# My take on Ti vs Te



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

So for the last few moths I have been reading a lot about the cognitive functions, and found out that a lot of descriptions contradict each other, are too vague or to specific and stereotypical and a lot of confusion appears. I had a very hard time understanding these things and extracting reliable info from them.

Not even to this day can I claim to have all the answers I seek. I started this tread for two reasons: first of all that my personal take on Te vs Ti could help some of you guys that are trying to type yourself or feel that you don't really understand the difference between this two functions. Second because I would really wish for some feedback on my thoughts. So let's get started.

Let's assume Joe wants to find a good political system for his country. So he starts looking into the world, both it's past and it's present, to find out the best system which could be applied to his country. He looks at sovietic Russia and sees that communism didn't work and lost ground to democracy. After that he looks at England and they too threw away absolute monarchy for a more democratic form of monarchy. 
So democracy seems like a good answer. Then he looks at how democratic states seems to be doing and sees that most of them are doing well and their citizens seem content. So democracy gives the BEST RESULTS. Better than any other political system out there. So he looks at how democracy works and what are the steps necessary to implement it. He basically takes the best democratic constitution out there and applies it to his country.

Now Martin also wants to find a good political system for his country. So he starts thinking which are the BASIC PRINCIPLES of a good political system. And because democarcy seems like a good political system, he identifies the BASIC PRINCIPLES of democracy. Those seems to be the "Separation of Powers", "Popular Vote",etc (I only listed a few; it's not crucial to list more). Also he could "steal" a few principles from communism.
So he starts building HIS OWN political system, a system which is based on the principles identified. It will look a lot like democarcy, but it has an element of SUBJECTIVITY AND ORIGINALITY.

Joe is the Te user, while Martin is the Ti user. Joe finds the best system (or theory, idea) out there in the world based on which system gives the best results and then starts using it. Martin looks at all of the systems out there, identifies their principles, finds the best principles, and then constructs a theory based on them. And the most interesting thing is that a Ti user that creates a theory this way will call it " My theory ", even if it's not that original.

And based on what I wrote above, I will take the dare and throw a stereotype and say: " That's why the ideas of the XXTPs seem so original and they are percieved as creative individuals. "

PS:Sorry for bad english. I am not a natural english speaker. If they are any problems in understanding the text please tell me and I will edit where it's necessary.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Come on guys.........Any kind of feedback?


----------



## Carmine Ermine (Mar 11, 2012)

I like gathering lots of information about all kinds of different ways to solve the same problem, to see if I can make further improvements by combining some ideas from all over. Then calling it "my way".

I even do it with my own "religion" which is aimed at combining the ideas of realism and happiness (rather than choosing between "happy lies" or "grim reality").


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

They are simple little examples of how one might use Ti or Te, and it could help someone, but it doesn't really explain the two functions.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> They are simple little examples of how one might use Ti or Te, and it could help someone, but it doesn't really explain the two functions.


Yep I tried to keep it as simple as possible. But what areas do you think I should expand?


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

TheRevaN said:


> Yep I tried to keep it as simple as possible. But what areas do you think I should expand?


Well it doesn't really explain the functions and how they work. Analogies, examples, etc. are fine, but they have to be supporting some sort of explanation of the mechanics. At least in my view they should.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Well it doesn't really explain the functions and how they work. Analogies, examples, etc. are fine, but they have to be supporting some sort of explanation of the mechanics. At least in my view they should.


"Joe is the Te user, while Martin is the Ti user. Joe finds the best system (or theory, idea) out there in the world based on which system gives the best results and then starts using it. Martin looks at all of the systems out there, identifies their principles, finds the best principles, and then constructs a theory based on them. And the most interesting thing is that a Ti user that creates a theory this way will call it " My theory ", even if it's not that original."

I thought this was a clear explanation of the analogy...........


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

TheRevaN said:


> "Joe is the Te user, while Martin is the Ti user. Joe finds the best system (or theory, idea) out there in the world based on which system gives the best results and then starts using it. Martin looks at all of the systems out there, identifies their principles, finds the best principles, and then constructs a theory based on them. And the most interesting thing is that a Ti user that creates a theory this way will call it " My theory ", even if it's not that original."
> 
> I thought this was a clear explanation of the analogy...........


Well it's not entirely true, and it could use some elaboration.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

I will expand this thread soon........
Truth is (at least in my opinion) that you can't define the functions in a vacuum, and you have to consider the way they are positioned. 
Ti will act quite different in the dominating role, instead of the tertiary role or the auxiliary role. And this is the way I want to explain them. In the previous post I just wanted to expose the basic role of Ti and Te.

Truth is I could use some help from Te users so I ask anyone who uses Te to give their input regarding the way they experience this function. Please post your descriptions here. I will try to synthetize the information recieved in the most acccurate way possible.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

I think you explained it good, concise in it's most simplistic way of describing them. @MegaTuxRacer is saying you could have elaborated a little more to paint a more accurate picture from different angles and perspectives. If you were trying to keep it as simple as possible, then this was a very good explanation if the examples in real time. The problem with trying to simplify functions is that each function happens to be very complex concepts, by simplifying them you're not grasping their true nature causing misunderstanding to those trying to grasp what you are stating. 

Also combinations of functions along where functions are located (Dom, Tert etc.) creates similarities to other functions. For example Ne-Ti can imitate Ni. Ni-Te can imitate Ne. Te-Si can imitate Se, Se-Ti can imitate Te. Functions are star crossed related to each other. Hence why combinations of personality types can help deduce what a persons true type is. For example, a person who resembles an INTJ mixed with ESTP tendencies may be an ENTP. So even while simplifying as you did, some people may get confused and think you're confused because they see that Joe may be exerting a different function then what you have stated. So while simplifying is an easier way to get a point across, it doesn't work well with functions if keeping personality theories in your head to bounce off comparisons between how the functions work and how each apply in the personality types.


