# Te vs Ti?



## daringcherry (Apr 23, 2013)

Can I also ask about my thinking in this thread?  Does this sound more like Te or Ti?

I've always thought of myself as quite objective. That's probably one of the reasons why I did so well in school. I used to be very straightforward: when I read a question, I only read that question and no hidden meanings behind it. I see the words, I analyze them and I look for the answer. Like, regardless of whether I personally believe that war is wrong etc, I can answer objectively questions such as "How does war profit a nation?" I read the core words ("war", "profit", "nation", "how"), quickly define them in my mind and answer the question. I simply see no problem in analyzing how war can profit a nation even if I don't encourage war of any kind. I really do think this is one of the reasons I got such good grades in school: because I thought of the tasks so objectively. To me, there's just the question, nothing more, no hidden meanings. How does war profit a nation? Well, in ways A, B and C. How is war defective? In ways D, E and F. Then moral evaluations can be based on these findings if necessary.

I have started seeing more hidden meanings as I have aged and I think I have also gotten used to people always seeing hidden meanings everywhere so I try to acknowledge whenever I can in order to be more "normal". For example, if I was now asked the question about how war benefits a nation, I would also make a comment about war in general in addition to the straightforward answer. Something like this: "War benefits a nation in ways A, B and C because X, Y and Z. There are different reasons for war and the different reasons benefit nations for different reasons. But even if war can benefit a nation, its morality is a completely different question. On the other hand, war also has its costs which could be described as D, E and F.Also there's the game theory and if we look at all nations as a whole, we can conclude that they all benefit from agreeing on peace."

Someone has even accused me of a weak will because of my objectivity, like I can't seem to stick to my opinions. That is definitely the WRONG conclusion, I can stick to my opinions even if I investigate matters objectively. Most people really don't seem to get the objectivity in my thinking. Like, I don't do drugs and I don't encourage using drugs. And yet it's not a problem for me to discuss a topic like why are drug users generally more intelligent than non-users. I can acknowledge that drug users are indeed more intelligent on average and find this snippet of information absolutely fascinating. So many people just don't seem to get this objectivity. They immediately think that I'm trying to justify drug usage by pointing out the interesting fact that drug users are more intelligent than non-users on average.

So my question is: does this sound more like Ti or Te?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

daringcherry said:


> Can I also ask about my thinking in this thread?  Does this sound more like Te or Ti?
> 
> I've always thought of myself as quite objective. That's probably one of the reasons why I did so well in school. I used to be very straightforward: when I read a question, I only read that question and no hidden meanings behind it. I see the words, I analyze them and I look for the answer. Like, regardless of whether I personally believe that war is wrong etc, I can answer objectively questions such as "How does war profit a nation?" I read the core words ("war", "profit", "nation", "how"), quickly define them in my mind and answer the question. I simply see no problem in analyzing how war can profit a nation even if I don't encourage war of any kind. I really do think this is one of the reasons I got such good grades in school: because I thought of the tasks so objectively. To me, there's just the question, nothing more, no hidden meanings. How does war profit a nation? Well, in ways A, B and C. How is war defective? In ways D, E and F. Then moral evaluations can be based on these findings if necessary.
> 
> ...


Te logic.


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Te logic.


Agreed


----------



## daringcherry (Apr 23, 2013)

LeaT said:


> Te logic.


Thanks! Makes sense and confirms my INFP-ness I guess 

Perhaps my strong Te also explains why I kinda relate to INTJs and their brutal honesty. Their brutal honesty is probably just their Te at work, I can only imagine what that must be like doubled with their Ni


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

daringcherry said:


> So my question is: does this sound more like Ti or Te?


Sounds like Ti to me.

Ti isn't really concerned about retaining a cohesive whole or resolving contradictions. Ti can happily retain two contradictory viewpoints just as long as it can trace the process by which you've reached that decision. Ti is the line that joins all the dots together. Whether it forms an appealing or recognizable image isn't really something that Ti cares about- just as long as all the dots are connected.

Te on the other hand is concerned more with resolving inconsistencies or contradictions than including all the dots in the whole. Like if you have a cluster of dots on one side of the paper and one extraneous dot on the other side, Te would circle that cluster of dots and ignore the outlier. Te is the line that includes or excludes, it creates a tangible, solid form as a whole- it doesn't care about collecting all the dots just as long as the integrity of the shape remains.

Which is why a Ti user can easily contort their logic till their head goes up their butt while a Te user would shudder in horror as they watch the Ti turn into a logic pretzel- unable to fathom why anyone would want to do that to themselves.


