# Extraverted Thinking (Te)



## Psilo

This conversation is interesting. 

I spend much of my time trying to help define the labels because I think it helps communication. Everyone has a bit of spin on the same words, and I like to try to smooth the gaps. I would attribute this to P types as you both do and the need to have consistency in models. 

Just to point out more communication differences, for fun because I really don't have much to add. In many od my posts I speak about the functions in a personified manner, which I think reflects the way I look at them. (probably an effect of Fi?) I do think about them holistically, and the functions are just labels for certain aspects to isolate and speak about separate from the whole. Pi-Je would be more concerned with the whole picture, but in practical application? While Pe-Ji wants as much information in a defined manner for knowlege's sake. 

PiJe - "Right, yes, that's what we are talking about. Why do you keep clarifying?"
PeJi - "Wait, that's imprecise! You are overlooking these major distinctions."

As a Te user, I also try to speak my musing in an efficient, logical, bullet point manner. I fail because my Te is inferior. :tongue:


----------



## MensSuperMateriam

vel said:


> My assumption is that the concepts do not require to be defined, as most of us here have done background reading so we should be operating with very similar concepts. When I switch labels I don't do it without warning and I say that I am doing so and offer an explanation why. This is what started this debate as when I indicated that I am doing this, and you did not agree that this can be done.


Then I clearly misunderstood you intentions. When you said you want to change the labels, I dind't understand you wanted to use a different model (or variation of the model) with new and broader meanings, more or less I understood you want to ignore the consensuated definitions for making your ideas "be always true". My fault, but because I still find the Ni way of thinking a bit "obscure, hermitian". Now I see better how Ni users think.

Also I have debated with several INTJ's in the forum (Ni dominant) an some of them were acting as "mental chaters", using fallacies that "make" them be always right. Maybe these users were in NiFi loop. So I trend to distrust in Ni, but I'll try to be more open-minded with all of you next time.



vel said:


> Cool, what's your specialization in chemistry?


In my country, Chemistry has three main branches: 
*Aplicada* (Applied). More or less, all the ways of chemical analysis for everything, not too bad but a bit boring.
*Ingeniería Química* (Chemical Engineering). Industry, I dislike this branch completely; think it's full of ENTJ's, so radical different point of view from mine. I had a teacher who was always saying "only money is important here" (which maybe is true, but sounds disgusting) and used to call to "Química Cuántica" (Quantum Chemistry) as "Química Cuéntica" (Fake Chemistry). When he said this, I wanted to punch his face :angry:
*Fundamental*. The last option is mine, which includes Organich Chemistry; Inorganic Chemistry; Physics Chemistry (my favorite); and another minor subbranches.



vel said:


> "This is incorrect" is of course a better form of statng the same.


I'll keep this in my mind.



vel said:


> To me the parts are not part of a hypothetical model, but actual biochemical and biophysical processes, because as I have noted before what MBTI describes can be correlated to neurology so it is not some complete abstraction. You don't need something to be specialized to a concrete region and capable of being quantized for it to be real. Take a chair for example. When I say "chair" in my mind I do not have a full model of the chair that encompases every splinter, every pore, every strand of cellulose including all distances between the carbon and oxygen atoms in angstroms, every molecule of atmospheric gases that floats around it, the fact that chair is physically connected to the floor, and what meaning this chair has, why it is there, its past present and future. Nevertheless when I say "chair" it represents something that is real and exists. What is not real is the label itself as I can call it "pink elephant" and the nature of chair will not change.


I think I understand what you say. More or less, you're saying the the model, although imperfect and incomplete, reflects some aspect of reality, so this aspect, in some way, must to be real. If this is what you want to say, I agree.
But don't use to MBTI. It does not include (although is based in) jungian cognitive functions, only dichotomies. Jungian model is more complete and accurate. I don't like MBTI because it only "sees" what you do, not why you do what you do, which is more important and fundamental. Different people could act in a similar way being inside absolutely different. Take the example of INTP/INTJ. Some people see us as very similar; we share thre letters, which seems to support this, but changing the last letter, we are absolutely different. We share zero cognitive functions.



vel said:


> The neutral opinion comes from what same concept I have stated before, that bad/good are relevant only within human existence. However if you are speaking from within human experience then yes feeler value system (morals) is essential for keeping society together.


