# Help, what's the difference between Te and Ti?



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Maybe indeed. But it's much more complicated with Te, since especially when they are under surveillance of someone else, they instantly start thinking of "what message does it deliver?" That Te-specific double-thinking is the reason why Te-users consider it a crime to litter in the public, but not a crime when they litter a place that is already full of trash.
> 
> Fe-users share many similarities to Te-users, but they act differently. For example, for Fe-users (xxFJ types), absolutely everything is purely circumstantial, and when an Fe-user appears shy or passive, it is mostly because they see the issue as "being not important enough". Te-users function differently, as their shyness or passiveness stems from "not knowing how to exactly solve the issue" or from confusion with not knowing what the issue is, not from "seeing it as unimportant".
> 
> ...


Do you see how much of your interpretation of the world and understanding of other people is evaluative? It jumps out at me when I read this. 

Thinking (in the Jungian sense) isn't about guilt or shame at all. It's about what makes sense period. 

The Te user asks "is this the best use of my time?". The Ti user asks "what can I personally bring to this? and is the project a good fit?". The former is looking to make comparisons out in the world, the later is scanning the internal storehouse. If I feel guilty it comes from activation of another function.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

Old Intern said:


> @_Kavik_ yes, yes I resonate with what you are saying, with one bit of fine tuning?
> My Ne might be what causes me to flinch a little about the internal model thing; I've heard that said other places too, but . . . .
> For me it's more like I need to be able to own it. I *don't have to agree* with it but untill I'm able to follow a train of thought in my own words it will be like loose ends, the filing system got messy and it will nag at me. I have to figgure out where to file it.
> 
> I think this has a side effect of what a friend said was an all or nothing thing about me? I have to decide that some things are extra or not now, as a whole category or compartmentalizing of life because otherwise I would go crazy.


Perhaps. Ne likes to spread out and create many ideas from like a ripple effect, and Ti isn't your primary function. Your Ti may be trying to make sense of your Ne that's running ahead of it. As Ti dom, I draw from and sort Ni which learns from Se. Ni coalesces and condenses one idea from many like gathering material that tightly compresses into a star saying 'aha!' and my Ti decides whether one of Ni's many conclusions is correct or stupid according to logical, already known data in Ti's vast data base. Ti checks Ni and adapts to the ideas it brings forth.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Kavik said:


> Perhaps. Ne likes to spread out and create many ideas from like a ripple effect, and Ti isn't your primary function. Your Ti may be trying to make sense of your Ne that's running ahead of it. As Ti dom, I draw from and sort Ni which learns from Se. Ni coalesces and condenses one idea from many like gathering material that tightly compresses into a star saying 'aha!' and my Ti decides whether one of Ni's many conclusions is correct or stupid according to logical, already known data in Ti's vast data base. Ti checks Ni and adapts to the ideas it brings forth.


My Ti is definately the employee of N and not the other way around. I don't use N to feed Ti, Ti is always trying to keep up. So I'm agreeing with you, but I spend a big proportion of time and focus on thinking. The Ne hot air balloon or delivery truck just keeps on coming whether I want it to or not?:frustrating:


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Do you see how much of your interpretation of the world and understanding of other people is evaluative? It jumps out at me when I read this.
> 
> Thinking (in the Jungian sense) isn't about guilt or shame at all. It's about what makes sense period.
> 
> The Te user asks "is this the best use of my time?". The Ti user asks "what can I personally bring to this? and is the project a good fit?". The former is looking to make comparisons out in the world, the later is scanning the internal storehouse. If I feel guilty it comes from activation of another function.


Not to disprove anything you've said, I just think that all the parts that remain mysterious or evaluative to you are probably not flaws in knowledge, but flaws in my explaining. It's just super difficult to explain cognitive function differences to someone who does not get the main idea I want to convey while reading this, but instead takes my examples, explanations etc. at face value. 

It's as if I know what I want to say, but it's hard to put it in words sometimes. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that english is not my first language 

That is part of why I keep posting in this forum - not to learn something in particular, but to get better and more precise at explaining.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

KraChZiMan said:


> Not to disprove anything you've said, I just think that all the parts that remain mysterious or evaluative to you are probably not flaws in knowledge, but flaws in my explaining. It's just super difficult to explain cognitive function differences to someone who does not get the main idea I want to convey while reading this, but instead takes my examples, explanations etc. at face value.
> 
> It's as if I know what I want to say, but it's hard to put it in words sometimes. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that english is not my first language
> 
> That is part of why I keep posting in this forum - not to learn something in particular, but to get better and more precise at explaining.


