# Can You Give Easy, Real Life Examples Of Ti vs Te?



## OP

Handsome Jack said:


> This comic might help, but the example for Te is incorrect: Te vs Ti simplified
> 
> The Te example is incorrect: Te wouldn't conclude that all stick figures are bald just because the stick figures it has observed are bald. Te would instead ask itself what it could do with that information-- why this is relevant, how it could be useful. For example, if we were a cosmetics company looking to market our products then this area with a lot of bald people would be ideal for our hair growth formulas.
> 
> Be wary of Ti and Fi users on the internet who have the tendency to dumb down Te to brutish and simplified logic, cognitive function bias is rampant on the internet.










This part doesn't make sense. If Te takes knowledge from Ti, it doesn't mean that Ti has lost that knowledge (unless they forget it on their own). I'm pretty sure there's a saying in my culture that's something like "Knowledge is the only thing that can't be stolen from you" but I can't remember it at the moment.


----------



## Bhathaway

Stawker said:


> *Disclaimer: This argument may or may not have happened in my life*.
> 
> 
> PS yes I admit to depicting Ti in its most retarded form but honestly, even the most intelligent Ti mostly seems retarded to me. Unless you're among that special minority of Ti-doms who actually recognize the need to be objective and read good books and don't fantasize about becoming a genius just by reading them. Same applies to Te users too, but even the most retarded Te user is easier to deal with (something to do with my Te? probably) than the Ti. At least Te, in whatever form, recognizes the importance of objective data and facts. So you know you can deal with them. But Ti? What does Ti recognize? Nothing but itself.


You did fine. I'm a Ti dom(INTP, not infj as the thing says on username). I can assure you, Te lost the argument quite handedly. It is correct that just because others have gotten out doesn't mean that the new person can be certain that they will get out too. It is a different situation and person. Then Te made a false equivalency. Ti isn't particularly about the produce of the conversation but rather accuracy. Giving false hope in the case of Te in this situation could turn out to be bad, whereas without Te's certainty claim it is possible the person could have gotten used to and accepted his/her new position. Te lost the minute "certain" was said. Every subsequent argument would have also had to convey absolute certainty otherwise his argument changes and no longer follows the super structure of his original statement.


----------



## OP

Bhathaway said:


> You did fine. I'm a Ti dom(INTP, not infj as the thing says on username). I can assure you, Te lost the argument quite handedly. It is correct that just because others have gotten out doesn't mean that the new person can be certain that they will get out too. It is a different situation and person. Then Te made a false equivalency. Ti isn't particularly about the produce of the conversation but rather accuracy. Giving false hope in the case of Te in this situation could turn out to be bad, whereas without Te's certainty claim it is possible the person could have gotten used to and accepted his/her new position. Te lost the minute "certain" was said. Every subsequent argument would have also had to convey absolute certainty otherwise his argument changes and no longer follows the super structure of his original statement.


Um... check his profile. He's probably an ENTJ. And by probably, I mean there's a >99% chance. *hides*


----------



## Bhathaway

OP said:


> Um... check his profile. He's probably an ENTJ. And by probably, I mean there's a >99% chance. *hides*


Wait do you mean me or do you mean the guy I quoted?
I can assure you I am a Ti dom. Moderate on N preference but most definently a Ti dom.


----------



## OP

Bhathaway said:


> Wait do you mean me or do you mean the guy I quoted?
> I can assure you I am a Ti dom. Moderate on N preference but most definently a Ti dom.


The guy you quoted, of course. I just got confused when you said he "did fine" and then you assured him that "Te lost the argument quite handedly" when he's the Te dom in the conversation.


----------



## Stawker

Bhathaway said:


> You did fine. I'm a Ti dom(INTP, not infj as the thing says on username). I can assure you, Te lost the argument quite handedly. It is correct that just because others have gotten out doesn't mean that the new person can be certain that they will get out too. It is a different situation and person. Then Te made a false equivalency. Ti isn't particularly about the produce of the conversation but rather accuracy. Giving false hope in the case of Te in this situation could turn out to be bad, whereas without Te's certainty claim it is possible the person could have gotten used to and accepted his/her new position. Te lost the minute "certain" was said. Every subsequent argument would have also had to convey absolute certainty otherwise his argument changes and no longer follows the super structure of his original statement.