----------



## daringcherry (Apr 23, 2013)

soppixo said:


> Sounds like Ti to me.
> 
> Ti isn't really concerned about retaining a cohesive whole or resolving contradictions. Ti can happily retain two contradictory viewpoints just as long as it can trace the process by which you've reached that decision. Ti is the line that joins all the dots together. Whether it forms an appealing or recognizable image isn't really something that Ti cares about- just as long as all the dots are connected.
> 
> ...


Ok, opinion conflicting with the above comments... Thank you for your valuable input.  So my INFP-ness remains unconfirmed...


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

daringcherry said:


> Ok, opinion conflicting with the above comments... Thank you for your valuable input.  So my INFP-ness remains unconfirmed...


Its kind of hard to define your type from one function. Especially because Fi can look eerily like Ti.... I sometimes wonder if I'm really an ISFP who likes to think I'm an ISTP but then I have an Fe outburst and that worry is put to rest. Ha...ha...


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

daringcherry said:


> Thanks! Makes sense and confirms my INFP-ness I guess
> 
> Perhaps my strong Te also explains why I kinda relate to INTJs and their brutal honesty. Their brutal honesty is probably just their Te at work, I can only imagine what that must be like doubled with their Ni


Yes, I was going to write like it seemed like Tr coming through Fi and you are an IXFP but I didn't want to assume anything.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

soppixo said:


> Its kind of hard to define your type from one function. Especially because Fi can look eerily like Ti.... I sometimes wonder if I'm really an ISFP who likes to think I'm an ISTP but then I have an Fe outburst and that worry is put to rest. Ha...ha...


Disagree. The person is clearly Fi Te. I can't explain why right now because I'm on the phone but tge reasoning is very Fi Te.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> Disagree. The person is clearly Fi Te. I can't explain why right now because I'm on the phone but tge reasoning is very Fi Te.


Alright. Explain it to me. roud: Always ready to learn more about function dynamics.


----------



## Cyphyr (Jun 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Yes, I was going to write like it seemed like Tr coming through Fi and you are an IXFP but I didn't want to assume anything.


Yes, I also would like to hear your reasoning when you have a chance... I am ever indecisive aboty status as an intp over infp...


----------



## daringcherry (Apr 23, 2013)

LeaT said:


> Disagree. The person is clearly Fi Te. I can't explain why right now because I'm on the phone but tge reasoning is very Fi Te.


I'm interested, too!  The only way that I can think of that makes my post seem Fi-Te is that I refer to my opinions about whether war/drugs are good or bad. I just want to clarify that I used to never think about whether the things discussed were good or bad until I encountered people who somehow assumed that I'm "pro-war" or "pro-drugs" just because I discussed said things objectively. Now I try to be more cautious and think about the issues discussed in a more social context and try to detect those thoughts of mine that could be seen as politically incorrect.

Another example of my objectivity  In high school I was a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I was also somewhat religious. When the teacher asked during a religion class what the Bible says about eating meat, I raised my hand and answered that the Bible doesn't condemn eating meat and that it could be seen that the Bible encourages eating meat since it is said in the Bible that animals are for humans to care for and use. Some of the guys in my class asked me, "Then why are you a vegetarian?" It's like those were two completely different things for me: my personal decision to be a vegetarian and what the Bible says about the subject.


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

daringcherry said:


> I'm interested, too!  The only way that I can think of that makes my post seem Fi-Te is that I refer to my opinions about whether war/drugs are good or bad. I just want to clarify that I used to never think about whether the things discussed were good or bad until I encountered people who somehow assumed that I'm "pro-war" or "pro-drugs" just because I discussed said things objectively. Now I try to be more cautious and think about the issues discussed in a more social context and try to detect those thoughts of mine that could be seen as politically incorrect.
> 
> Another example of my objectivity  In high school I was a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I was also somewhat religious. When the teacher asked during a religion class what the Bible says about eating meat, I raised my hand and answered that the Bible doesn't condemn eating meat and that it could be seen that the Bible encourages eating meat since it is said in the Bible that animals are for humans to care for and use. Some of the guys in my class asked me, "Then why are you a vegetarian?" It's like those were two completely different things for me: my personal decision to be a vegetarian and what the Bible says about the subject.