 My commenting was more on what seemed (to me) to be incidental to your style or type; I was not criticizing content. Please don't take my analysis of you as a judgement or a complaint; none was intended. 

BTW, I've enjoyed quite a few of your posts and threads. You seem to express yourself quite well and often in an entertaining or inventive way.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

I was told in another thread that I 'write like a Te type'. I use too many words (which I really don't). I'm not sure how you'd determine whether someone is concise or not by the number of words they use; from my view my language is as sufficient as it needs to be to get the point across (and I do constantly rework it in my mind). Isn't Ti logical consistency, and can be a little more vague by comparison to Te?


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Kyora said:


> Hum Hi
> 
> So I've been trying to understand the cognitive functions but I still don't understand Te and Ti... I know that Te is an objective judging function and that Ti is a subjective judging function. But even when reading the descriptions, I don't get it...
> Would someone be so kind as to help me understand Te and Ti? Could you also bring examples? I'm sorry if I'm being a pain in the ass... I just want to understand so as to be able to type people (and ultimately my boyfriend...).
> ...


I find the phrase "subjective logic" and "objective logic" to be confusing because logic to me is always an objective thing. So I guess subjective/objective here don't really mean what they usually mean.

I think in cognitive function "subjective" means all on your own, while "objective" means depending on the outside world (standard), for the outside world, for an immediate purpose.

So Ti is often pure thinking and reasoning that don't often has a practical purpose but rather strike for some sort of ultimate personal ideal of being logical or becoming the master of thinking/ logic.

Te is often goal-oriented and practical. I feel like it's more efficient in decision making. It also seems to be more depending on evidence, while Ti can totally do fine with just reasoning.

Just my two cents. Not a T type so correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

uncertain said:


> I find the phrase "subjective logic" and "objective logic" to be confusing because logic to me is always an objective thing. So I guess subjective/objective here don't really mean what they usually mean.
> 
> I think in cognitive function "subjective" means all on your own, while "objective" means depending on the outside world (standard), for the outside world, for an immediate purpose.
> 
> ...


That's how I thought Te was, to have that practical goal in accordance to value decisions; i.e. 'will to power', whereas Ti values logical, deductive reasoning above all else; ego-then-world vs world-then-ego. But this whole thing about 'conciseness' is kind of nagging me.


----------



## izebize (Jan 31, 2012)

Kavik said:


> Ti – wants internal world to make sense. Flexible.
> Te – wants external world to make sense. Inflexible.





LostFavor said:


> I'd say the most distinguishable difference I've seen is that as a Te-aux, I need for information to find its way back to observable phenomenon. I can only theorize for a short period of time before I have to ground it in something - anything - that is remotely concrete, or tied to something concrete.


Well according to these replies I'm a Te user too... which is somewhat confusing because I'm quite sure I'm Fe and not Fi. Now how do I make this work? 
Or it may be that I'm an S type, and Sensors rely on concrete informations?


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

Death Note = the epic battle between Ti and Te
L = Ti
Light = Te

(Attached thumbnail of L by himself won't go away. Very eerie)


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

izebize said:


> Well according to these replies I'm a Te user too... which is somewhat confusing because I'm quite sure I'm Fe and not Fi. Now how do I make this work?
> Or it may be that I'm an S type, and Sensors rely on concrete informations?


Yeah, could be the S part. Do you feel the same way if it's described as a need for something to be "grounded in reality," as opposed to "relying on concrete information"?

It's a subtle difference, but I would say it's the difference between "fact" and "observation" - the latter of which is more akin to how it works for me, i.e. I don't need to consider something a "fact" for it to be grounding. I just need to have seen it happen.


----------



## Elinathopie (May 23, 2014)

Te is more prone to giving orders and leading a group. It can also be very aggressive or blunt at times.
Ti would rather learn things on their own. It's a little more logical (not necessarily smarter) as it doesn't need others and is less emotional.


----------



## Kavik (Apr 3, 2014)

izebize said:


> Well according to these replies I'm a Te user too... which is somewhat confusing because I'm quite sure I'm Fe and not Fi. Now how do I make this work?
> Or it may be that I'm an S type, and Sensors rely on concrete informations?


Ti is kind of weird as a sensor, or it could just be my Ni. My internal world arranges itself to the external world through internal impressions of what I experience(Se to Ni) which is then filtered by Ti. It seems N, but it is not because of where the mental food is found (Se).