The statement Te made was: ''You can be certain that it is entirely possible to make it out''.
He isn't saying that the INFP can make it out, he is simply telling him that it is possible to make it out which is a fact.

Seems like it's a theme with Ti users to only notice subtleties that they can project not the subtleties that actually are there....


----------



## Bhathaway

Stawker said:


> The statement Te made was: ''You can be certain that it is entirely possible to make it out''.
> He isn't saying that the INFP can make it out, he is simply telling him that it is possible to make it out which is a fact.
> 
> Seems like it's a theme with Ti users to only notice subtleties that they can project not the subtleties that actually are there....


You still can't be certain haha. The other person's situation has nuances about it that are different that may truly make it impossible to get out, thus we cannot be certain that it is possible to get out.
Yes I understand this is stretching the limits of logic and being a dick about specificity, but this is what Ti does. It is concerned with absolute and utter logical soundness and accuracy. It is not concerned with external trends, unless it makes perfect conceptual sense it is still bothersome. Ti vs Te


----------



## Monroe

Bhathaway said:


> You did fine. I'm a Ti dom(INTP, not infj as the thing says on username). I can assure you, Te lost the argument quite handedly. It is correct that just because others have gotten out doesn't mean that the new person can be certain that they will get out too. It is a different situation and person. Then Te made a false equivalency. Ti isn't particularly about the produce of the conversation but rather accuracy. Giving false hope in the case of Te in this situation could turn out to be bad, whereas without Te's certainty claim it is possible the person could have gotten used to and accepted his/her new position. Te lost the minute "certain" was said. Every subsequent argument would have also had to convey absolute certainty otherwise his argument changes and no longer follows the super structure of his original statement.


I ironically reason the way people say Ti does in this thread, because I would have taken the earlier track as in I would go Te's way. I don't think I agree it is a false equivalency in that when you are speaking of depression, there has to be a standard to approach. Yes, if you were a doctor, you would adjust your approach based on the success of the treatment approach, but in general, it's not wrong to say there have been successful cases and it's not a zero-sum game for you either.


----------



## Bhathaway

Monroe said:


> I ironically reason the way people say Ti does in this thread, because I would have taken the earlier track as in I would go Te's way. I don't think I agree it is a false equivalency in that when you are speaking of depression, there has to be a standard to approach. Yes, if you were a doctor, you would adjust your approach based on the success of the treatment approach, but in general, it's not wrong to say there have been successful cases and it's not a zero-sum game for you either.


I agree. Depression absolutely has a standardized approach, my bone to pick is not with having the standardized approach. The bone to pick is with the word "certain." Implying that with 100% confidence you can get out, but this may not be true in any given situation. Their situation may genuinely make it impossible to get out of depression for the rest of their lives, thus Te by seeing a standardized approach has generalized it to all situations and removed the potential for whatever is left (possible). ISTPs also reason more assertively than INTPs. INTPs are the kings of pointing out the stupidest most insignificant flaws(just read some philosophy paper critiques lmao).


----------



## Stawker

Bhathaway said:


> You still can't be certain haha. The other person's situation has nuances about it that are different that may truly make it impossible to get out, thus we cannot be certain that it is possible to get out.
> Yes I understand this is stretching the limits of logic and being a dick about specificity, but this is what Ti does. It is concerned with absolute and utter logical soundness and accuracy. It is not concerned with external trends, unless it makes perfect conceptual sense it is still bothersome. Ti vs Te


If this is what Ti does, Ti truly is retarded.

Let me uppercase the words that matter in the statement:

"You CAN be certain that it is entirely POSSIBLE to make it out''.

Consider an analogous case: You want to apply to a College but your GPA is just 3.5. I come in and tell you that given your credentials, it is 'possible' that you can make it if you don't fuck up the interview. I cite various examples of students with the same credentials as yourself to support my statement. Your initial doubt that 'it's impossible with my GPA' is what I'm treating. And it's now treated. It's possible. But whether it will be the case or not, depends on you. 

In this situation, I would say something like: You can be certain that it is entirely POSSIBLE to be admitted. The certainty is about the fact of making it, not about your making it.