----------



## xEmptiness (Jul 26, 2012)

Ti and Te each functions differently at each of the four (dom, aux, ter, inf).
From what I'm seeing Joe is a Te(dom) Si(aux), hence ISTJ. Martin is Ti(dom) Ne(aux) hence INTP. Of course ENTJ, INTJ, ENTP, ISTP, ESTJ, ESTPs will have completely different approaches to that same problem.


----------



## Liontiger (Jun 2, 2009)

@TheRevaN To me, this is a really great description. You can clearly see how the two differ in terms of problem solving and the understanding of a topic. For me personally, this is the best type of approach. Most descriptions of cognitive functions are way too abstract for me to understand. I understand the words but often times I come away with the feeling "I just learned absolutely nothing from that." There's so much abstraction that it becomes almost pointless to even look at it that way. What's the point of approaching the problem this way if you can't apply it concretely?

So, my hat's off to you.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

This is a lovely example. But it is just that; an example. While it helps people understand Ti and Te's basic definitions well...I wouldn't say the Ti user is always the one to construct their own theory and the Te user picks one from external sources. That would make it seem like the Te user lacks originality, because they can't make their own systems.

Otherwise, though, it's a nice way to show the difference. Clear and easy for beginners. You might want to elaborate on it.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

A much ampler example of Ti, including how it acts in differents postions and how it might act in combination with other functions, coming soon. This should also satisfy the people who want a more complex approach.
I just have to sort out the ideas in my head first ) Will post a huge wall of text in the next few days


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

TheRevaN said:


> A much ampler example of Ti, including how it acts in differents postions and how it might act in combination with other functions, coming soon. This should also satisfy the people who want a more complex approach.
> I just have to sort out the ideas in my head first ) Will post a huge wall of text in the next few days


Yeah like I said, I can see how this would help someone. Just not how I would have done it.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> They are simple little examples of how one might use Ti or Te, and it could help someone, but it doesn't really explain the two functions.


This. ^^^

And the OP's Te example is more of an Si-Te or Te-Si example.....Ni-Te can conjure up an entirely new political system that could be better than the existing ones (and yes, democracy has many many flaws), though it would still need to be tested for external consistency and may be quickly discarded/further improved upon if it ends up not working as expected


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

TheRevaN said:


> A much ampler example of Ti, including how it acts in differents postions and how it might act in combination with other functions, coming soon. This should also satisfy the people who want a more complex approach.
> I just have to sort out the ideas in my head first ) Will post a huge wall of text in the next few days


To put it simply, Te types consider themselves to be the masters on internal logic hence they don't respect any system of logic unless impartial evidence can be sort after. I'll try to use my Flat earth scientist model here and it goes like this:

Te scientist:
First speculates with various models about how the earth might be like. He generates various crack pot models all of which are regarded as logical. However the crucial difference is that the psyche doesn't value internal logic since it can hold paradoxically competing models of understanding. So the Te scientist seeks external evidence to minimize the deluge of models till the near perfect one is revealed. 

Ti scientist:
On the contrary, these guys spend time collecting all sorts of ideas externally then decides to sort them over afterwards concluding with the final model of understanding.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

childofprodigy said:


> Ni-Te can conjure up an entirely new political system that could be better than the existing ones (and yes, democracy has many many flaws), though it would still need to be tested for external consistency and may be quickly discarded/further improved upon if it ends up not working as expected


This is true. I plan to handle the way Te and Ni work toghether in a later post (after the Ti one). But the way Te and Ni would conjure up a new political system is very different from the way a Ti user handles the problem. I just don't want to go there yet.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> To put it simply, Te types consider themselves to be the masters on internal logic hence they don't respect any system of logic unless impartial evidence can be sort after. I'll try to use my Flat earth scientist model here and it goes like this:
> 
> Te scientist:
> First speculates with various models about how the earth might be like. He generates various crack pot models all of which are regarded as logical. However the crucial difference is that the psyche doesn't value internal logic since it can hold paradoxically competing models of understanding. So the Te scientist seeks external evidence to minimize the deluge of models till the near perfect one is revealed.
> ...


What you are saying is correct, but only in a certain scenario. The way you describe them tends to put them in the auxuliary role. What I am trying to do in this thread is to create clarity ragarding this two functions and I think that if I start to comment on this now it would just create confusion. But I will tackle this in my next wall text


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

@TheRevaN 
Here's a tip: When describing the Te user, please refrain from using adjectives like "best." That seems more like a value judgement since you are placing values on certain systems. That is not Te's focus. Talk more about how Te chooses a system based on the goals the Te user wants to achieve and what works and does not work in other systems. 

Ask yourself this: _What does the Te user want out of it's government and how does it choose an existing system that will help the Te user meet such goals?
_


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

TheRevaN said:


> What you are saying is correct, but only in a certain scenario. The way you describe them tends to put them in the auxuliary role. What I am trying to do in this thread is to create clarity ragarding this two functions and I think that if I start to comment on this now it would just create confusion. But I will tackle this in my next wall text


Yes that it the easiest way to understand the difference as a beginner, however the difference isn't that big when they are in other positions. With summary:
_when Te is dom, the user will start out with the facts first before he decides to make sense of the data with perception. Whereas for the tertiary and inferior, a similar principle applies between the two positions where Te is just used to harness data for assisting some ulterior motive the psyche may have. 
_
I just want to assist you in clarifying the fact that Te doesn't build anything, it just harnesses data from the external world.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

TheRevaN said:


> So for the last few moths I have been reading a lot about the cognitive functions, and found out that a lot of descriptions contradict each other, are too vague or to specific and stereotypical and a lot of confusion appears. I had a very hard time understanding these things and extracting reliable info from them.
> 
> Not even to this day can I claim to have all the answers I seek. I started this tread for two reasons: first of all that my personal take on Te vs Ti could help some of you guys that are trying to type yourself or feel that you don't really understand the difference between this two functions. Second because I would really wish for some feedback on my thoughts. So let's get started.
> 
> ...


