeming journey through the unconscious.


Here's Jung on rational Dom's:



> Human reason, accordingly, is nothing other than the expression of man’s *adaptability to average occurrences, which have gradually become deposited in firmly established complexes of ideas that constitute our objective values*. Thus the laws of reason are the laws that designate and *govern the average*, “correct,” *adapted attitude *(q.v.). Everything is “rational” that accords with these laws, everything that contravenes them is “irrational”


And Jung on the Thinking function:



> Further, I call directed thinking a rational (q.v.) function, *because it arranges the contents of ideation under concepts in accordance with a rational norm* of which I am conscious.


Nothing about thinking has to do with perception or it would be a perceptive function. introverted thinking starts with a subjective idea then looks for facts to support this idea, facts that don't get discarded. Any perception that doesn't fit their idea gets discarded, so claiming they are empirical is a lie. 

Perception over reason is empiricism, never judgement over perception.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> None of this makes any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You do realize that the "theory" you're spouting has not been _confirmed_, right? That it's not even really a theory, in the way Special Relativity is a theory, but a bunch of _hypotheses_? To treat hypotheses as facts and ignore real facts is the height of madness. Get a grip, Ne-Ti. Facts=truth. Ti is all about the truth. It just happens to prefer it in the form of concise summaries otherwise known as theory, _but only when confirmed._


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Really? Well, you're Ne-Ti, yet you seem to be hung up on theory, aren't you? Otoh, I am simply pointing out the _fact _that there are INTPs who are scientists, engineers, lawyers, etc who let the facts decide what is true or false, _not _theory. Like I said, theory is nothing more than a concise summary of facts. It's the facts that INTPs and Ti are interested in.
> 
> So get your facts straight, Ne-Ti.


What makes them INTPs if they are oriented by empirical facts? What makes them Ti over Te or N over S?

Here is a post I've made previously that I think highlights Ti's view of the facts:



> It's not about whether or not the scientific paper is ignored or taken into account. The difference is that Ti uses the evidence to support its framework as where Te's framework is based on the evidence.
> 
> A good quote that highlights this is from Einstein:
> 
> ...


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> What makes them INTPs if they are oriented by empirical facts? What makes them Ti over Te or N over S?
> 
> Here is a post I've made previously that I think highlights Ti's view of the facts:


Einstein said that in jest. If the facts hadn't confirmed his theory, he would've been forced to go back to the drawing board. Ti is oriented to the truth. Truth=facts. Ti is therefore ultimately oriented towards facts, but prefers its facts neatly summarized by theory.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> *You do realize that the "theory" you're spouting has not been confirmed, right?* That it's not even really a theory but a bunch of hypotheses? To treat hypotheses as facts and ignore actual facts is the height of madness. Get a grip, Ne-Ti. Facts=truth. Ti is all about the truth. It just happens to prefer it in the form of concise summaries otherwise known as theory, _but only when confirmed._


Hence why I said the facts of the theory, and not that the theory was factual, don't get it twisted. Also I'm quite happy you brought this point up, you are 100% correct that this theory is not confirmed, which means that the only way to confirm it is to see how the concepts play out in reality, but in order to see how the concepts play out in reality, one must abide by the facts *of* the concept to even identify it in reality. This is the difference between you and I, Im using the facts of the concept to actually perceive what it is, you are altering the facts of the concept to fit your idea of what it is. Actually since Jung was the one who defined Ti, then the facts of the concept derive from his definition, and he clearly states that Ti users care about facts secondarily, and only use them to fit some some subjective idea which has its roots completely in the internal, not the external. 

So yes keep changing facts around to try to fit your understanding but I'm letting you know that you are discarding the facts of the concept for your own facts which does not in any way represent the original concept.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> Einstein said that in jest. If the facts hadn't confirmed his theory, he would've been forced to go back to the drawing board. Ti is oriented to the truth. Truth=facts. Ti is therefore ultimately oriented towards facts, but prefers its facts neatly summarized by theory.


Truth=Facts, Theory =/= Truth. Why do you keep saying Ti is oriented towards facts, I already proved that the concept of Ti is not the orientation of facts, but instead its the orientation of idea/theory, they use facts secondary to fit their idea/theory, they don't use their idea/theory to fit the facts.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> What makes them INTPs if they are oriented by empirical facts? What makes them Ti over Te or N over S?
> 
> Here is a post I've made previously that I think highlights Ti's view of the facts:


Te is not so much concerned with truth and understanding in itself as it is with achieving some goal in its environment. So it uses criteria taken from that environment to measure the "truth" or efficacy of its actions. Its goals usually come from Si or Ni. 