I don't know if you are an INTP or INFP -- but what you earlier spoke of is, to my knowledge, Te. However seeing as you have concluded that it is between INFP and INTP, then I sincerely doubt you are an INFP because what you spoke of, in your aforementioned comment, is fairly developed T at, what I perceive to be, a younger age (Initially this led me to think you were ENTJ, or perhaps INTJ). Leading with Fi is of the opposite spectrum of objectively thinking. I have heard that inferior Fe can be quite hyperreactive and as a result has lead to mistypes, especially regarding the ones we speak of. If you are certain that ENTJ or INTJ is not of match, then I would (personally) disregard INFP as well.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

soppixo said:


> Alright. Explain it to me. roud: Always ready to learn more about function dynamics.





Cyphyr said:


> Yes, I also would like to hear your reasoning when you have a chance... I am ever indecisive aboty status as an intp over infp...





daringcherry said:


> I'm interested, too!  The only way that I can think of that makes my post seem Fi-Te is that I refer to my opinions about whether war/drugs are good or bad. I just want to clarify that I used to never think about whether the things discussed were good or bad until I encountered people who somehow assumed that I'm "pro-war" or "pro-drugs" just because I discussed said things objectively. Now I try to be more cautious and think about the issues discussed in a more social context and try to detect those thoughts of mine that could be seen as politically incorrect.
> 
> Another example of my objectivity  In high school I was a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I was also somewhat religious. When the teacher asked during a religion class what the Bible says about eating meat, I raised my hand and answered that the Bible doesn't condemn eating meat and that it could be seen that the Bible encourages eating meat since it is said in the Bible that animals are for humans to care for and use. Some of the guys in my class asked me, "Then why are you a vegetarian?" It's like those were two completely different things for me: my personal decision to be a vegetarian and what the Bible says about the subject.


Here's why, so let's copy the original post I analyzed: 

* *







> I've always thought of myself as quite objective. That's probably one of the reasons why I did so well in school. I used to be very straightforward: when I read a question, I only read that question and no hidden meanings behind it. I see the words, I analyze them and I look for the answer. Like, regardless of whether I personally believe that war is wrong etc, I can answer objectively questions such as "How does war profit a nation?" I read the core words ("war", "profit", "nation", "how"), quickly define them in my mind and answer the question. I simply see no problem in analyzing how war can profit a nation even if I don't encourage war of any kind. I really do think this is one of the reasons I got such good grades in school: because I thought of the tasks so objectively. To me, there's just the question, nothing more, no hidden meanings. How does war profit a nation? Well, in ways A, B and C. How is war defective? In ways D, E and F. Then moral evaluations can be based on these findings if necessary.
> 
> I have started seeing more hidden meanings as I have aged and I think I have also gotten used to people always seeing hidden meanings everywhere so I try to acknowledge whenever I can in order to be more "normal". For example, if I was now asked the question about how war benefits a nation, I would also make a comment about war in general in addition to the straightforward answer. Something like this: "War benefits a nation in ways A, B and C because X, Y and Z. There are different reasons for war and the different reasons benefit nations for different reasons. But even if war can benefit a nation, its morality is a completely different question. On the other hand, war also has its costs which could be described as D, E and F.Also there's the game theory and if we look at all nations as a whole, we can conclude that they all benefit from agreeing on peace."
> 
> ...






I suppose you already know that Fi=subjective ethics and Fe=objective ethics and same applies to Ti and Te but definitions. Te doesn't fully kick in until about the part how war profits a nation. Notice how he gets hung up on external facts, logic and definitions such as:


> I read the core words ("war", "profit", "nation", "how")





> Well, in ways A, B and C. How is war defective? In ways D, E and F. *Then moral evaluations can be based on these findings if necessary.*


Now, it's true that Ti can also work with these words as logical axioms, but it's noticeable that the OP's post is about seeking results. How do these logical structures _profit_ a nation? It's results-driven based on what's effective or not. The part in bold speaks towards weak Fi. An INTP would in contrast if given the same logical task probably linger more on actually defining the terminology as its own logical structure. The OP is overall not a strong Ji user in my opinion, this for instance:


> quickly define them in my mind and answer the question


If Ji was the primary ego function i.e. the dominant, I don't think it would be "quickly" in that sense, since most of the time and effort would in fact be spent on this very thinking process. A Ti Ne type would probably spend a lot of time trying to define these terms logically. 

