# Te, tell me about it?



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I've been here for a whole year! ‘just realized I’ve delved into understanding all the functions with one exception? I thought I knew. But maybe there are significant distinctions between Ti and Te that I still can't put my finger on? The last thread I was engaged in, I saw myself making extrapolations from experience, and parallels with anecdotal things I’ve read, and the mental gymnastics for differing views that I recognize as Ti.

If Ti is inductive, I get that. Looking around, seeing patterns, making guesses that I make a test for. . . applying one set of happenings with identified components - to an understanding of a new situation with a breakdown of similar components, switching a variable to confirm which is the rule and which is incidental to the variables . . . that's what is normal for me. Dividing things into activators and desired outcomes, based on taking things apart and looking, or imagining and poking and watching, would be me being myself, and largely inductive.

If Te is deductive where do these laws or general concepts come from? Does it all come from a pre-packaged credible source? Not saying that to be antagonistic. It seems that I see what Te sees, but I own it? I've lived it or tested it? For Te to be thinking, I'm sure it has a process, help me see the process?


----------



## CodeGuru (May 25, 2012)

Ti vs. Te is better understood when paired up with N/S. Same with Fi/Fe.

Ti with Ne: Ne constantly picks up new possibilities to feed Ti. An internal structure of the objective world is formed without having to interact with it. Thus the INTP stereotype of being locked inside the mind with no interest in accomplishing anything. 

Te with Ni: Ni works as guide to Te. The Ni user needs to interact with the objective world to test the validity of Ni. "I suspect this will work. Did it work?" If yes, Ni picked the right answer. If no, Ni must guess again.

With Ni Te working in conjunction, Te would look out at the model the INTJ has before him and deconstruct it all. Te sees each deconstructed part as a building block and uses Ni to reconstruct it all together into a system at the same time. Te continuously deconstructs the model as Ni reconstructs it in a sort of 'personal reality' and so the model changes as it goes along until the best implementation to the actual specific model matches the one being observed in reality.

In any combination of functions, one can see the importance of both the primary and secondary. If the Ti dominant lacks sufficient Ne, their inner world becomes flawed and they will gain a false sense of what reality is. The INTP starts with, "How does the world work?" Then seeks examples to build a structure.

If the Ni does not test the intuition against Te, their "guesswork" becomes truth. The INTJ starts with, "This is how the world works!" Then tests the theory against reality.

In short, Ti has to make sense internally before it's accepted externally. Things aren't taken at face value until they match an internal logic scheme. Te is the opposite - internal thoughts aren't accepted unless they match an external logic scheme (in most cases, what is in the real world), like a procedure.


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

Te Ni: I scope internally and feed feed feed my brain with more and varied information. I never know when I'll need somehting. I am an expert at 2 fields, but am a knowledgeable enthusiast in many fields. I don't always actively use my knowledge. all the thoughts flutter around and coalesce in times of need as a wonderfully gift wrapped idea. Then, I must enact it. I like figuring out what can/could be
I never stop thinking. 

I think Si/Te users probe instead of all this knowledge, they use it and base much on their past experiences to enact their vision.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

CodeGuru said:


> In short, Ti has to make sense internally before it's accepted externally. Things aren't taken at face value until they match an internal logic scheme.


Yup.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

I'll just quote myself



> Logical validity =/= logical soundness. Argument will never suffice as evidence for us. Argument only serves to better explain that which is already proven or demonstrated unless a subjective premise is being argued (in which case our Fi seems to step in and argue relativism, or we judge it in such a manner that is reminiscent of cost-benefit analysis.) If you attempt to argue a premise that isn't falsifiable, or attempt to demonstrate that something is true through sheer reasoning and nothing else, you wont be taken seriously by Te.
> 
> The main issue is that Ti is never ending. Because it functions as sheer reasoning, there is always a counter argument to be made and that counter is valid so long as it satisfies the premise. As I said however, validity does not equate to soundness, so even if an argument is valid, that doesn't really mean anything to us until we verify it as being true/sound or not. Ti is simply counterproductive to our need for closure. Instead of arguing and arguing and arguing, we'll go outside with test tubes and verify what is being discussed. For whatever reason Ti typically views this sort of thing with disdain (reference something like the philosophy of science which tries to argue that science does not reveal the true 'nature' of 'things.') Inversely, Te views Ti with disdain because it:
> 
> ...