This is why Te is not the "science function" as some suppose. The goal of science is understanding. That is Ti, usually combined with Ne, objective perception. Ditto for philosophy. Love of wisdom or knowledge. Ti-Ne. Te-Ni are actually more the business/engineering. So ENTJS are CEOs and INTJs engineers. _Applying existing _knowledge, not creating it.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> Truth=Facts, Theory =/= Truth. Why do you keep saying Ti is oriented towards facts, I already proved that the concept of Ti is not the orientation of facts, but instead its the orientation of idea/theory, they use facts secondary to fit their idea/theory, *they don't use their idea/theory to fit the facts.*


Then where do its theories come from? Don't they start with facts? You observe some facts that you don't understand, so you invent a theory to explain them. That's how the process works. Observations driving theory. And in science, the theory loops back around to observations. The only exception that I can think of is string theory in physics where there are no observations because of present technological limitations. But even there, there is the fact that there is no theory that explains gravity on the small scales of quantum mechanics. And it's this fact that drives string theory. So it's an observation, too, but of theory and not of phenomena.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> Te is not so much concerned with truth and understanding in itself as it is with achieving some goal in its environment. So it uses criteria taken from that environment to measure the "truth" or efficacy of its actions. Its goals usually come from Si or Ni.
> 
> This is why Te is not the "science function" as some suppose. The goal of science is understanding. That is Ti, usually combined with Ne, objective perception. Ditto for philosophy. Love of wisdom or knowledge. Ti-Ne. Te-Ni are actually more the business/engineering. So ENTJS are CEOs and INTJs engineers. _Applying existing _knowledge, not creating it.





ae1905 said:


> Then where do its theories come from? Don't they start with facts? You observe some facts that you don't understand, so you invent a theory to explain them. That's how the process works. Observations driving theory. And in science, the theory loops back around to observations. The only exception that I can think of is string theory in physics where there are no observations because of present technological limitations. But even there, there is the fact that there is no theory that explains gravity on the small scales of quantum mechanics. And this is the fact that is driving string theory. So it's an observation, too, but of theory and not perception.


From an extraverted perception I would agree that theory should represent facts, but that's from the perspective of extraverted perception. Ti on the other hand is oriented to its subjective nature, when Jung says that the idea starts from the subject and leads back to the subject, he literally means that this idea that is the premise of Ti is derived from the inner realm (subject), not the outer (objective). How can a theory be presented before observation you ask? Well here's the answer:



> what seems to it of paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, *of the initial symbolic image hovering darkly before the mind’s eye.* Its aim is never an intellectual reconstruction of the concrete fact, but a shaping of that *dark image into a luminous idea*.


This "dark image" is the result of the influences of the unconscious, it is directly derived from the unconscious. For the Introverted thinker, they try to make the facts fit into the image, and anything that doesn't fit gets discarded.



> The subjective power of conviction exerted by an idea of this kind is usually very great, *and it is all the greater the less it comes into contact with external facts*. Although it may seem to the originator of the idea* that his meagre store of facts is the actual source of its truth and validity, in reality this is not so, for the idea derives its convincing power from the unconscious archetype*, which, as such, is eternally valid and true.


All introverts are directly influenced by these unconscious archetypes, and its these primordial images that create the theory, not external facts. Instead, Ti users have a tendency to coerce facts to fit this image, or to ignore facts that dont:



> so in the latter case introverted thinking *shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play*.


The disregard for facts that don't fit their subjective idea/theory is the clear reason why they are not empirical at all. Empiricist base all theories/ideas on facts, they do not disregard or ignore facts for theory. The Ti user will put their theory over the facts, and will keep changing the facts until it fits their theory, that's the antithesis to empiricism.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

FlaviaGemina said:


> Sorry, couldn't resist.


It makes sense :tongue:


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I see what you did there. I could continue the game in the previous sentence, but it is understood. That makes ENTJ a weird type. They are often stereotyped as like pushy generals or something. Because they lead with Te probably. To me, Te just says what it thinks basically. Especially Te doms. It is often impersonal, and somewhat cold, but it isn't necessarily harsh and certainly not ever present in ENTJ. They don't seem like the type to ride people, or bother you all day. They somehow take charge through their disarming nature. That is their secret probably.


I characterized Te as a method of sharp implementation. It normally comes with an action or the seed of an action. _This will get this result/This will not get this result._ Ti style debate does not really yield a result (in regards to riding people). Te also seems to come with an aversion to pointless things.


----------