Kindly notice the details that actually are there instead of creating details that just can't be found anywhere in that entire debate.


----------



## The red spirit

Stawker said:


> Ti: This is the third time you've changed the topic.
> Te: Go fuck yourself.
> Ti: What a sore loser.


This would had been enough, it's hilarious as fuck :laughing:


----------



## Bhathaway

Stawker said:


> If this is what Ti does, Ti truly is retarded.
> 
> Let me uppercase the words that matter in the statement:
> 
> "You CAN be certain that it is entirely POSSIBLE to make it out''.
> 
> Consider an analogous case: You want to apply to a College but your GPA is just 3.5. I come in and tell you that given your credentials, it is 'possible' that you can make it if you don't fuck up the interview. I cite various examples of students with the same credentials as yourself to support my statement. Your initial doubt that 'it's impossible with my GPA' is what I'm treating. And it's now treated. It's possible. But whether it will be the case or not, depends on you.
> 
> In this situation, I would say something like: You can be certain that it is entirely POSSIBLE to be admitted. The certainty is about the fact of making it, not about your making it.
> 
> Kindly notice the details that actually are there instead of creating details that just can't be found anywhere in that entire debate.


Sigh....okay. If I say "you can be certain that it is possible for you to make it out of depression" 

Can be certain implies 100%
Possible to make it out of depression implies your chances of making it out of depression are greater than 0%. Thus you can be 100% positive that your chances of making it out of depression are above 0%. HOWEVER(not even accounting for determinism proving the prior statement false in some scenarios), there is no way that you know that the person has a possibility of getting out of depression with above a 0% chance. That person may very well have a 0% chance of getting out of depression. You simply don't know. Thus implying with certaintly that it is possible for the person to get out of depression is not possible. 

Ti is not retarded, it is simply thorough. On philosophy being thorough like this is extremely important because assumptions that are taken for granted can take you to extreme conclusion.

If you were to say "You can say for certain that it is possible to make it out of depression" yes that it true, as examples already exist of others getting out of depression. Saying "You can say for certain that it is possible FOR YOU to make it out of depression" would be wrong.


----------



## Stawker

Bhathaway said:


> "You can say for certain that it is possible to make it out of depression"
> "You can say for certain that it is possible FOR YOU to make it out of depression"


Notwithstanding the fact that Te upholds the former, is there really any difference between the two? You say that the chance of his making it out of depression can be 0%. But how can that be? only if his depression is incurable (let's imagine such a depressive case does exist). Which would render the entire mentioning of statistics false because the comparison population is no longer appropriate. The relevant population now would be people with that particular kind of depression. And since 'incurable' is in the name of that depression, well, the possibility will be 0% -- excluding false positives.

Now unless your idea of probability is something like we don't know the probability of something unless it does happen (the extreme skeptical position -- e.g 'you don't know the coin will yield a head with 1/2 probability, what if it suspends in air?'), then I can't really do anything about that skepticism. That skepticism is just self-defeating. You can keep applying the same logic on the skepticism itself (after all, there's no reason not to; in the same way there's no reason to not suspect reality of betraying itself) and forever keep fluctuating between skepticism and not skepticism.


----------



## Cobble

I think that the Te and Ti conflict stated in the example doesn't come from logic, but from direction.

The Ti-guy is pissed off because Te-guy related the Fi-guy depression to "something else than himself". With his argument, he's trying to say that the Fi-guy is a unique person with his own individuality. (tendencies to focus "inward") Unfortunately, the way of saying it was clumsy.

Whereas Te-guy is pissed off because he tried to help by showing external objective datas to encourage the Fi-guy to get better. (tendencies to focus "outward") 

Both statements make sense, but there are communication problems leading to a deaf-deaf conversation.


*My INTP point of view on (major, chronic) depression.*

I suffered from depression with suicidal thoughts for almost 15 years (as long as I remember, it began at 6 years old and ended at ~20.) Now, I'm more-than-super-fine.

Ti approach to regulate problems is directed inward, so directed in individuality.
Te approach to regulate problems is directed outward, so directed in people/world as a whole.