Of course, every valoration is subjective, because good/bad are concepts that exist only inside human mind. In Nature (outside, objectve real world) things are or aren't; we add the moral label. I have used this as an argument in a lot of debates, and I like to use the same example: mantis. We think killing others is bad, but the female insect eats her male partner. Is it good or wrong? It is, and no more. We have created the label bad for this behavior (when applied to humans) (fortunately :crazy



vel said:


> hehe same here, not a native speaker - I often feel like I am able to express myself better in my native language because it offers much more flexibility than English, allowing one to state same thing in several differnt ways, which I as a Ni-user can definitely appreciate


Which is your mother tongue? In your profile I see that you live in California, but your birth country is hidden. 



vel said:


> Ni peculiarity I suppose. I find myself saying "it is a barn" and hoping others would understand me. Somebody else says "there is a fence here and a wall there". And I think to myself "why is this person describing fence and walls? how is this relevant? it is a barn". Then I stumble around the fences and walls, and see that the other person is also describing a barn but their vision of it is different hence they describe it differently. Perhaps why I find it easier to follow writing about MBTI of fellow Nx-dominants rather than Tx dominants.


The difference is important for me, but not only as Ti user, also Ne user. Dom and aux support each other in every person, and this is the reason why Ti+Ni is not possible as a dom+aux combination (they're not compatible), only in bad mental states (like TiNi loop, dom+tert, in an ISTP).

Ti could work with "barn" but do not want (like) to do it. If you say a barn I tend to visualize it as the general concept it means, rather than a barn that sometimes is a fence and sometimes is a wall. I could do it without problem, but it is not my natural trend. Ti loooves precision in the language, because as I said to you, Ti wants to create the perfect judgement. The more precise the concept, the more precise the answer. We prefer to work with *three concepts simultaneously*: wall, fence, barn, instead one concept which could be applied in all situations. Because in this way, we can see not only the similarities, also the differences. So we can clearly distinguish them, when one concept is applicable, when the other, when both of them...

This is useful not only for Ti, also for Ne. Ne generates ideas by combinations of the external world elements (significants) rather than internal world elements (meanings). If your want to generate as much combinations of external world elements as possible (the full possibilities) then you must to distinguish when one external world element starts and when finishes. Again, precision in definitions. If the frontiers are diffuse, you're unable to generate that amount of combinations, ideas. 

I believe that "brainstorm" is a natural trend of Ne users. We want to see all the possibilities. Ni users want to see all the points of view of one possibility. You're better chess players than us, and we're better "mad geniouses, inventors" than you. INTJ's are the best chess players with the combination of Ni with the pragmatical Te.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam

Psilo said:


> I spend much of my time trying to help define the labels because I think it helps communication. Everyone has a bit of spin on the same words, and I like to try to smooth the gaps. I would attribute this to P types as you both do and the need to have consistency in models.


It helps a lot :laughing: Vel is a J user (PiJe) so it is not her natural trend to define extremely precise meanings, although at last we've reachead enough consensus. But you, as a P user (JiPe) are more in my line of acting (and you're also a Ne user, with its implications).



Psilo said:


> Just to point out more communication differences, for fun because I really don't have much to add. In many od my posts I speak about the functions in a personified manner, which I think reflects the way I look at them. (probably an effect of Fi?) I do think about them holistically, and the functions are just labels for certain aspects to isolate and speak about separate from the whole. Pi-Je would be more concerned with the whole picture, but in practical application? While Pe-Ji wants as much information in a defined manner for knowlege's sake.


I suppose yes. As a Fi user, you prefer to do personal (F) subjective (i) judgements, whereas me, as a Ti user, prefer to do impersonal (T) subjective (i) judgements. So more or less you should trend to apply your personal vision to these concepts. But I'm not sure how Fi would affect to non moral judgements when compared with my Ti. Maybe you trend to think that as every opinion is subjective (in the meaning of personal) every vision could be correct, there's no universal one, so nobody could completely convince you or change your point of view, and also you don't try to do this with others? Correct me if I'm wrong.