I think that your Te example sounds good. Te will use external evidence to draw conclusions, and strong Te users will maintain a respectable relationship with facts. That's why natural scientists like Darwin are Te users, and I think that it would also be very useful in social sciences. It makes sense that a Te-dom would determine that democracy works best and then attempt to implement it within his own country. The fact that democracy is becoming the status quo for first-world nations would definitely play a role in the Te decision-making process, too.

However, I'm afraid that I disagree with the Ti example. Yes, Martin would create his own political system with noticeable subjectivity. But the process that he'll use is much different than "A + B must indicate C, so I'll apply C to get D ...." The concept of "basic principles" that is often attributed to Ti seems like it actually fits Te better. Ti is thinking _for the sake of thinking_. It is motivated by its own ideas, and may not do well with specific assignments like, "Pick the best government." Instead, I think it would work more like this:

Martin is a high school student sitting in his World History class. The teacher is discussing the Soviet style of Communism, and Martin's Ti wonders if real Communism could actually work. He has limited knowledge about different styles of government, but he gets an idea about a particular way to combine Communism with Democracy to get ... blah, blah, blah. 

By the end of the period, Martin has come up with a theory for System XYZ that has very little grounding in real-world, objective data. But he's in love with the idea and wants to flesh it out more. So, with his Ti on fire, he skips lunch and heads to the library, where he finds a 600-page book, _The History of Political Systems_. He uses the data in the book to further develop his theory, but his interpretations are very subjective. Sometimes he just forces new data to fit within the theory, although he does make a couple of concessions and amends the theory accordingly.

For the next two months, Martin continues to refine the theory. He analyzes how it would play out in real life, adds more data to support the feasibility of the idea, and generally enjoys the process of _thinking_. His history teacher learns of his obsession, and thinks it's great. After some interesting discussions with Martin, he arranges to have Martin present his ideas to a panel of teachers. Martin is expected to offer a complete explanation of this theory, and clear guidelines for how it could be implemented in real-world scenarios.

This positive attention makes Martin feel a little sick. That's not what Ti wants to do. It doesn't care about explaining itself to others, and it doesn't want to be responsible for convincing them of the idea's validity. It just wants to play without worrying too much about how reality fits into it all.

... So anyway, this story could end a few different ways.
1) Martin finds a way to back out of the presentation, and completely loses interest in his theory. 
2) Martin presents his theory without making it "practical" enough, and he doesn't make much effort to convince the teachers about why it's a good idea.
3) I dunno ... some other possibility. 

Okay, enough rambling.


----------



## Zero11 (Feb 7, 2010)

The Ti-Te examples are always one-sided and in the end Ti sounds to be better than Te in all aspects :angry: this is totally wrong I mean you can clearly see the advantages from Ne over Ni and otherwise, but not so with the thinking functions. :sad:


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Coyote said:


> I think that your Te example sounds good. Te will use external evidence to draw conclusions, and strong Te users will maintain a respectable relationship with facts. That's why natural scientists like Darwin are Te users, and I think that it would also be very useful in social sciences. It makes sense that a Te-dom would determine that democracy works best and then attempt to implement it within his own country. The fact that democracy is becoming the status quo for first-world nations would definitely play a role in the Te decision-making process, too.
> 
> However, I'm afraid that I disagree with the Ti example. Yes, Martin would create his own political system with noticeable subjectivity. But the process that he'll use is much different than "A + B must indicate C, so I'll apply C to get D ...." The concept of "basic principles" that is often attributed to Ti seems like it actually fits Te better. Ti is thinking _for the sake of thinking_. It is motivated by its own ideas, and may not do well with specific assignments like, "Pick the best government." Instead, I think it would work more like this:
> 
> ...


Haha a Ti dominant perspective. Well I still did not write how Ti acts in different positions which I said that I will, but in your case yeah, it's thinking for the sake of thinking. But the introverted factor plays a special role here. The introvert values himself more than he values reality, so he is not that interested in making an impact. 
But my idea was that if you would have to solve this kind of problem, you would take a similar approach to Martin's.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> The Ti-Te examples are always one-sided and in the end Ti sounds to be better than Te in all aspects :angry: this is totally wrong I mean you can clearly see the advantages from Ne over Ni and otherwise, but not so with the thinking functions. :sad:


Mh........If you ask me Te users complain that Ti users are impractical, always wasting time with unrealistic theories, while Ti users complain that Te users are not original in their thinking. But this are just personal opinions.....

And Ti users because of their drive to create their own stuff, tend to disregard very good systems that already work very well, so here is a possible source of problems for the Ti user. I don't really want to dive into descriptions of xxTPs or xxTJs for now, but I will give my personal opinions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of Ti vs Te in a later post.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

TheRevaN said:


> Mh........If you ask me Te users complain that Ti users are impractical, always wasting time with unrealistic theories, while Ti users complain that Te users are not original in their thinking. But this are just personal opinions.....
> 
> And Ti users because of their drive to create their own stuff, tend to disregard very good systems that already work very well, so here is a possible source of problems for the Ti user. I don't really want to dive into descriptions of xxTPs or xxTJs for now, but I will give my personal opinions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of Ti vs Te in a later post.


 @_TheRevaN_
The *original thinking* aspect is just a bizarre stereotype that does make that much sense to me. I think you are confusing the SiTe arrogance with Te itself. Its the XSTJs who are traditionalist because Si goes for the "tried and tested", the sensory is focused on the "quality", hence it can discriminate anything not inline with the past. What you are describing as unoriginal thinking is when XSTJs are abusing Te by being quick to judge through focusing in on Te data that is inline with their desired position, instead of being fully honest with themselves. Te can think amazingly when used properly, plus the principle works for general Te "closedmindedness" in any type possessing the function.