As someone who suffered from depression and who positively counseled people in it, I have the conviction that depression is an internal conflict. In order to help a depressive person, you have to guide this person inward so that he can find his Self (more Fi/Ti related)- WHILE encouraging him to go and build an environment positive for his mind (more Fe/Te related). (That _"Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self esteem, first make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes."_ quote.)


*Usual symptoms for major depression *(and not simple sadness) are :

- Feelings of helplessness and hopelessness.
- Loss of interest in, everything.
- Loss of energy.
- Self-loathing.
- Self-destruction tendencies (reckless actions, thoughts of suicide, suicidal attempts).
- Concentration problems. (+ A certain blindness to the objective, physical world.)


Someone suffering of major depression with suicidal thoughts DOESN'T think and see the world as a "normal, sane, (a bit sad and feeling hopeless but not so hopeless) person". It's not a simple hopelessness where you encountered failures, and are scared of meeting failures. It's a pure, genuine, hopelessness. Showing hope only re-enforces the hopelessness. Someone suffering of major chronic depression doesn't even know if going back to a "normal life without depression like any normal person" is actually the solution. Don't encourage a depressive person to think like a sane person, because the depressive person knows that : "He tries, but never manages to do it. Even when he manages to it in short period, he falls EVEN MORE DEEPLY into depression afterwards... and the hopelessness gets even stronger, because it's like an eternal loop. The more you run away, the more it devours you."

*
Te and Fe's usual/clumsy approaches on depression.*

I think that (immature) Te and Fe's usual approaches on depression tend to be destructive to any (major chronic) depressive person. Te encourage to action, and encourage to see the outside world to get inspired. Fe encourage positive feelings, and encourage the person to "cheer up". While it's effective when the subject is sane but simply weakened. It often :
- Ends up with the depressive person feeling even guiltier about feeling depressive. ("But... I don't want to do anything... nothing in this world have any sense... nothing... I actively want to get out of this state, but actually, I don't know if I REALLY want to get out of this state....")
- Ends up with the depressive person feeling even even guiltier about feeling depressive. ("People manage to laugh, smile, live their life so happily and normally... whereas I don't... something is wrong with ME. *increased self loathing*")
- Leading the depressive person getting even even more depressive.

That's also why depressive persons have a tendency to cut social contacts. Because they end up hurting him more than helping him. There's also a strong need to focus in.

*
A call of introverted functions.*

The way I see depression. Depression is a callous HURL of the inside. Feeling hopeless, with no purpose, and having suicidal thought *is NOT a problem*. The problem mostly comes from a lack of touch to the inner Self. The paradox is that for getting out of depression, you have to accept depression as a gift of your body and mind. When you understand that these thoughts come from somewhere - for a good reason - accept the pain as presented - and everything involved in this - it's the first step to the cure and the first step to action. (I might be biased by my Ti-ness on this approach, but I also observed that from Te and Fe dom/aux.)

It doesn't mean that you have to let the depressive person wander alone in his depressive state. (It's a highly dangerous state. Just imagine that there's someone that has murder intent towards you every second of your life, and that this someone is with you every second of your life - since this person with murder intents toward you - is yourself. Totally a _"My worst ennemy is myself"_ shit.) There are multiple ways to help them.



*Some tips to support depressive people.*


 If you have the abilities and knowledges to do it, you can guide and counsel the person so that he can understand his pain deeper and connect with himself as an individual. (Fi/Ti guiding-feeding) You have to listen to the pain without judging and encourage the person to actively listen to the pain instead of merely suffering from it. Let him understand that the pain is here to tell him something important, and that the depression is a quest. Of course, each case is different and that's why active listening is important.

If you suck at this, don't try this shit because you can end up creating even more pain. 