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

uncertain said:


> I find the phrase "subjective logic" and "objective logic" to be confusing because logic to me is always an objective thing. So I guess subjective/objective here don't really mean what they usually mean.
> 
> I think in cognitive function "subjective" means all on your own, while "objective" means depending on the outside world (standard), for the outside world, for an immediate purpose.
> 
> ...


think Freudian object/subject. . . . 

TV show Criminal minds talks about the UnSub = unknown subject, the self they track down to find who is commiting the crimes. Or the phrase Object of my Affection - object is other or external. Subject for freud was the subject of his study.

Common use (today) of these words make people associate emotionalism or personal bias but that wasn't the clinical term Jung would have used, being that he was a contemportary of Freud.

Ti is focused on our own internal workings about the objects out there. Te relies on getting correct and direct specifics about what is out there.

Same with Fe and Fi. My esfp dad needs to be liked but somehow sees everything as reflective and validating or non supportive and dissapproving of his own standards. He imagines what other people will imagine about him, assuming they use the same measure he uses. This still serves him well I guess because he magnatizes people of like personalities, values or interests.

I on the other hand, have a much clearer assesment of what the people around me are like, (how they function, and where they are at, not how are they thinking or feeling about me), - what they prioritize, body language that says they "get it" (or not - when I'm talking), choices they make that I abstract meaning about. One example would be knowing which customers go for cute products, which ones like to feel like they worked me for a deal, which ones are relatively gentle spirits, which ones like to think of themselves as quality, or bad-ass, etc.

Of course these are all questions of proportion, what we do the most, or use as our home base of opperation. I can go on a fact finding mission but this still serves me through Ti. A curiosity or inventive intention I have for use beyond the facts themselves will be a driver.

One outstanding comment of Jung, was that Ti loves thinking for it's own sake. This is not the same as wanting to be percieved as an intellectual which could be Fi.


----------



## izebize (Jan 31, 2012)

LostFavor said:


> Yeah, could be the S part. Do you feel the same way if it's described as a need for something to be "grounded in reality," as opposed to "relying on concrete information"?
> 
> It's a subtle difference, but I would say it's the difference between "fact" and "observation" - the latter of which is more akin to how it works for me, i.e. I don't need to consider something a "fact" for it to be grounding. I just need to have seen it happen.


Well, I don't really know how to put this - I want evidence. I find it hard to believe in things that are a) not proven, or b) which I haven't experienced/seen happening. I'm not saying that I dismiss them, but I'm skeptical about them.
I checked the description of Te and Ti here, and I relate more to Te than to Ti. But that would make me a T-type which I'm sure I'm not. Also I'm still quite sure about using Fe.
Maybe I should just give up trying to type myself :dry:


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

izebize said:


> Well, I don't really know how to put this - I want evidence. I find it hard to believe in things that are a) not proven, or b) which I haven't experienced/seen happening. I'm not saying that I dismiss them, but I'm skeptical about them.
> I checked the description of Te and Ti here, and I relate more to Te than to Ti. But that would make me a T-type which I'm sure I'm not. Also I'm still quite sure about using Fe.
> Maybe I should just give up trying to type myself :dry:


This is just due to you being an Si-dom, I think, not as much to do with using Ti or Te.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

izebize said:


> Well, I don't really know how to put this - I want evidence. I find it hard to believe in things that are a) not proven, or b) which I haven't experienced/seen happening. I'm not saying that I dismiss them, but I'm skeptical about them.
> I checked the description of Te and Ti here, and I relate more to Te than to Ti. But that would make me a T-type which I'm sure I'm not. Also I'm still quite sure about using Fe.
> Maybe I should just give up trying to type myself :dry:


Sporadic Aura is probably right that it has to do with Si. 

Now I'm gonna have to give this some more thought. Seems the distinguishing factor is not as distinguishing as it needs to be.


----------



## izebize (Jan 31, 2012)

Sporadic Aura said:


> This is just due to you being an Si-dom, I think, not as much to do with using Ti or Te.





LostFavor said:


> Sporadic Aura is probably right that it has to do with Si.
> 
> Now I'm gonna have to give this some more thought. Seems the distinguishing factor is not as distinguishing as it needs to be.


Oh thank you. Now I don't have to type myself again 
But now I would like to know what REALLY distinguishes Te from Ti...


----------