http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/170281-your-take-ti.html#post4364305


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

*@Octavian *some of your disdain for Ti is about experience with specific people? I can argue something around in circles for my own enjoyment or discovery (I know this doesn't entertain everybody and I don't always *have* to do it), but Ti will build models to test things too. 

In fact I don't feel like I am all that much different from an INTJ because of the NI? @_CodeGuru_ sounds like inductive reasoning is being used in your processes. I'm like an INTJ who is more flexible and more in-tune with social context and delegation/cooperation opportunities. I won't get the respect INTJ's get because I don't care as much about being right, (more willing to learn as I go) rather than digging into a specialization and having the right credentials? I didn't mean that to sound snotty; there is definitely a place in the world for the INTJ approach (maybe more than how I do things).

I absolutely understand running through something to make sense of it internally as mentioned above ( @_MegaTuxRacer_ and @_CodeGuru_ ). What I can't imagine is *not* doing that, so I'm wondering how does TE dom even do a top - down process?

@*Tea Path* may have answered my question in part by saying Te-NI is always feeding their brain almost like a fitness routine. So then does that mean all the established rules are in a "holding room" waiting to be tested?

I understand (inductive? >) seeing the general transferable rules as a byproduct of understanding interchangeable components and using the components. *I don’t understand how this works backwards?* Example, if I want to use unfamiliar software or a new browser, I just need to see the toolbars. If I need to, I will find a quick reference guide that gives the short answer about what items on the tool bar do. That’s it, done deal. Nothing you could tell me about the software would mean anything until I have a basic understanding of how the parts work. I’m using this as an analogy because I break everything into parts like that, which makes sense with definitions of inductive reasoning.

I understand *deductive* reasoning with basic obvious general knowledge, but don’t understand what this would be like as a primary mode. ‘ Would be grateful if someone could walk me through it. 

I’m writing my own definitions of functions to use in a series of blog posts, in my own thing, relating to business models and communication styles.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> @Octavian some of your disdain for Ti is about experience with specific people? I can argue something around in circles for my own enjoyment or discovery (I know this doesn't entertain everybody and I don't always have to do it), but Ti will build models to test things too.


It's not disdain. There is simply natural bias towards functions that are counterproductive to your own. 

Ti does not naturally test things, empirically. For if it did, it would be adhering to external, objective standards for that testing, in which case we'd now be discussing Te. And whenever Ti users say "Ti does test things" more often than not they mean arguing with themselves in their heads and considering many premises and possible conclusions. That's not testing. 

In any case Te and Ti tend to not get along because Te is too "superficial" and I saw an INTP describe the function as 'dictatorial,' and Ti is too subjective and yields validity, not soundness. 

Also I think it's erroneous to assign inductive and deductive reasoning to Ti and Te respectively. They would use both forms of reasoning. Notice that even in controlled scientific experiments, general principles are being applied for the purpose of forming deductions.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

I teach physics, which suits my Ni Te pairing perfectly, IMO. Firstly in my head is the complete working model, in pictorial form (remember all those pictures physics teachers draw and make you draw?) and then when I'm teaching the Te works out as though I am explaining it for the very first time, new each time...it's cool.

On the downside, I find it helpful to talk to friends to get my head sorted out sometimes, which is Te in my view needing a sounding board. Still, if it didn't work this way, I'd probably be a total hermit by now!


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

I may not be the best Ti example. I test relatively high on Te. I may have fought hard for that Te with business experience.