Your second point is merely the misunderstanding of Te, it is very original. And similarly Ti users abuse their function when they are quick to judge external data due to the need to protect the internal model (Ti types version of close-mindedness). Though being honest it is not as easy to witness Ti close-mindedness occasionally as its less "in your face" in comparison to Te.


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Boolean11 said:


> @_TheRevaN_
> The *original thinking* aspect is just a bizarre stereotype that does make that much sense to me. I think you are confusing the SiTe arrogance with Te itself. Its the XSTJs who are traditionalist because Si goes for the "tried and tested", the sensory is focused on the "quality" hence it can discriminate anything not inline with the past. What you are describing as unoriginal thinking is when XSTJs are abusing Te by being quick to judge through focusing in on Te data that is inline with their desired position, instead of being fully honest with themselves. Te can think amazingly when used properly, by the way that principle works for general Te closedmindedness in any type possessing the function.
> 
> Your second point is merely the misunderstanding of Te, it is very original. And similarly Ti users abuse their function when they are quick to judge external data due to the need to protect the internal model (Ti types version of close-mindedness). Though being honest it is not as easy to witness Ti close-mindedness occasionally as its less "in your face" in comparison to Te.


Man I never described Te as being close-minded. I get the feel that you put words in my mouth and I think you missed my point. I am just saying that Te feels the need to follow a system that already proved itself to be good, while Ti feels the need to build his own systems.

And if you ask me, being close minded has nothing to do with MBTI. I am inclined to believe that the society in which you live afects this aspect of you personality much more than cognitive functions. And maybe Te users tend to slip in this error more easily, but I am not saying under any circumstances that this is an aspect of Te.


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

TheRevaN said:


> Man I never described Te as being close-minded. I get the feel that you put words in my mouth and I think you missed my point. I am just saying that Te feels the need to follow a system that already proved itself to be good, while Ti feels the need to build his own systems.
> 
> And if you ask me, being close minded has nothing to do with MBTI. I am inclined to believe that the society in which you live afects this aspect of you personality much more than cognitive functions. And maybe Te users tend to slip in this error more easily, but I am not saying under any circumstances that this is an aspect of Te.


Being "not original" is a characteristic that can be easily associated with close minded thinking. It comes of as an insult if you are to closely examine it. That's my whole problem with it, that is not even Te you are talking about when you state that. You are confusing Si with Te when you state that, I'm trying to explain to you that as simply being close-minded SiTe behavior, its not Te. 

"Te feels the need to follow a system that already proved itself to be good"
If I ever need to merely follow a system that is there, "good enough", its either: I'm being lazy, frustrated or don't really care about what anybody else thinks (it would be a nice way of telling somebody that I don't really care what they think). Being a perfectionist, I don't see how that is supposed to suit me in any way. 

*o·rig·i·nal/əˈrijənl/
*


Adjective:
Used or produced at the creation or earliest stage of something.
 Noun:
Something serving as a model or basis for imitations or copies: "the portrait may be a copy of the original".
 Synonyms:primary - genuine - primitive - primordial - initial
More info »Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

TheRevaN said:


> , but I am not saying under any circumstances that this is an aspect of Te.


Oh sorry, this clarified it a bit more


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

Zero11 said:


> The Ti-Te examples are always one-sided and in the end Ti sounds to be better than Te in all aspects this is totally wrong I mean you can clearly see the advantages from Ne over Ni and otherwise, but not so with the thinking functions.


If it helps, I'm insanely jealous of strong Te users. :tongue:



TheRevaN said:


> Haha a Ti dominant perspective. Well I still did not write how Ti acts in different positions which I said that I will, but in your case yeah, it's thinking for the sake of thinking.


Lol, yeah, I was a little biased there.  I'm sorry, I thought that we were basically focusing on Te- and Ti-doms. 'Cause when we start looking at T in other positions, then we're not seeing a healthy T function on its own. This is how Jung phrased it:



Jung said:


> Whenever a function other than thinking predominates in consciousness to any marked degree, thinking, so far as it is conscious at all and not directly dependent on the dominant function, assumes a negative character. If it is subordinated to the dominant function it may actually wear a positive aspect, but closer scrutiny will show that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that clearly contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking.


I have a hard time seeing how Ti could be used in a negative way (yeah, totally biased), but I guess it'd be more like the inferior function in Fe-doms than "real" Ti. And if it's being used to support the dominant function, then wouldn't we mostly see a perceiving function with some "logic" to back up its perceptions? (Or something, I dunno. You're the ESTP, so you tell me. )



> But the introverted factor plays a special role here. The introvert values himself more than he values reality, so he is not that interested in making an impact.


Absolutely. So how do you look at Te supporting an introverted perceiving function, and vice versa? Which direction is more important? What if we were to phrase it in a more Jungian way, such as Extraverted Sensation + Thinking?



> But my idea was that if you would have to solve this kind of problem, you would take a similar approach to Martin's.


That's still assuming that Ti has any sort of respect for practical concerns or external goals, like finding the best form of government based on how well different systems appear to work. You'd be better off making a claim like, "Democracy is the best form of government," which puts Ti into search-and-destroy mode. Then you might get a lot of "facts" about why democracy sucks, and have to sit through an impassioned speech about how logic dictates that we should all be communists. Ti-doms put the "Devil" in "devil's advocate." :tongue:

But that exemplifies how Ti works. It needs an idea to work from (or for), or else there's no spark. So if you put forth an argument in favor of a particular system of government, then a Ti user (Ti-dom?) will evaluate it, find holes in the logic, and start firing away. If his arguments against democracy seem to gel into an argument in favor of communism, then so be it. He'll defend communism to the death (or at least until the end of the debate). 'Cause Ti really isn't too concerned with whether democracy or communism is _actually_ the best form of government, it just wants to play around with the _idea_ of government.