 It you suck at this but wants to help anyway (Whether you're a Te/Fe/Ti/Fi dom/aux), you can use more Te-Fe oriented ways of helping : 
>> (prerequisite) Understand that suffering major depression *=/= *feeling very depressed.
>> (prerequisite) Give the person the right to be sad.
>> Show support if your support is reliable ("If I can help you for anything, feel free to ask" - note : If you say that but betrays your words, it can be dangerous.)
>> Show that the person is valuable to your eyes, without nullifying that the person is unvaluable in its own eyes ("You feel worthless, but I want to communicate you that you have worth/you are important in my eyes.")
>> When you want to encourage in general : delete any positive-negative feedbacks from your vocabulary. Understand what it is, when you do it, why you do it, what are the consequences, and don't do it ever again.
For example : Saying "You're not worthless" (By saying the person is not worthless, you're actually giving zero worth in the depressive person's opinion of being worthless) "Look, there's no reason to be sad, you have a family, a loving boyfriend, [...]" (In an attempt of encouragement, you are giving no worth in the person's experiences and real reasons to be depressive / also, you show that you aren't REALLY listening to the pain.), and so on.
>> If the depression was triggered by a change of environment (someone changing schools for example), help him to move in another environment that fits his own individual's needs.
>> Build a positive environment (Fe/Te). Invite the person to a good sunbath / give a sunlamp (sunlights have influence in depression), offer cool food, invite him to do some cool sport together, present persons that understand the situation - can help - can provide insights with positive consequences on the situation - Actively listen - Be good be cool - Make breathing space/lone time for the person but let the person understand that you're still here when needed - Accept refusals (...)
>> Have confidence in the depressive's person ability to get out of this. Let him do short and small tasks with direct rewards so that he can gain confidence in himself + lots of short positive feelings that act like morphine and make the experience/pain a little easier to bear.​
*Of course, I'm not covering the whole subject here because it would be too long* and because I'm limited by my own experiences and knowledges. Depression is a complex subject, related with lots of other subjects. It would need a brand new thread.


----------



## Bhathaway

Stawker said:


> Notwithstanding the fact that Te upholds the former, is there really any difference between the two? You say that the chance of his making it out of depression can be 0%. But how can that be? only if his depression is incurable (let's imagine such a depressive case does exist). Which would render the entire mentioning of statistics false because the comparison population is no longer appropriate. The relevant population now would be people with that particular kind of depression. And since 'incurable' is in the name of that depression, well, the possibility will be 0% -- excluding false positives.
> 
> Now unless your idea of probability is something like we don't know the probability of something unless it does happen (the extreme skeptical position -- e.g 'you don't know the coin will yield a head with 1/2 probability, what if it suspends in air?'), then I can't really do anything about that skepticism. That skepticism is just self-defeating. You can keep applying the same logic on the skepticism itself (after all, there's no reason not to; in the same way there's no reason to not suspect reality of betraying itself) and forever keep fluctuating between skepticism and not skepticism.


I think the difference between the two is more a matter of forward thinking. If you were depressed and you were guaranteed that you could make it out of depression, you would take as many steps as possible to get out of it no matter how long it took(but they may never get out thus you can view their efforts as a "waste"). But if you aren't guaranteed this info, than you may very well eventually believe that you are incurable, and decide to live your life in spite of depression. Yes this would be extremely difficult(I'm dealing with major depression right now actually), but it is hypothetically an option. It leaves room for more approaches to the person's problem.

What you mentioned about "then what's the point of mentioning the statistics" is my point entirely and probably one of the main differences between te and ti. Ti sees this as a unique case, te sees this as a trend. Ti would argue "you simply don't know whether so and so's depression is the same as everyone elses." This also lends to the fact that Ti people rarely look to statistics, as a statistic that isn't 100% is by nature near useless to us. It isn't holistic(doesn't address rare cases), whereas Ti strives for this. It doesn't deal in possibilities, it deals in absolutes.


----------



## Stawker

@Bhathaway 

@Lynway hits the mark with her opening paragraph. For Te, the scenario has boiled down to a case of depression. For Ti, the scenario hasn't boiled down at all; it's a person who is depressed. Still, I stand by Te's side (duh) because Te has a goal in mind and that is solving the case. Ti doesn't really have a goal in mind or maybe it does, but whatever it is doing surely doesn't lead us anywhere. If Te hands over the case to Ti, then the Fi-guy is pretty much stuck. Ti would forever feel that there's something lacking, that there's a piece of information that is missing, and just keep turning the problem up and down to see the root cause. Te, on the other hand, has a far simpler approach; it asks only two questions:

- Is the problem solvable?
- How?