The way I see Ti, Ti is driving for competence defining that competence as piece of yourself when you understand things, and for me, Te is just a facilitator. If you (I) don’t prove it, I don’t get new opportunities for Ne to go out and play, and would be forced to put too many hours into a shit job, so Te is necessary and helpful. I can’t just exercise my Ne-Ti at the bar, I’m not that funny. The connecting or the energy though, is about learning how something works and then bending it into the shape I choose. It can’t just be about getting something done or having something.

@_Octavian_ Te dom does seem superficial at times. Deductive vs Inductive is just too much of a shortcut explanation?

As an aside, it irks me, that cause and effect connections with a logical base get mistaken for something like Fi when talking to a Te user? If somebody hasn’t already done it, or someone with the right credentials hasn’t sanctioned it, the only thing left is that it must be an emotionally reactive statement? This is especially outrageous when ENTP’s are particularly reasonable in the diplomatic sense compared to an INTJ or ISTJ.

@_Dabbling_, the sounding board - sounds like what I've seen on the forum several times as a product of NI; it happens for INFJ's too. Too many vague shadows or cobwebs untill it gets brought out to be tested? Maybe this is where I have a breakdown with making a point sometimes. INTJ's have a lot of their own thoughts they don't trust so no surprise they don't trust mine either?


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> *@Octavian *some of your disdain for Ti is about experience with specific people? I can argue something around in circles for my own enjoyment or discovery (I know this doesn't entertain everybody and I don't always *have* to do it), but Ti will build models to test things too.
> 
> In fact I don't feel like I am all that much different from an INTJ because of the NI? @_CodeGuru_ sounds like inductive reasoning is being used in your processes. I'm like an INTJ who is more flexible and more in-tune with social context and delegation/cooperation opportunities. I won't get the respect INTJ's get because I don't care as much about being right, (more willing to learn as I go) rather than digging into a specialization and having the right credentials? I didn't mean that to sound snotty; there is definitely a place in the world for the INTJ approach (maybe more than how I do things).
> 
> ...


a holding room is exactly where it's at. we use our Fi to see if it fits with our internal scheme as well as our Se. If it doesn't our Ni allows us to throw it out for the next thing Te brings, we strive to understand it as quickly and efficiently as possible (Te/Ni) verify with(Se/Fi) and begin anew.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> I may not be the best Ti example. I test relatively high on Te. I may have fought hard for that Te with business experience.
> 
> The way I see Ti, Ti is driving for competence defining that competence as piece of yourself when you understand things, and for me, Te is just a facilitator. If you (I) don’t prove it, I don’t get new opportunities for Ne to go out and play, and would be forced to put too many hours into a shit job, so Te is necessary and helpful. I can’t just exercise my Ne-Ti at the bar, I’m not that funny. The connecting or the energy though, is about learning how something works and then bending it into the shape I choose. It can’t just be about getting something done or having something.
> 
> ...


I absolutely trust my own thoughts including my internal weighting of each one, the weighting being an intrinsic part of its truth, to me. So that is internal and complete. But the process of explaining it to someone does something else...it gives it credibility in the mind of another...sort of verifies that I am on the right track...even though I am already sure that I am. I don't know why it works that way.

It's like if I were stranded on a desert island, I would know I could lay and light a fire and catch fish for supper, I wouldn't need to prove it or prove myself during the long afternoon when those with me were anxious and incompetent. But actually doing it would prove to them that I was right all along, and that process is sort of satisfying, it sort of makes me seem a bit mystical and magical and intuitively right...the wonder on their faces as the penny drops for them...maybe that satisfies my Fe.

I don't do it often though, not with stuff of great personal value to me.