This here seems like an F judgement, more likely Fi, and quite weakly so:


> even if I don't encourage war of any kind


This is why the ethical reasoning process doesn't seem to be based on objective feeling connections e.g. how war affects people or societies, for instance. To be impersonal or objective doesn't alone speak for T dominance, nor does social awkwardness. Te-Fi types are prone to be overly blunt that can be taken the wrong way by others. Furthermore, the OP doesn't describe how he is objective or why his reasoning is objective aside perhaps the implied "void of emotional reasoning" and looking at objective facts, the latter actually speaking for Te rather than Ti. Ti is logical but it's not objective and I highly doubt that someone as Ti as their preferred ego function would consider themselves as objective in the sense the OP describes here. Objective as in their reasoning being logical maybe, but not quite... objective as in taking in external facts, data and so on.

The reason why I think this is an example of weak use of Fi is because it comes like an afterthought, something like, "maybe I should consider the moral nature of this question" but the objective logic is clearly taking precedence here. 


> I really do think this is one of the reasons I got such good grades in school: because I thought of the tasks so objectively. To me, there's just the question, nothing more, no hidden meanings. How does war profit a nation? *Well, in ways A, B and C. How is war defective? In ways D, E and F. Then moral evaluations can be based on these findings if necessary.*


This reasoning process here is so Fi-Te driven. The part in bold is very Te. A Ti type would work more to operationalize the definition of profit itself. What does profit mean? How do we understand profit? What does it mean to be profitable? This logic would then be measured against its feeling counter-part Fe in order to come to conclusions about how we understand the concept of profit. To a Ti type, we can figure out how war is profitable to first understand what profit means. 

What the OP does is to assume that there is a standard understanding and definition of the term "profit" (assumed Fi) and then moves on to look at how profit as a concept affects a nation. It's thus looking for external logical structures rather than internal.

This seems to be Je because even if the second example, "How is war defective?" might belie Ti preference, the logic doesn't seem to be focused on doing so an introverted way but extroverted. What external logical facts, structures and data can we use to define "defective"? Ti doesn't work that way since it's introverted. It would look for Fe cues such as say, social structure, and provide with a more subjective understanding of what defective means in this very context. 

As a Ji type myself, the best way I can think of to describe how Ji judges situations is that Ji is more context-related in a sense because Ji likes to look at each context as if it's unique. Je doesn't but applies the same standards across the board no matter what context, especially when we talk about Te. Fe can be seen as more contextual since the nature of Fe's objectivity is itself fluid since groups of people, social values and so on are more changeable. Te facts are as a whole, not.

In retrospect, I thus take back the INFP assessment, although the Fi's pretty strong as an undercurrent to the Te because the OP doesn't seem to be that good to perform Ji logic as an ego conscious function anyway. I would perhaps suggest IxTJ or ExTJ although I can't quite see how the feeling is inferior so I think IxTJ is a better bet. 


> I have started seeing more hidden meanings as I have aged and I think I have also gotten used to people always seeing hidden meanings everywhere so I try to acknowledge whenever I can in order to be more "normal".


This probably speaks more strongly towards weak intuition and the fact the OP doesn't think seeing hidden meanings is "normal" as a part of his psychological makeup perhaps suggests Si dominance or at least sensation as auxiliary preference.


> "War benefits a nation in ways A, B and C because X, Y and Z. *(a) There are different reasons for war and the different reasons benefit nations for different reasons.* But even if war can benefit a nation, its morality is a completely different question. On the other hand, war also has its costs which could be described as D, E and F.Also there's the game theory and if we look at all nations as a whole, *(b) we can conclude that they all benefit from agreeing on peace."*


A lot of Te here, weak underlying Fi. The part in bold (a) could be exemplary of Ne with Fi. (b) is more Fi. Fe logic would for instance look at the social structures of each society involved, measure back to the Ti definition of profit and then conclude whether peace or war is desired. In a way I have to say the Fi logic, especially in (b) is quite simplistic which speaks against dominance. When I write simplistic I ultimately mean not very nuanced. A strong Fi user would operationalize the definition of "peace" more in a Ji sense. What does peace mean? Is peace even desirable in all cases? What if peace equals to submission and ultimately unhappiness? as an example. 


> *(a) Someone has even accused me of a weak will because of my objectivity, like I can't seem to stick to my opinions. *That is definitely the WRONG conclusion, I can stick to my opinions even if I investigate matters objectively. *(b)* *Most people really don't seem to get the objectivity in my thinking. Like, I don't do drugs and I don't encourage using drugs. And yet it's not a problem for me to discuss a topic like why are drug users generally more intelligent than non-users. *I can acknowledge that drug users are indeed more intelligent on average and find this snippet of information absolutely fascinating. So many people just don't seem to get this objectivity. They immediately think that I'm trying to justify drug usage by pointing out the interesting fact that drug users are more intelligent than non-users on average.