That's it. That's all that's needed. If I hand these questions to Ti, perhaps he'll never even answer the first question because the problem, for him, exists in a vacuum -- it's utterly and objectively cut off from everything in the world. When you individualize a problem that much, it becomes very difficult to solve it. Which is why I associate Ti with overthinking, stagnation, and mental masturbation. It just doesn't solve anything. It may help us understand the problem better but any Research Psychologist will tell you that more information about a problem does not necessarily lead to a better or even an easier solution (somehow Te knew that all along; psychology just found it now). Most likely, you'll end up attributing importance to information which is utterly useless (in this case, e.g, that the depression is a result of isolation -- whatever the causes, the effect is already here; if it can be solved at all, then it can be solved without referring to what caused it) and hence you'll only slow down the process. 

I'm still of the opinion that Ti's logic was amiss (it was precise but not accurate). Saying that the case is unique doesn't help us with a solution. Every case is unique if you look at it at microscopic level. But it has never been the case that one could solve the equation 3x + 4 = 5 any better by knowing what number systems are involved, what axioms are being used, and the whole history behind such expressions. Likewise, the depression may have been caused by anything, just as cancer, but what we must concern ourselves with, in order to solve it, is what's in front us: The depression or the cancer. If there truly is something unique about it which prevents our objective solution, then it'll appear in due time. And that time won't be longer than what would take a Ti to figure that nuance through his microscope.

I should also mention my dislike for Ti's reliance on absolutes. That reliance is self-defeating. Nothing is absolute except self-referencing statements/systems (''a bachelor is an unmarried person'' - bah). This reliance on absolutes will never lead to any positive knowledge about the external world. And from experience I've only seen dumb or immature Ti users not dealing with possibilities. Any intelligent and knowledgeable person will know that we must make do with what we have, and the search for something more must be internal and private. It needn't be verbalized lest it bogs down the entire enterprise we're engaged in. And so it is that only the genius level (IQ 145+) Ti users I've known were tolerable, in fact pleasant, for me. Though they were just as much fans of mental masturbation (well, I am too, clearly), they still knew how to solve problems and walk ahead. I cannot stress enough that any Ti user who's reading this must educate himself on the scientific method and read some good philosophy books (not Hegel, Lacan, Derrida, and the likes; go for Hume, Wittgenstein, or Kant) if he/she wishes to avoid mental stagnation, and the toxic habit of overthinking.


----------



## Cobble

Just wanted to add that Ti is too often associated with INTP. 
(Don't know if the Ti guy in the example is in an INTP, but he sounds like one.)

I admit that I*N*TP often leads to : overcomplication (Ne spitting bullshit), overthinking (Ne spitting bullshit.), and being unrealistic (Ne spitting bullshit.). (ENTP spit Ne bullshits too, but at least they're fun when they're doing it, and there's the Fe trying to enlighten everything. )

I also think that the whole Ti VS Te "logic" is more a Ni/Si Vs Ne thing. Ne will always find that something is lacking. It creates possibilities out of nowhere, and have zero sense of certainty. INTP are more annoying than INFP, because INTP doesn't take negative feelings into account in an early age. So he can endlessly continue a debate even though he senses anger in the air.

But when you meet an xSTP, there are absolutely zero problem about that. 

Again, *Ti is more similar to Fi.*
It writes : *Internal rules, permanent life attitudes and seek internal peace/authenticity. * 
Despite what's usually stated, Ti has a purpose. But it's internal.

[.... make connections with neutral inputs/outputs ....] 
[Conclusion : I'll always say the truth, except (...). ]
[Conclusion : I'll always be faithful to my friends, except (...)]
[Conclusion : I'll always rely on myself first, except (...)]
[Conclusion : I'll never trust unverified information and act on them, except (...)]
[Conclusion : I'll never prioritize money in my life, except (...)]
[Conclusion : I'll never judge someone on their physics or personality, except (...)]
[Because : It doesn't make sense otherwise...!]

[If I don't follow these rules, this means I'm not acting as the authentic me. 
Will never stray of the rules even if the outside world asks me to.]

(/caricature) (note : Yes I'm Ti-dom and not Fi-dom.)

Even thought I wrote "never/always", the rules actually change with time and experiences. It's also why, when faced with a situation that was never encountered before or a new subject, INTP will tend to seclude themselves and wonder about their new life rules (found through deep understanding of said-subject) instead of acting immediately - except if he acts on impulse. 