I told a miserable friend something amazingly personal about myself recently, purely to give her something else to think about. In that way it worked, but I didn't really think through the later consequences of her knowing something so personal. Tbh it wasn't hugely private, it was that I was scared of her in a particular way, but actually I hadn't told her because I wanted to resolve the issue...tbh that's the kind of thing that happens if I self disclose too much.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_Dabbling _the weighting thing is interesting - Fi in action I suppose. It sounds like you work srongly with NI, not sure where the role of Te comes in for you. Would you say all of Te is a product of formal training?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Tea Path said:


> Te Ni: I scope internally and feed feed feed my brain with more and varied information. I never know when I'll need somehting. I am an expert at 2 fields, but am a knowledgeable enthusiast in many fields. I don't always actively use my knowledge. all the thoughts flutter around and coalesce in times of need as a wonderfully gift wrapped idea. Then, I must enact it. I like figuring out what can/could be
> I never stop thinking.
> 
> I think Si/Te users probe instead of all this knowledge, they use it and base much on their past experiences to enact their vision.


Your post may have shed some light on something for me. I read quite a bit of nonfiction. I’ve read a lot of business related things, and I'm not rich and famous for it but I’m not miserable about that either.

I may have specific financial issues (economy shifts) at the moment, but all the while I was reading the things I liked to read (before 2008), it wasn’t for the how to or the silver bullet the way this friend saw it, assuming I must be barking up the wrong tree or would be filthy rich already.


You are storing Te. I had knowledge and factual information I needed for my little business machine to work. I wasn’t motivated by storing Te. I went on grand adventures with authors who spoke the same language as me! Sometimes they put words to things I saw but didn’t have a polished explanation for. I got inspired by cool things people thought of or the way they turn a situation into something nobody else would have guessed, and this was pure fun for me (with no efficiency in mind) – just mini mental vacationing - feeding Ne.

So I’m starting to see Te, by reinterpreting people I know and how they seem to see me?


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

@Octavian Could you be more specific by what you mean when you say valid vs sound?


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Your post may have shed some light on something for me. I read quite a bit of nonfiction. I’ve read a lot of business related things, and I'm not rich and famous for it but I’m not miserable about that either.
> 
> I may have specific financial issues (economy shifts) at the moment, but all the while I was reading the things I liked to read (before 2008), it wasn’t for the how to or the silver bullet the way this friend saw it, assuming I must be barking up the wrong tree or would be filthy rich already.
> 
> ...


so, was there a question?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> @Octavian Could you be more specific by what you mean when you say valid vs sound?


Valid: Conclusion satisfies the premise. 

Sound: Conclusion satisfies the premise and the premises are actually true.

Meaning that an argument can be logically valid while having false premises. Empirical observation and testing saves you from having false premises (outside of philosophy at least.) Ti has an aversion to the aforementioned. Based on my understanding of type / function theory, and my personal observations, Ti tends to not bother with proving premises before arguing, the argument IS proof. 

And I used philosophy vs. science as an example in that post but I was moreso thinking in terms of problem solving / group decision making.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

> @Octavian Te dom does seem superficial at times. Deductive vs Inductive is just too much of a shortcut explanation?


No, in general it's impossible for any human to exclusively rely upon deductive or inductive reasoning, both thinking functions use both forms of reasoning. We can look at science (Te) and philosophy (Ti) and find examples of both.



> As an aside, it irks me, that cause and effect connections with a logical base get mistaken for something like Fi when talking to a Te user?


...No, not for me. I appreciate demonstrations of causality, especially as an Ni dom. 

"Connections with a logical base," is the logical base sound or valid? Give an example? Not a theoretical one, but the actual conversation in which the Te user mistook the logical connections for Fi.



> If somebody hasn’t already done it, or someone with the right credentials hasn’t sanctioned it, the only thing left is that it must be an emotionally reactive statement?


That sounds like Te-Si or Si-Te to me. Te when paired with Ni isn't into appeals to authority, ethos, protocol, or etc. Empirical data is our 'authority,' When we quote researchers, scientists, political figures, etc. pay close attention to the nuances, we are often actually quoting their research, the results of their actions, successes, mistakes, etc.

Show us the data then demonstrate causality in reference to it. If you're proposing a new or 'out there' idea you'll have to appeal to our Te, or it's getting shot down.



> This is especially outrageous when ENTP’s are particularly reasonable in the diplomatic sense compared to an INTJ or ISTJ.