Psilo said:


> PiJe - "Right, yes, that's what we are talking about. Why do you keep clarifying?"
> PeJi - "Wait, that's imprecise! You are overlooking these major distinctions."
> 
> As a Te user, I also try to speak my musing in an efficient, logical, bullet point manner. I fail because my Te is inferior. :tongue:


Your PiJe and PeJi examples are absolutely right. :laughing:

I do not agree completely with your Te description. Efficient yes (the most pragmatical) but although it's logical, this word is better applied to Ti. Ti is "the logic by the logic" whereas Te is "the applied logic and no more". I see Te as "soft logic" and Ti as "hard logic".

Anyway your Te is inferior (FiNeSiTe) so I doubt it could affect the way you see things more than minor details, but not in the basis. The way oneself uses the inf function is not exactly the same way oneself uses a dom/aux function, at least while it's underdeveloped.

A strong Fe user could use his/her function to manipulate others' feelings and make them to do what the user want to (move the masses, as politicians), whereas a weak Fe user as me is sometimes "naive" (specially in childhood).

So I think that maybe your desire of precision, efficience (external world orientation) in conversations is caused by your Ne rather than Te (Ne needs external confirmation, tries to generate well understandable ideas), and if you sometimes fail could be caused by your "personalized style" (Fi).


----------



## SuSu

This is a great thread. 

Did anyone else notice that all of the (dominant and auxiliary) Te users bailed (lost interest?) after page 2?


----------



## NiDBiLD

SuSu said:


> This is a great thread.
> 
> Did anyone else notice that all of the (dominant and auxiliary) Te users bailed (lost interest?) after page 2?


Thinking the same thing...

NOW we know the difference between Ti and Te. This thread makes it evident.

*Conclusion:* Ti is like a masturbation marathon with no orgasms. It's personal, subjective and just keeps going and going for no evident reason...


----------



## MensSuperMateriam

NiDBiLD said:


> Thinking the same thing...
> 
> NOW we know the difference between Ti and Te. This thread makes it evident.
> 
> *Conclusion:* Ti is like a masturbation marathon with no orgasms. It's personal, subjective and just keeps going and going for no evident reason...


Really? Mmm, I used to believe that Maths are Ti-based. I soppose you will recognize that without this tool, no progress is possible (because all Science is based in Maths).

Ti is subjective in the meaning Jung defined, not in a sort of "subjetive=irrational" you're thinking. And with the same Jung meaning, it's impersonal, not personal (Ti, not Fi). Maybe you should reread the descriptions and definitions. 

In fact, Ti is often much more absolutely objective than Te. I will offer to you an example of how "objective" your Te could be: as it's external based and "consensus makes truth", Te thinkers were who thought that Sun should orbit around Earth because it's what they saw, and "if everybody thinks Sun orbits Earth, then Sun should orbit Earth" as *if opinions could make reality*. Ridiculous. A Ti thinker doesn't care what people think and try to make his/her own conclusions, and is aware about reality exists outside opinions.

It's curious that the only other person that I found in this forum saying nonsenses like you was also an ENTJ... is it possible that Te dom favors having a square mind?


----------



## NiDBiLD

MensSuperMateriam said:


> Really? Mmm, I used to believe that Maths are Ti-based. I soppose you will recognize that without this tool, no progress is possible (because all Science is based in Maths).
> 
> Ti is subjective in the meaning Jung defined, not in a sort of "subjetive=irrational" you're thinking. And with the same Jung meaning, it's impersonal, not personal (Ti, not Fi). Maybe you should reread the descriptions and definitions.


... Crap. I think I just wasted a perfectly good punchline. It was not really meant as a serious analysis of the subject matter, and I really thought I made this obvious by comparing Ti to wanking.



> In fact, Ti is often much more absolutely objective than Te. I will offer to you an example of how "objective" your Te could be: as it's external based and "consensus makes truth", Te thinkers were who thought that Sun should orbit around Earth because it's what they saw, and "if everybody thinks Sun orbits Earth, then Sun should orbit Earth" as *if opinions could make reality*. Ridiculous. A Ti thinker doesn't care what people think and try to make his/her own conclusions, and is aware about reality exists outside opinions.