But Ti-dom are annoying because the Fe shows very late. So they have big big communication/interaction problems. (Also, the life rules are actually very long to write. ._. )


That's how I see it, anyway.


note : I think the Ti guy in the example actually took your statement personally. "It's not because people do it that he should do it" "Just because others could do something doesn't mean that I have to do it too". I think he tried to defend his own lifestyle : "It's not because people do it that I should do it". 

So there may be some inferior Fe getting annoying at work. Ti's lifestyle is often criticized, so they may be over sensitive if the Ti-dom is immature. As a result, they will clumsily try to defend it without noticing they're being totally emotional about it (and being totally off topic about something).


----------



## Handsome Jack

Lynway said:


> I think that the Te and Ti conflict stated in the example doesn't come from logic, but from direction.
> 
> The Ti-guy is pissed off because Te-guy related the Fi-guy depression to "something else than himself". With his argument, he's trying to say that the Fi-guy is a unique person with his own individuality. (tendencies to focus "inward") Unfortunately, the way of saying it was clumsy.
> 
> Whereas Te-guy is pissed off because he tried to help by showing external objective datas to encourage the Fi-guy to get better. (tendencies to focus "outward")
> 
> Both statements make sense, but there are communication problems leading to a deaf-deaf conversation.


 @Lynway, your input from the Ti side is always *greatly *appreciated and very well articulated. As @Stawker said, the first part of your response hits the nail on the head in regards to the Te vs. Ti perspective.

It's important to note that Stawker's example of saying other people have beaten this problem is meant to provide the depressed person a framework and starting point for how to solve a problem based on comparable situations. It's meant to provide hope and direction, not necessarily to dismiss the unique qualities of the situation and to impress upon that person a one-size-fits-all solution. As a Te-dom who has also struggled with depression, this method was very effective for me to be surrounded by people who had beaten the problem I was fighting and provided guidance with what worked for them. Our situations were not identical but the thought process and the course of action was still applicable to me. It's like a drug addict seeing a clean and sober person who is happy, functional, and thriving-- knowing that it was in the realm of possibility to beat something that initially seemed endless and hopeless was highly effective for improving my mental and emotional well-being. Facts, empirical evidence, statistics actually helped me. 

If I'm reading your response correctly, you're saying Fi and Ti are the ideal (or first) paths to recovery because the problem is inward focused and the person needs to make sense of the problem within themselves before recovering but I would argue it's the lack of Fe and Te that is the problem. My thinking on this is as follows (would appreciate your input): Fi is the cognitive function most associated with self-awareness, and interacting with INFPs and ISFPs reveals how these two types have mastered this ability, but their sources of depression from my personal experience is often due to a lack of Te (feelings of powerlessness, feelings of lack of control over their external environment, feeling of disorientation navigating it) and not a lack of Fi which they already have an abundance of. Suggesting to someone who is depressed to dig further inward to make peace seems like suggesting to someone who is drowning to go further underwater to find oxygen. The circular nature of Ti logic seems like it would have trouble breaking its cycle of negative thinking without new input from Fe and the same applies to depressed Fi users without the input of Te.

I do find the Ti/Te discussions often follow this theme:

*Ti: *"You don't fully understand the problem, you're rushing to conclusions."
*Te:* "And you don't fully understand the solution if you even have one at all, you're stalling."

And I think that's where Te users are coming from on this topic of depression. We assume you already know your pain more deeply and intimately than anyone else-- after all, it's your pain-- so it requires no further analysis because that's not the piece of the puzzle that's missing. We're saying to move on to the solution which is the piece of the puzzle that is missing. It's an issue of Ti emphasizing that Step 1 needs to come before Step 2 and Te emphasizing that Step 1 is already initiated so let's move on to Step 2.


----------



## Cobble

Thank you ! Actually, I don't have a lot to add. 

I think it's all about *balance*. Nobody would feel fully balanced, fully happy in their lives if the functions aren't balanced. Ti can't work well without Fe, Te can't work well without Fi. Otherwise, you'll always feel that something is amiss. 