If it's in regards to business, there's no interest in diplomacy for either of those types. The interest lies in being PRAGMATIC. 

Also remember that our Ni is Ne excluding, ideas do not all have equal worth to us. Functions in general tend to not like their extroverted/introverted counterpart.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> @_Dabbling _the weighting thing is interesting - Fi in action I suppose. It sounds like you work srongly with NI, not sure where the role of Te comes in for you. Would you say all of Te is a product of formal training?


When I'm with people, I come across as a logical thinker. The intuitive part I have described here is largely hidden and until I had my personality tested professionally I would not have known it at all.

The weighting of truth...I would deny that as Fi, but now you've said it I will have to think about it. I think of it more as being like the weightings in a neural network, hanging together. Or the workings of an old motor car where every bit is visible and can be fiddled with. I'm not sure how I weight issues, but I know that I do. I try to separate emotion out and discard it before weighting, so I would more think in terms of there being an unemotional absolute truth even in a matter between two people. Say two people I know both, but they disagree, I can often see both sides. Which part of that is Fi to you?

I'm not sure whether Te is taught. Maybe it is the inner confidence to verbalise a previous Ti process. I know I would teach and explain anything to anyone from a pretty early age, but I can remember thinking things through in my head before that time.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Octavian said:


> Sound: Conclusion satisfies the premise and the premises are actually true.


Would it be valid to say that this sounds like hubris or would that be sound?


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Would it be valid to say that this sounds like hubris or would that be sound?


Hubris on behalf of whom?


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> Yeah I could have worded that better. It's what happens when your brother tells you "You've been really stressed out lately, you can borrow my X-box 360 and GTA 5".
> 
> It's actually kind of interesting.
> 
> ...


I am interested but too cheap to pay for what he says about Ti. Got a slide deck you can send to my outlook inbox?


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> I am interested but too cheap to pay for what he says about Ti. Got a slide deck you can send to my outlook inbox?


I've got some scans I can send you, just PM me the email.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Octavian said:


> It's not disdain. There is simply natural bias towards functions that are counterproductive to your own.
> 
> Ti does not naturally test things, empirically. For if it did, it would be adhering to external, objective standards for that testing, in which case we'd now be discussing Te. And whenever Ti users say "Ti does test things" more often than not they mean arguing with themselves in their heads and considering many premises and possible conclusions. That's not testing.
> 
> ...


I know this thread is about Te, but FWIW, here is how the Ti/Pe "objective testing" works: Ti goes, "hey i came up with this awesome valid theory/insight". And then Ne goes, "yeah but have you actually physically OBSERVED this pattern repeatedly in the physical environment? Dont be a dummy...check your theory out in the real world...lets go observe this before we get ahead of ourselves." Ne is objective, real world perception...its not just something dreamt up by the subconscious...and so Ne reminds Ti to check for soundness by way of repeatable observation. If it cant stand that test, its not worth a damn and its thrown out.

Just like INTJs are saying they use ppl as a Te sounding board, NTPs do the very same thing with Ne...its an extoverted function. It only differs in that Ne is objective perception...while Te is objective "production", for lack of a better word. Te is a "doer", Ne is a "watcher/observer". Point is...the role of Ne should not be underestimated in Ti users. It serves as a huge check and balance to make sure that Ti doesnt become the town idiot.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

And make no mistake about it, Ne is much much more than just goofing ofg and being a comedian. The reason why it can be so funny is precisely because its observations are objective...its insights about human nature and life are real and observable. Its not just making stuff up


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Basically, in the grand scheme, Ni/Te is about strategizing and implementation (doing). Ti/Ne observes what is going on and asks "Are we doing this correctly? Is there a better way, a method with more positive consequences?" It analyzes the process cuz, well, a lot of processes are really screwed up, have negative environmental/humanitarian/employee morale consequences. Ti/Ne spots those flaws so easily.