I don't have an exact example to back up my argument, but I have a loosely related one that might be applicable. My educational background is in government ... specifically, international relations and U.S. foreign policy. (So this idea of "the best form of government" isn't exactly new to me.) My grad class on post-WWII relations obviously addressed the Cold War, which was something that had been covered in my IR classes for years. Usually, if nothing really captured Ti's interest on exams, then I simply recited facts and gave logical conclusions to hypothetical questions. For the midterm exam in that class, I was coasting by until I hit the long essay question regarding realism vs. idealism in the Cold War. I _knew_ what I was supposed to say in response, but my Ti locked in with an opposing theory and dug in its heels. I got a burst of energy, and wrote pages of an essay that defied traditional IR theory. I walked out of there knowing that I either aced it or failed. I ended up with a strong A, with a note that my essay was "original" and "interesting." There was some other comment about the rest of the exam, and how I showed a "great grasp" of the concepts or history or something ... I can't even remember because I _didn't care_. Those parts had nothing to do with me because they weren't my thoughts. They were just facts, and I was fulfilling my obligation by answering the questions. But the essay? That was all me, and I felt completely different while writing it. 

So if you give Ti the task of figuring out the best form of government, then yeah, maybe it'll pull together some facts and draw logical conclusions. But that's Ti indulging the demands of the external world, and does not exemplify how Ti would _prefer_ to operate. ... On the other hand, if you give a Ti user (Ti-dom?) that task and his Ti gets an idea, then it's gonna be more like you lit a fire under his ass. He's not going to patiently research facts and figures about why democracy is a good system, and then incorporate those concepts into his plagiarized "theory." He's gonna have the theory first, and then try to back it up. There's a lot of conviction that can go into Ti's ideas, and it's not based on how well things appear to work in the real world.

... So, that was like a long-winded way of saying that I think Martin's thought process seemed far too extraverted to characterize Ti. Let's start with this part: "So [Martin] starts thinking which are the BASIC PRINCIPLES of a good political system. And because democracy seems like a good political system, he identifies the BASIC PRINCIPLES of democracy."

Martin thinks that democracy seems like a good system (I don't know how he drew that conclusion), and tries to determine the components of a functional democracy so that he can appropriate them for his own use. How is that much different from Joe's process? Joe thinks that democracy seems like a good system (based on external data and value judgments), and tries to determine the components of a functional democracy so that he can appropriate them for his own use. Joe cares about implementing the ideas, while Martin seems content with just ripping off existing systems ... but that's not a Te vs. Ti issue. (Both forms of thinking can be highly creative or highly unproductive, they just work in different ways.)

These aren't exactly dissimilar: "Joe finds the best system (or theory, idea) out there in the world based on which system gives the best results and then starts using it. Martin looks at all of the systems out there, identifies their principles, finds the best principles, and then constructs a theory based on them." They seem like they're just phrased in different ways to place the focus on different parts of the process. If you were to combine them, you could get:

Patrick looks at all of the systems out there to see which ones give the best results. He identifies the principles that make them successful, and creates a customized theory for how such a system should ideally work. (Likely influenced by his own perspective on what his country needs.) Now that he understands how he wants the government to operate in this particular situation, he implements it.

(Yes, I know that you said things like "best principles" for Martin, but I don't understand what that means. How did Martin decide which were the "best"?)

... I think that this post has officially turned into a Wall of Text and I'm giving _myself_ a headache, so I'm gonna shut up now. :crazy:


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

> Ti-doms put the "Devil" in "devil's advocate."


True, I do that all the time! I try to view all sides of a situation and try to argue for and against each side. Once in college, we had to read a book which theorized that Abraham Lincoln was gay (author had a bias). We were assigned to write a theory arguing either for or against the evidence. Well personally I didn't buy the theory, but just for the fun of it, I decided to play devil's advocate. Unfortunately, the professor didn't get the joke...


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Well maybe I don't see such strong differences in Ti vs Te. After all they are both T functions. In my opinion the differences are very much exagerated and that's why people identify with both of them. 

As for the ESTP thing: for me Ti works much more "in real time". By that I mean that it usually guides me in my actions. It helps me spot very fast logical inconstencies, it "throws" me the basic principles which I need in order to make a situation work for me and it makes me a hell of a analyzer (yeah actually I was called the devil's advocate a lot of times). It is like a "voice in my head" that helps me from time to time.

Ok example: I am alone on the street coming home from the club. I spot 5 guys that all seem really drunk and are very loud and seem somehow aggressive.And then the voice starts "Drunk guys will pick on you if they think you are weak. Raise your head, slow your walk, look them in the eye one second, then turn your head forward." They go past me and one of them tells me "Man.... man come here a second I want to talk with you". Then the little voice:" Ignore him the first time.If he calls you again, turn around and act all friendly, pretending that you did not hear him."

And this example could go on and on and on. The voice (force) is always with me ))) And yeah I feel pretty lucky. 

And yeah sometimes I use Ti the same way that you do. But it tends to happen only when there is nothing else to do (or when I find something very interesting to discuss or whatever) . I become smart when I am bored )))

And regarding the Ti vs Te thing, if you want another way to formulate my view, I would resume it in the fact that Te usually only cares if a system works or not, while Ti is very interested in why it works or why it does not work.

And hell! I am bored of saying that I will go into this things into a latter post. 

Regarding the Te thing in auxiliary position, because the vision of the introvert is the most important thing, Te has the mission of protecting that vision most of the time (always coming up with all sorts of facts and clinical trials, or theories or whatever) that support the fact that his vision is correct. So it tends to only give credit to systems that match his vision.

For example if in his vision of a perfect world all people are free to do what they want, when they want to, he will definetely discard communism from the start. He won't even think about it, and if you bring the idea up, he will start getting very agressive always trying to prove you with examples, and facts (or whatever for that matter) that communism is devil bad.