This entire paragraph is a fall back on Fi reasoning. Not just the part about drugs, but rather as a process that underlies the thinking pattern that results in this kind of logic, especially the sentence (a) in bold. (b) sounds more like Ne use and just playing the devil's advocate. It's also perhaps examples like these that speak against inferior Fi because if the inferior Fi type sees these subjects as pertaining to their personal values, they will most definitely not stick to an objective opinion but can become very stubborn arguing their point. 

Dominant Fi types can too, though. That's just how Fi operates in general. Since you don't seem to see things this way, and yet you have such a focus on objectivity but you never defined this objectivity, I have to assume Si dominant. You seem to assume that much of your thinking derives from observable facts that are at least, objective to you and Si types can sometimes forget that their sensation is introverted and not shared by everyone and believe it is they who are objective while everyone else is subjective. 



Lunarprox said:


> I don't know if you are an INTP or INFP -- but what you earlier spoke of is, to my knowledge, Te. However seeing as you have concluded that it is between INFP and INTP, then I sincerely doubt you are an INFP because what you spoke of, in your aforementioned comment, is fairly developed T at, what I perceive to be, a younger age (Initially this led me to think you were ENTJ, or perhaps INTJ). Leading with Fi is of the opposite spectrum of objectively thinking. I have heard that inferior Fe can be quite hyperreactive and as a result has lead to mistypes, especially regarding the ones we speak of. If you are certain that ENTJ or INTJ is not of match, then I would (personally) disregard INFP as well.


Well, considering that the OP suggests some ego complexes surrounding intuition (he is not "normal" for being unable to read hidden meanings in things), I would believe ISTJ with strong Te-Fi to be a good fit. If not ISTJ, then definitely ESTJ.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

Thanks LeaT. Ah I finally see it now.  After spending a whole afternoon reading up on Te vs Ti I was at least able to pinpoint that the crux of the matter lay in...

1) daringcherry's focus in creating an reasoning process
*Te* to achieve an objective (good grades) 
*Ti* to achieve comprehensive understanding (at the cost of relevance)

2) the meaning of objectivity
*Te/Fi* the ability to set aside personal attachment to logically resolve a problem (Neutrality)
*Ti/Fe* the ability to assume the personal attachments of others to logically resolve a problem (Cognitive Empathy)

3) and the reason by which they modify their social behavior
*Fi* to further enforce their belief of appropriate behavior (I believe this is what an objective person does, so I act the same)
*Fe* to remain relevant to the people they interact with (if I present my opinions in this fashion, it is not well received- so I modify my method to make it easier to communicate)

Phew, I was cracking my head trying to put my finger on where I went wrong and I'm still not sure if I've got it right.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

soppixo said:


> Thanks LeaT. Ah I finally see it now.  After spending a whole afternoon reading up on Te vs Ti I was at least able to pinpoint that the crux of the matter lay in...
> 
> 1) daringcherry's focus in creating an reasoning process
> *Te* to achieve an objective (good grades)
> *Ti* to achieve comprehensive understanding (at the cost of relevance)


A Te objective could be competence and mastery as to face the unknown future as best as one can.



soppixo said:


> 2) the meaning of objectivity
> *Te/Fi* the ability to set aside personal attachment to logically resolve a problem (Neutrality)
> *Ti/Fe* the ability to assume the personal attachments of others to logically resolve a problem (Cognitive Empathy)


Not quite. Just because Te can think of a solution doesn't mean that your Fi will let you go along with it. But that doesn't stop you from knowing of that solution and appreciating parts of it.



soppixo said:


> 3) and the reason by which they modify their social behavior
> *Fi* to further enforce their belief of appropriate behavior (I believe this is what an objective person does, so I act the same)
> *Fe* to remain relevant to the people they interact with (if I present my opinions in this fashion, it is not well received- so I modify my method to make it easier to communicate)


Depends on the person and their type. Also, an odd use of the word enforce. But perhaps it may be correct, perhaps not.

I say enforce is odd because I can take advantage of others incompetence and morally inappropriate behavior. If others were as able as me I'd have less advantage, after all. Why enforce others improvement when you can step back and ask yourself is there other directions one can take first?

Enforce sounds like such an extroverted sort of thing, so I'd Te that rather than Fi it if I'd had to. But others behavior is something I'd rather take advantage of than actually change as an act of my own will over theirs.