Granted, sometimes our explorative questioning ventures too far into novelty and we come off as nitpicky or interrupting progress, but we also do get those gems where we are able to create a new process, theorem, or invent something really cool...a la Einstein, da Vinci, Jobs. The questions Ti/Ne asks are important ones. Even if half of our questions are irrelevant, the other half are. People who are too busy implementing would do good to pause and reflect on questions like, "is what i'm pouring all my effort into even meaningful at the end of the day? Is there something else, more meaningful, that i could be investing in?" At the end of the day, we can pump out as many widgets as we want or make trillions of dollars, or whatever other objective thing we aim for, but (a) are there negative consequences for others in doing so, and, (b) does our venture even freaking matter...is there even a real tangible point to investing in it, other than making sure we get our slice of the pie?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

To whomever it may concern I think it goes like this:

For Ne-Ti, the external judgment reference point is Fe. 
*Therefore I am not bound by Te-Fi’s burden of truth and righteousness!* 

I get to do whatever I want, as long as I know how to get cooperation from other people.

Since I’m a thinker, my reasoning must be plausible and I must have executable policies that plan for contingencies. I must anticipate objections. I make generalizations from my experience - that I count as truth - YES! This doesn’t leave truth or standards out of the picture entirely (sound truth @Octavian @MegaTuxRacer), but only necessary for maintenance, not the first priority of existence. At some point my coconspirators must get some form of ROI (and not die or ruin the planet), so the proof is in the pudding so to speak, but the bullet proof objectively true strategy - is not what counts. Ne will watch and Ti will test and respond to put results on course.

It doesn’t matter what is true as much as it matters what other people believe. People believe what they want to and I can choose to work with that or not.

Now I’m going to go back and thoroughly read what people have posted.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Tea Path said:


> I feed it what it likes. I don't know when Ni will use it, but when it does, it's a flash of brilliance. I study for fun. really. I read three different news sources at least every day. then I read more.


Maybe in the same way Fe doms need to be connected to people or networks of relationships (as a first priority or defining element of who they are, and what makes them motivated), Te dom needs to be connected with what is going on in the world?

But it seems like more than knowing what is going on, a vigilance to determine what is real?


----------



## Tea Path (Sep 5, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> To whomever it may concern I think it goes like this:
> 
> For Ne-Ti, the external judgment reference point is Fe.
> *Therefore I am not bound by Te-Fi’s burden of truth and righteousness!*
> ...


BURN THE WITCH!!!

k, just kidding. it's what I love about talking to you guys, the lack of inhibition. my Ni soaks that shit up.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> This is the challenging and totally inconvenient part of Ti. It takes a lot of energy to get all of that crap a.) organized 2.) concise and iii.) digestible. Sometimes one of those has to be sacrificed, especially when talking about an internet message board.


Ti is what Ni would be if it was not quietly in the background? Or thats the way it seems to me.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Eleventeenth said:


> Basically, in the grand scheme, Ni/Te is about strategizing and implementation (doing). Ti/Ne observes what is going on and asks "Are we doing this correctly? Is there a better way, a method with more positive consequences?" It analyzes the process cuz, well, a lot of processes are really screwed up, have negative environmental/humanitarian/employee morale consequences. Ti/Ne spots those flaws so easily.
> 
> Granted, sometimes our explorative questioning ventures too far into novelty and we come off as nitpicky or interrupting progress, but we also do get those gems where we are able to create a new process, theorem, or invent something really cool...a la Einstein, da Vinci, Jobs. The questions Ti/Ne asks are important ones. Even if half of our questions are irrelevant, the other half are. People who are too busy implementing would do good to pause and reflect on questions like, "is what i'm pouring all my effort into even meaningful at the end of the day? Is there something else, more meaningful, that i could be investing in?" At the end of the day, we can pump out as many widgets as we want or make trillions of dollars, or whatever other objective thing we aim for, but (a) are there negative consequences for others in doing so, and, (b) does our venture even freaking matter...is there even a real tangible point to investing in it, other than making sure we get our slice of the pie?