To put it simply vision gets priority over efficience. And the Te acts in a normal way (let's say a Te dominant way) only if the subject has no kind of opinion on the matter discused ( which actually happens quite rarely) or until they learn that their vision might sometimes be flawed. Which some never do. So yeah IxTJs are typically very stubborn. I don't think I ever met an IxTJ who is not stubborn. Actually I can think about one. Ok whatever I am starting to ramble........


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

And yeah I am responding to questions. To hell with the nice organized post. 

If you have any questions or you want to argue (constructively) post here. And please not 10 questions at once.


----------



## Coyote (Jan 24, 2012)

TheRevaN said:


> Well maybe I don't see such strong differences in Ti vs Te. After all they are both T functions. In my opinion the differences are very much exagerated and that's why people identify with both of them.


I disagree because the difference between Introverted Thinking and Extraverted Thinking seems so big to me. But I think the problem is that we're looking at things through our own filters. Your dominant function is Extraverted Sensation, and Thinking might be more of a servant. Since your natural focus is extraverted, Extraverted Thinking probably doesn't seem as foreign to you as it does to me. 

(I'm assuming that we're not going to delve into the "Extraverted Sensation + Thinking" issue, which would make me phrase things in another way.)



> As for the ESTP thing: for me Ti works much more "in real time". By that I mean that it usually guides me in my actions. It helps me spot very fast logical inconstencies, it "throws" me the basic principles which I need in order to make a situation work for me and it makes me a hell of a analyzer (yeah actually I was called the devil's advocate a lot of times). It is like a "voice in my head" that helps me from time to time.
> 
> Ok example: I am alone on the street coming home from the club. I spot 5 guys that all seem really drunk and are very loud and seem somehow aggressive.And then the voice starts "Drunk guys will pick on you if they think you are weak. Raise your head, slow your walk, look them in the eye one second, then turn your head forward." They go past me and one of them tells me "Man.... man come here a second I want to talk with you". Then the little voice:" Ignore him the first time.If he calls you again, turn around and act all friendly, pretending that you did not hear him."
> 
> ...


And yet again, I am so jealous.  I used to fantasize about being an Se-dom badass. Not that I thought of it in those terms, but I wanted to act (and react) just like you described above. I actually intended to be a CIA field officer (a spy), and didn't realize until much later that I'm far, _far_ more appropriate as an analyst. Ah, sweet delusions. 

So yeah, Mr. ESTP. You have a fangirl. :crazy:



> And regarding the Ti vs Te thing, if you want another way to formulate my view, I would resume it in the fact that Te usually only cares if a system works or not, while Ti is very interested in why it works or why it does not work.


I would say that Te cares about whether it would work _and why_, because those are still external concerns. Ti cares about itself and its own ideas (more like "how can I get it to work?"). If an idea gets me all excited, then I don't really care if it'll work in reality. I can become a little fanatical about it, and any insistence that I'm being "unrealistic" will earn either a disinterested or annoyed reaction. 

Years ago, I took a class on urban planning that made brief mention of company towns. That sparked a long-term obsession with the idea of a company town that could be used to combine capitalism and communism, and form a utopia of sorts. I devoted so much time and energy to that project, even though it was unrealistic. (I still dreamed of making it a reality, but ... well, that's not really my style. :tongue 

But my focus wasn't on why it would or wouldn't work. It was more like ... this is what I want, now how do I get there? And all the blanks got filled in until the image was complete.

Perhaps a better example would be a project that I was working on this morning. I want to completely re-do a program that I wrote last year. At first, I piddled around with something like, "What do I have now and how should I change it to improve things?" But I couldn't really get anywhere with that thought-process. It _seemed_ rational and I came up with possible improvements, but it didn't feel natural. (That's when I usually end up getting bored and push things aside.) 

So I started over, and told myself to forget about the world. If there were no rules, how would I want the program to function? Then my juices started flowing, and I came up with a list of features. As I'd write a new one, if potential problems or additional details occurred to me, then I added them as notes. The next step is to take those desired features and turn them into specs based on how they can work together ... and how it would function in reality, although that's always my least favorite part. (It can kill my enthusiasm for any project, especially if I do it too early.) And then I fit the pieces together in code so that everything runs smoothly.

With some tweaking, I think that process could easily apply to Martin's task. He would start with imagining the system that he wants, and then figure out how to get there. (Kinda like how a Ti-dom will have a point that she wants to make, and then she'll end up on some long, meandering path to her goal. :tongue

In contrast, Te is more like a builder who demands a solid foundation. For example, look at Darwin (a Te-dom). He was very interested in explaining his observations and forming a cohesive theory based on logical conclusions drawn from the data. It was highly creative, but still totally grounded in reality.



> And hell! I am bored of saying that I will go into this things into a latter post.
> 
> Regarding the Te thing in auxiliary position, because the vision of the introvert is the most important thing, Te has the mission of protecting that vision most of the time (always coming up with all sorts of facts and clinical trials, or theories or whatever) that support the fact that his vision is correct. So it tends to only give credit to systems that match his vision.
> 
> ...


How is that so different from [unhealthy] Ti?



> And the Te acts in a normal way (let's say a Te dominant way) only if the subject has no kind of opinion on the matter discused ( which actually happens quite rarely) or until they learn that their vision might sometimes be flawed. Which some never do. So yeah IxTJs are typically very stubborn. I don't think I ever met an IxTJ who is not stubborn. Actually I can think about one. Ok whatever I am starting to ramble........


I think that some of the MBTI IXTJs would actually be Te-doms under Jung. But that's a different topic. 



TheRevaN said:


> If you have any questions or you want to argue (constructively) post here.


I hope that "constructively" wasn't aimed at me. :sad:


----------



## Boolean11 (Jun 11, 2012)

TheRevaN said:


> ...