Oh, that's nonsense. Consensus does not make truth, and that's not at all what Te is about. Leave consensus to the feelers and sensors. Te (at least in combination with Ni) is pragmatic-logical, which means "real world evidence makes truth". And by "real world" I mean the physical one you are walking around in, okay? The difference is that in the Te mind, a theory is not true in some aspect just because it has internal logical consistency. A theory is not valid in any way unless backed by evidence, and it has to be put to the test before "truth" is claimed.

I think one major difference is that Te users more readily accept research made by other people as a valid source of truth, since the Te function is only interested in the useful conclusions, while a Ti user likes to look at all the data and draw their own conclusions, just for the sake of it.



> It's curious that the only other person that I found in this forum saying nonsenses like you was also an ENTJ... is it possible that Te dom favors having a square mind?


My mind is not square. It is more in the general shape of a dodecahedron. Also, this kind of nonsense is usually called wit. Really, when a thread has gone on and on in this matter for this many pages, it really puzzles me how someone can still take it seriously.

My interest died about four pages ago. I just came back for the punchline. And I failed.


----------



## Karot

Te is likely to postpone judgement until there is some external validation, this can be confirmation from someone else.( an expert or something)

Ti refers to its own global view of things and is likely to reject things, enventhough there is external proof of it, of course it has to review itself and adapt its view if it happens right in front. (but that's more like Se kicking in I think)

For example, I am Ti user, and I happen to believe things if they make sense/it is reasonable.
I guess Te user would need some external proof, before believing.

The difference is, I think, I will disregard the expert's view if it doesn't make sense.
Te will be more like, if an expert is saying it, well, there must be some truth in it right ?
I DON'T CARE WHO OR WHERE THE INFO COMES FROM, it sounds ilke bullshit.
Te does care about it.


----------



## Diphenhydramine

Karot said:


> Te is likely to postpone judgement until there is some external validation, this can be confirmation from someone else.( an expert or something)
> 
> Ti refers to its own global view of things and is likely to reject things, enventhough there is external proof of it, of course it has to review itself and adapt its view if it happens right in front. (but that's more like Se kicking in I think)
> 
> For example, I am Ti user, and I happen to believe things if they make sense/it is reasonable.
> I guess Te user would need some external proof, before believing.
> 
> The difference is, I think, I will disregard the expert's view if it doesn't make sense.
> Te will be more like, if an expert is saying it, well, there must be some truth in it right ?
> I DON'T CARE WHO OR WHERE THE INFO COMES FROM, it sounds ilke bullshit.
> Te does care about it.


 I don't think this is entirely true. Te users are also saddled with their own sorts of introspection. Sure, Te *alone* would value experts views, but Te is also mixed with things like Si, Ni and Fi which means that Te is not blindly slaved to the opinions of experts. I think experts have weight, but if they're wrong, they're wrong.


----------



## Karot

It's a bit extreme, but it makes the difference clear.
Finally got it :happy:


Ti is likely to still think the expert's wrong, even if he's right. That's not likely to happen to Te.

Of course there are more functions and they don't work alone. But I find it useful to understand them by turning them into seperate objects with specific behavior.


----------



## MensSuperMateriam

Karot said:


> Ti is likely to still think the expert's wrong, even if he's right. That's not likely to happen to Te.


Ti doesn't think the expert is wrong even if he's right. Ti thinks the expert can't be right per se, only ideas can be right, not people. Truth exist outside opinions, this a a simple way of summarizing it. I mean, an expert can statistically be closer to the truth, but only if his ideas are closer to the truth. Authority arguments are void for us. 

Te users, as externally-oriented, tend to trust more in experts, but I agree with @Diphenhydramine, when analysing people thoughts you've to consider the whole package, ie, all cognitive functions. These things are trends, as shades of grey, not black/white dichotomies.


----------



## freeeekyyy

vel said:


> I have read somewhere that thinking and feeling cognitive functions in fact use the same circuits in the brain but in different ways. This is why thinking and feeling cannot be enabled in your head at the same time. They may very well be same function that simply references different value systems to arrive at the decision.


 You might have gotten that from Lenore Thomson. If so, that's a little misleading because it's an oversimplification. T and F do not necessarily use the same parts of the brain. Te and Fi are in entirely different areas. Fe and Ti are in entirely different areas. According to her, Fe and Te generally correlate with the frontal lobe of the left hemisphere, with Te being slightly further forward and left than Fe. Ti and Fi generally correlate with the rear portion of the right hemisphere, with Ti being slightly further back and to the right.