I think the whole thing about being an Extrovert or an Introvert :


Strong Fi/Ti users in general really need to have a solid ground of who they are first (core-identity) before getting out. (social-identity) For example, using Fe without solidifying my Ti was out of question. I despised hypocrisy and associated it with Fe. So I had to set my own Ti rules about human interaction ("What makes sense and what doesn't.") before actually interacting with Fe. Only the Ti-Fe partnership gave me a sense of wholeness. 


Strong Fe/Te users in general need to have a solid ground of who they are in the world first (social-identity), before getting in. (core-identity) For example, my ISTJ (ex-bf) needed to be the "provider", the one who helped his surroundings in all factual-practical-stuffs. He greatly sacrificed his own individual needs in the process and strayed himself from his own path. So he had to go seclude himself for a while to understand "What had sense for him, and what didn't." and to take new life decisions. Only the Te-Fi partnership gave him a sense of wholeness.


As for the Ti(Fi) /Te(Fe) usual conflicts, then it's probably a difference of approach toward life in general:


Fi/Ti + Se/Ne (in short, P types): "If you follow your basic Ti/Fi rules, have the essential-understanding-of-the-theme, and improvise in the process/situation, the most natural and healthy solution/conclusion will come by itself." 

They aren't speaking about the direct solution because -you're right about that- they actually have none : they will improvise the solution in the process. They look like they are missing a purpose with all the "understanding stuff" but they (consciously or not) actually have one. Ti/Fi believes : "If I have a good core-understanding - I'll write good core-rules - and I'll do well".

(note : I know. Fi/Ti + Se/Ne process definitely sounds totally crazy and reckless. Aaah, these P-guys and their reckless spontaneity. But if it didn't work out most of the time, we wouldn't continue like that. Also, for P-types, it's perceived as a fun and relaxing process with a lot of unexpected discoveries. For young J-types, it's usually too stressful to live like that.

note 2 : Ne is more likely to spit his intellectual Ne bullshits and provoke endless intellectual debates, while Se is more likely to fish -very widely- his complementary information in the physical outside world with an impression of endless aimlessness.)


Fe/Te + Si/Ni (J types): "This is the problem & situation - this is what will be going on - so this is the solution." (Things won't exactly come out as planned, so they'll also have to improvise in the process anyway.)


But seriously, we argue a lot (Fi/Fe & Ti/Te). However we usually have different process leading to similar conclusions. 


An example about Ti/Te approach toward life : I had to give a conference for newbies about how to negociate a basic contract.
Ti way (me): 
- Understand that people will bet in your : "Insecurities", your "Worthlessness" and your "Ignorance" in order to make you accept a bad contract. Understand that to counter-attack you need : "Knowledges", "Self-Esteem (+ Reputation)" and "Life Stability". 
- Understand that the one you're negociating with is a human being. With needs, motivation, emotions, .... Create something that looks like a win win situation, and you will always win.
- As long as you respect yourself and the other, everything will be fine.
- [I actually gave zero technique and solution. "Know that and improvise, dudes."]


Te way (my colleague):
- [Give very precise solutions and techniques] [Give very clear examples]
- [I don't remember what he said exactly and it's too related to my domain of activity, but everything actually fitted the Ti advises, in a more concrete form.]


----------



## Bhathaway

@Stawker

Absolutely, in this scenario Te was a more direct way of benefitting the person. That is also because Te is much quicker than Ti since all they need is the gist and then they look for external solutions. Ti is more concerned with understanding completely.

I genuinely think mental masturbation is funnier than it is purposeful. I only argue here because the OP wants Ti vs Te. Typically I would never nit pick so hard unless I'm actively trying to annoy the other person. Nobody can mentally annoy a person like an INTP.

I do understand your dislike of Ti absolutes, but you must also understand its value. Concepts like free will have been broke soundly by Ti conceptual understandings and internally based logic. And the lack of free will significantly affects how people view other people. Do I think all Ti absolutes are good? No...some philosophers waste their time because they enjoy what they are doing(waste in the societal sense, all is waste in our existential universe). Do I think all absolutes are bad? Absolutely not. If you always submit to perception such as Te, you will forever have an imperfect picture limited by perception. Absolutes are that which is beyond perception, and are important if you even want complete understanding.


----------