 @_TheRevaN_ if you still need the differences explained see these pages (Ti & Te are not the same at all):

Introverted logic - Wikisocion
Extroverted logic - Wikisocion
Functions - Wikisocion (What the function positions mean)
Sensing Logical Extratim - Wikisocion *(This is your most likely type in socionics ESTp)*


*Si vs. Ni: a focus on one's environment and how it's affecting one's physical state vs. a focus on a situation's development over time and other underlying meanings

Se vs. Ne: active acquisition, control, and organization of visible territory and objects vs. active search for and development of invisible potential and emerging situations

Fi vs. Ti: evaluation according to personal sentiments vs.evaluation according to impersonal laws(mercy vs. justice)

Fe vs. Te: evaluation according to the people/social element involved vs. evaluation according to efficiency, effectiveness or objective reasoning*


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Haha sorry I don't know how to quote only parts of text (Idiot me. A little help?  )

Well your first point is a very good one. Actually my theorys tend to be very practical. I guess I simply see no pint in a theory that has nothing to do with reality. For example I recently started reading a book in which the author was proving his theory that angels have no sex ) Yeah maybe he is right, but I did not finish the book because I simply don't care. Yeah it is somehow funny and I understand that some people like thinking for the sake of thinking (and sometimes I enjoy it too) but what's the point?

Regarding you flattery, thanks. I appreciate it  

From your story I understand that you prefer creating things than fixing them (because you feel that your thought process is hindered by established rules?) . And if I understood it right, then yeah, I can totally relate to that 

Well for your next point this is what I have got: If you say something to a Ti user that contradicts his theory, he simply sees it as inccorect. On the other hand, an IxTJ actually has some sort of emotional attachement to his vision, so when you say something that clashes with it, he sees it as "evil". And unlike a dom Te user, even if you explain it that there is a better way to do something and he understands it, he will simply don't accept it. 

An here I have a good example: I met a friend of mine (ISTJ by my typing- very sure about it) a few days ago for a beer and he told me that he plans on moving in with a girl he met a few months ago. And here I started explaining him that this is not a good idea because that and that and that. And it's better to not go in a relationship of suge huge commitment at this age (we are very young - 20 years old) because this and this and that and etc.(the 2 h long explanation is irrelevant). The fact is that in the end he completely agreed with me but he said: "Yeah man I understand. But this is simply the way I want to do it, and it doesn't matter if it will turn out to be a mistake; I want to do this my way."

And this is what I mean by stubborn. They care much more about their vision than the results or whatever. They may agree that it is very probable that they are wrong, but they will still do it according to their vision of how things should be. A Te dom would never do this. NEVER EVER. They will actually thank you for helping them find a better way of doing things ) The difference is my opinion is huuuuuge.

And if you ask me a Ti user will not change his system, but being in the face of good arguments that contradict it, he will alter the system so it is logical consistent again. At least this is the way I tend to act. And I actually don't have any kind of problems doing this. Actually I like the idea of my systems being perfect, so I actually encourage negative feedback.(of course that is supported by good logical arguments; I hate the "This is like this because I know better than you (insert anything stupid there)" arguments. 


And it was not aimed at you. I actually like you


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Coyote said:


> I have a hard time seeing how Ti could be used in a negative way (yeah, totally biased)


 Cute bias. Negative way was described by Jung... 

*"With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating [p. 489] from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.
*
*The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself."* 




> Those parts had nothing to do with me because they weren't my thoughts. They were just facts, and I was fulfilling my obligation by answering the questions. But the essay? That was all me, and I felt completely different while writing it.


I relate to this way too much. -.- If I get into something that interests me, my interest is totally intensified if I can analyse the subject in my own way.




> So if you give Ti the task of figuring out the best form of government, then yeah, maybe it'll pull together some facts and draw logical conclusions. But that's Ti indulging the demands of the external world, and does not exemplify how Ti would _prefer_ to operate.


For a Ti-dom this might be an issue. For me, this is different, often I prefer Ti being a "servant" to extraversion. It doesn't feel a bad thing at all, it's very natural to me and enjoyable. But that's not true always that it's always comes second, at times it seems fully subjective and that's when I feel this attachment to my thinking as being part of myself that you talked about above. 




> ... On the other hand, if you give a Ti user (Ti-dom?) that task and his Ti gets an idea, then it's gonna be more like you lit a fire under his ass. He's not going to patiently research facts and figures about why democracy is a good system, and then incorporate those concepts into his plagiarized "theory." He's gonna have the theory first, and then try to back it up. There's a lot of conviction that can go into Ti's ideas, and it's not based on how well things appear to work in the real world.


Ti-dom, again. Even when I say it feels fully subjective, I come out of it soon, and I cannot imagine myself to do this rejection of facts. I'm rather patient in collecting information and over time I'll start to analyse it but not right away. And if the system is found to be incorrect when tested via observation of reality, I'll drop the system, though I much prefer it if I can replace it with a better system. (Because, why would I have bothered to build one if it wasn't important to me for some reason?)




> ... So, that was like a long-winded way of saying that I think Martin's thought process seemed far too extraverted to characterize Ti.


I agree it's described more from an extraverted viewpoint. But it's a pretty good example of Ti for me, mine's almost exactly like that... except for some more subjective parts that sometimes come up as nice ideas but again, my tolerance is not high for that, I can't go on for long unless it's actually mathematics, for some reason that's the exception, I can take that for pretty long.




> These aren't exactly dissimilar: "Joe finds the best system (or theory, idea) out there in the world based on which system gives the best results and then starts using it. Martin looks at all of the systems out there, identifies their principles, finds the best principles, and then constructs a theory based on them."


Nah, this is very different. Martin is concerned with his own theory which will help him reaching his original goal (yes, this is not dominant Ti but is Ti still), while Joe is not concerned with the theory for theory's sake. Maybe OP didn't word this in the clearest way but I got what he meant. (It helps that I'm the same type, I guess...)