If I care about them I'll talk to them about it and let them decide for themselves. If I don't care, why bother to help improve them as human beings when it is the nature of the world to leave such people in the dust behind you?

When doing nothing = maximum gain... it can hardly be called _an action of exploitation_ as _a cold, cynical understanding_.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

default settings said:


> A Te objective could be competence and mastery as to face the unknown future as best as one can.


The problem with this sentence is that its simplistic enough that my Ti also relates to it. 

I think the difference lies in the duration, scope and intensity in which a Te or Ti approaches a subject. For example a Ti is more likely to learn more than they are supposed to when they have a personal investment or ignore a subject completely if it isn't to their palate (even if the marks are crucial to their grades) while a Te learns just enough to get things done, and expands their knowledge base as needed.



default settings said:


> Not quite. Just because Te can think of a solution doesn't mean that your Fi will let you go along with it. But that doesn't stop you from knowing of that solution and appreciating parts of it.


I understand that other Te-Fi users could use their Fi in different manners depending on what they prioritize, but as you can see from my next point and LeaT's insightful analysis, I'm basing the usage of Fi on what daringcherry prioritizes- personal detachment from the issues discussed.



default settings said:


> Depends on the person and their type. Also, an odd use of the word enforce. But perhaps it may be correct, perhaps not.
> 
> I say enforce is odd because I can take advantage of others incompetence and morally inappropriate behavior. If others were as able as me I'd have less advantage, after all. Why enforce others improvement when you can step back and ask yourself is there other directions one can take first?
> 
> ...


I used enforce because I noticed the number of times daringcherry mentioned about being objective- so it appears to me that he/she has had an inner struggle in some ways about the behavior he/she believes they exhibit vs the behavior others perceive. So the concept of objectivity for daringcherry is an reinforcement in their self-belief, a constant reminder that "I am objective. Not callous or cruel."

Gosh maybe its the wrong word after all- semantics is so messy when you get down to it. :/


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

soppixo said:


> The problem with this sentence is that its simplistic enough that my Ti also relates to it.


Just because you can relate to it does it in any way change that others employ it?

There is no problem with the sentence. It is a description of something other than yourself, and would remain valid even if you never existed.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

default settings said:


> Just because you can relate to it does it in any way change that others employ it?
> 
> There is no problem with the sentence. It is a description of something other than yourself, and would remain valid even if you never existed.


Except my aim is to differentiate Ti and Te, I'm not knocking the fact that they both fulfill the same purposes in our psyche and they're equally powerful/useful, but I want to understand what Te is in relation to Ti not what Te is taken out of context, and defined by just one dimension.

So I'll respectfully propose that 1) I don't think we're thinking of the same question, 2) I don't think we're looking for the same answer and 3) I apologize if I somehow offended you by insinuating that your definition of Te is defective because that isn't my intention- no need to negate my existence just to prove a point.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

soppixo said:


> Except my aim is to differentiate Ti and Te, I'm not knocking the fact that they both fulfill the same purposes in our psyche and they're equally powerful/useful, but I want to understand what Te is in relation to Ti not what Te is taken out of context, and defined by just one dimension.
> 
> So I'll respectfully propose that 1) I don't think we're thinking of the same question, 2) I don't think we're looking for the same answer and 3) I apologize if I somehow offended you by insinuating that your definition of Te is defective because that isn't my intention- no need to negate my existence just to prove a point.


Use it however you will.

But if you have the capacity to see how subjective (introverted) thinking has a different methodology to extroverted (objective focused) attitudes based on the example of my perspective, you may not only have understood the issue that much more but arguably would have taken a few steps towards developing Te itself, if such a thing is possible.

I don't intend to cater what I say to you, but I intend for it to be useful to you and everyone else. I resist the singular subjective in order to deal with a world of millions of subjectives, for such an approach requires stepping outside the subjective into the object oriented. Being actively mindful of an objective world that contains more than one subjective mind - not as a matter of impersonal, rarely utilized fact but as a basis of moment to moment action.

Ergo, Te. Or at least one approach to it. Or a small aspect of one approach. Even putting the individuality of people aside, each type that has Te uses Te differently. (But there are more or less 8, so it is relatively easy to manage.) And Te is not merely limited to comparison between minds... implementation of pragmatic matters never are when no one else is to blame and success is the goal. In other words, even if everyone else believes and thinks something will work, that in effect does not, then learning is still potentially available.

As in closing as in opening - this may be useful it may not. Use it how you will, but only as you find yourself able to manage.


----------