----------



## freeeekyyy

MensSuperMateriam said:


> Ti doesn't think the expert is wrong even if he's right. Ti thinks the expert can't be right per se, only ideas can be right, not people. Truth exist outside opinions, this a a simple way of summarizing it. I mean, an expert can statistically be closer to the truth, but only if his ideas are closer to the truth. Authority arguments are void for us.
> 
> Te users, as externally-oriented, tend to trust more in experts, but I agree with @Diphenhydramine, when analysing people thoughts you've to consider the whole package, ie, all cognitive functions. These things are trends, as shades of grey, not black/white dichotomies.


 I think Te recognizes this too, that truth is still truth regardless of the opinion of anybody. Te doesn't really care so much about opinions as it does verified facts. I think the best way to put it is this: Ti is logical, Te is factual. Ti will say something can't be because it makes no sense. Te will say, it simply is, and whether it makes sense or not is irrelevant. Te doesn't really care about opinions of others. What it does say though is that "whether I believe this to be true or not has no bearing on reality." The only other way to determine reality besides looking inward is to look outward. Expert opinions are not trusted because they are what others have said, but because the self cannot be trusted, and others are the only alternative.

I don't think either T function has much difficulty recognizing that truth is objective, they only differ in whether they use an objective or subjective method for analyzing this objective truth.


----------



## dagnytaggart

I'm a 21-yr-old ENTP and very right-brained, so I'm not supposed to use much Te, but I do for some reason. It manifests in my continuous system setting/tweaking to do things with maximum efficiency. Making sure that everything on my agenda not only can be seamlessly allotted within my day, but also to simply minimize unnecessary "switchover" or crisis repair. In the long run, my system and action taken is meant to take me to my long term goals as fast as possible. Call it laziness, but life is too short to waste time/energy/resources. 

For instance, I've applied to the Peace Corps, but I'm still getting everything ready EARLY to submit to grad school when I come back. I won't forget the testing material, test results won't expire for over the time I'd spend in the Peace Corps, and the experience abroad will be resume-juicing and will provide me with invaluable insight and learning experiences (and tame my vicious travel bug). Additionally, by investing in grad school applications NOW, I'm much less likely to blow off the actual applying when I return to the states. Knowing this plan, I've been saving a lot of $$$ from my two businesses in order to have money for/in grad school, which is very healthy for my resume. And everything I did/do is with purpose.

It's all about knowing where you want to be in x months, x years, and making sure that everything you do is complementary or at least non-conflicting. And of course, the end results should be the goal.

I'm actually sort of hungover right now, so I may make no sense/a poor example... :crazy:


----------



## dagnytaggart

Ti for me is making sure there's minimal confusion - ensuring that there is logic to the madness. Critical thinking, etc.


----------



## Trainwreck

Seems to me like Te is about what works and Ti is about why it works.


----------



## jd_

vel said:


> It only seems illogical to you because you are a Te-bearer. Your perception of it being illogical is effectively subjective.
> 
> Feelings are simply a different logic system, one where people are given much greater value. As a Fe-bearer I can see people equipped with Te come in and do some things that I think are illogical. This is because what they are doing comes in conflict with what my Fe tells me is right.* For example in the workplace somebody could be debating some point that greatly upsets the social harmony of the workplace and makes people feel devalued and uninspired to do their work. To me what this Te bearer is doing seems counterproductive and irrational. I'm sure though that for him it seems like he is doing the right thing seeking order and efficiency in the outside world. But Te is not always right - if it were natural selection would have long pruned the population in favor of Te users.*
> 
> 
> Amicable decisions though win people over and this is how Fe bearers become leaders. If decisions are always based on what Te says is right you can end up pissing off other people without realizing it and thus lose their support. Correct use of Fe gives you an edge with workplace politics.



You just explained why I loathed the corporate world. Personally I prefer Ti...to me it is more exact. I also use Fe to not step on other people and consider how decisions will effect every single person, this does sometime occur as "no action at all" though.

Apologies in advance to the non bumpy thread types...but this was a very good thread, and I'd rather do a search and bump than create a new one.


----------