> They seem like they're just phrased in different ways to place the focus on different parts of the process. If you were to combine them, you could get: Patrick looks at all of the systems out there to see which ones give the best results. He identifies the principles that make them successful, and creates a customized theory for how such a system should ideally work. (Likely influenced by his own perspective on what his country needs.) Now that he understands how he wants the government to operate in this particular situation, he implements it.


This is just T in general, having both I and E sides. So what?

The idea about focus on different parts is exactly what Jung said too btw. Ti and Te are the same sides of the T coin...




TheRevaN said:


> As for the ESTP thing: for me Ti works much more "in real time". By that I mean that it usually guides me in my actions. It helps me spot very fast logical inconstencies, it "throws" me the basic principles which I need in order to make a situation work for me and it makes me a hell of a analyzer (yeah actually I was called the devil's advocate a lot of times). It is like a "voice in my head" that helps me from time to time.
> 
> Ok example: I am alone on the street coming home from the club. I spot 5 guys that all seem really drunk and are very loud and seem somehow aggressive.And then the voice starts "Drunk guys will pick on you if they think you are weak. Raise your head, slow your walk, look them in the eye one second, then turn your head forward." They go past me and one of them tells me "Man.... man come here a second I want to talk with you". Then the little voice:" Ignore him the first time.If he calls you again, turn around and act all friendly, pretending that you did not hear him."
> 
> And this example could go on and on and on. The voice (force) is always with me ))) And yeah I feel pretty lucky.


That's so Se over Ti that it hurts. But yes there's Ti in it too. The "voice" is really good in helping to consider consequences eh?




> And yeah sometimes I use Ti the same way that you do. But it tends to happen only when there is nothing else to do (or when I find something very interesting to discuss or whatever) . I become smart when I am bored )))


Yeah... that's when I start reading hardcore math books and feel really smart because I can follow and understand the reasoning. 

Or I just come online on this forum and argue BS. (Ok, of course it's not BS, I was joking. I argue for what I actually believe in.)

I guess I'm ESTP > ISTP, for sure  We're way too similar in our Ti use. 




> So yeah IxTJs are typically very stubborn. I don't think I ever met an IxTJ who is not stubborn. Actually I can think about one. Ok whatever I am starting to ramble........


Yep that was rambling. Don't fall into the trap of stereotyping concrete character traits from cognitive thinking processes.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

I think Te can be best stereotyped in terms of personality as (in the dominant form) those people who tend to be really into "speaking their minds" on matters (always have to have a say on anything deemed important, especially something in which they can assert some kind of professional-looking authority over). I tend to find that these types are very into promoting their own awareness of all that can be consciously dealt with (i.e. big into talking about perceived "problems" or "problem scenarios" and how they would go about resolving them with some kind of forumla, which would be characteristic of the individual's personal nature). They tend to view their "feelings" (e.g. what they consider "likeable" and "unlikeable" against values of significance) *as* their thoughts, but rarely look the other way around (consciously to them, anyhow) at their thoughts (conclusions of valuation) reflecting their feelings (so, they might often distrust themselves when it comes to stating opinions, dealing with other people's feelings or wishes/hopes, unconscious desires, etc., or in sacrificing themselves to pleasurable experiences that they can't establish some kind of authority over - might often be the people who worry about how they're going to like something/stuff living up to their personal standards (this tends to be where Fi doms project "tyranny" onto them, even though this is kind of inaccurate, as Te doms are roughly in touch with the feeling process, while Fi doms are the real tyrants in terms of stuff "living up to standards," since these types know why they even care about their standards to begin with, but they just tend to be rather horrible at actually establishing their standards realistically) - the inferior Fe types are pretty much the same when it comes to the arbitrariness of personal satisfaction/likes and dislikes). They tend to be fantastic problem-solvers of almost anyone's problems but their own personal issues (and might make excuses about how much they go out of the way for others to defend this weakness, depending on how repressed their inferior actually is). Very honest/sincere evaluators and straight-talkers - tend to be aware of what they don't like more than what they like (in terms of actual matters of importance and self awareness - not the "likes/dislikes" themselves - everyone obviously knows that they like their likes and dislike their dislikes, but establishing these toward criteria of significance/personal identity, what influences one in terms of likes/dislikes on the ego level, is another matter).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

It helps a lot to just examine the types in terms of their "mirror image" types to understand the important effects of the dom and inferior on their personalities. For instance, looking at Ti doms and Fe doms as mirror images boils down their type conflicts to the following: 

Dom. Ti - great as self-expression/ Inferior Fe - rough at knowing what to express and what not to express (sort of cause what they stand for to backfire on them if their Fe is too inferior)
Dom. Fe - great at knowing what to express and what not to express/ Inferior Ti - rough at self-expression (might be viewed as fakes or unoriginal thinkers if they don't get a grip on their subjective thinking side)

With Te and Fi doms, it can be boiled down to this:

Dom. Te - great at living up to their own standards/ Inferior Fi - rough at knowing whether or not it's something they should care about
Dom. Fi - great at knowing what they should care about/ Inferior Te - rough at living up to their own standards (so, they might look like sell-outs or rip-off artists if they are too inferior in the Te department)


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> It helps a lot to just examine the types in terms of their "mirror image" types to understand the important effects of the dom and inferior on their personalities. For instance, looking at Ti doms and Fe doms as mirror images boils down their type conflicts to the following:
> 
> Dom. Ti - great as self-expression/ Inferior Fe - rough at knowing what to express and what not to express (sort of cause what they stand for to backfire on them if their Fe is too inferior)
> Dom. Fe - great at knowing what to express and what not to express/ Inferior Ti - rough at self-expression (might be viewed as fakes or unoriginal thinkers if they don't get a grip on their subjective thinking side)
> ...


I know I might be sound like a complete dumbass, but Ti is about self-expression? I thought it was personalized logical analysis.


----------