Hey @Eleventeenth this is a summary which so appeals to my sense of humour...please forgive me!

Ni = 'the end justifies the means'
Ne = 'the means is the end'

*rofl at own pithy cleverness*


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Dabbling said:


> Hey @Eleventeenth this is a summary which so appeals to my sense of humour...please forgive me!
> 
> Ni = 'the end justifies the means'
> Ne = 'the means is the end'
> ...


Yes, I suppose thats what I was essentially getting at. Youve also demonstrated this: it takes INTPs (or, THIS INTP) 2 paragraphs to say what could be said in 12 words by an INTJ. Its the 'expanding' nature of Ne...it starts with an idea and keeps branching out...just like I'm doing now...do you want me to keep going? no? ok, i'll stop here, although that leads me to another point...


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Anyhow, i should add that NTJs are cool ppl, by and large. Ive learned a lot by watching them in action. Ti/Ne and Ni/Te are just different skillsets, or cognitive abilities...thats all it really is.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Ti is what Ni would be if it was not quietly in the background? Or thats the way it seems to me.


Nope. The good news is that you're getting it. Ni deems something possible. Ti deems something correct.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Eleventeenth said:


> Yes, I suppose thats what I was essentially getting at. Youve also demonstrated this: it takes INTPs (or, THIS INTP) 2 paragraphs to say what could be said in 12 words by an INTJ. Its the 'expanding' nature of Ne...it starts with an idea and keeps branching out...just like I'm doing now...do you want me to keep going? no? ok, i'll stop here, although that leads me to another point...


Do, please, keep going....I love to listen and I'm so glad you've taken it kindly, what I said. I was bothered that I would upset you...so I put my feelings out there in an apology first...am I making it on the emotional maturity front I wonder?

Any road, conversations with me cN be pretty brief and succinct from my side, be great to have someone around to keep the conversation going....delightful.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Personally, I like this comparison:



*Extraverted Thinking**Introverted Thinking*

Is fed from objective data - facts and borrowed ideas.


Is fed from subjective and unconscious roots - archetypes.


Depends upon the facts of experience and regards the abstract idea as unsubstantial and of negligible importance.


Depends upon the abstract idea as the decisive factor, and values facts chiefly as illustrative proofs of the idea.


Relies on the facts outside of the thinker, which are more decisive than the thinking itself, for soundness and value.


Relies on the thinker's powers of observation and appreciation and use of the inner wealth of inherited experience for soundness and value.


Has as its goal the solution of practical problems, discovery and classification of facts, criticism and modification of generally accepted ideas, planning or programs, and developing of formulas.


Has as its goal formulating questions, creating theories, opening up of prospects, yielding insight, and finally, seeing how external facts fit into the framework of the idea or theory it has created.


Dwells upon the details of the concrete case, including irrelevancies.


Seizes upon the similarities of the concrete case, dismissing irrelevancies.


Has a tendency to multiply facts until their meaning is smothered and thinking paralyzed.


Has a tendency to neglect facts or to coerce them into agreement with the idea, selecting only those which support the idea.


Consists of a succession of concrete representations that are set in motion not so much by an inner thought activity as by the changing stream of sense perceptions.


Consists of an inner thought activity, tied loosely if at all to the stream of sense impressions, which are dimmed by the vividness of the stream of inner impressions.


Source: Gifts Differing by Isabel Myers pg 78


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Nope. The good news is that you're getting it. Ni deems something possible. Ti deems something correct.


Well, building a structure for how to do something, based first on defining the target - can have that element of words and fine tuning; it seems like perception but is active thinking. @*MegaTuxRacer* you have a lot more posts than me so I'm just shooting my understanding out there. Perception as a dictionary definition might include volition but as a function, perception just is what it is. I do a lot of defining and classifying of things . . . . . oooooh noooo . . . would that mean I’m Te?

So I could be criticising myself here
http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/170281-your-take-ti-5.html#post4432534


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Personally, I like this comparison:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmm, this is messing with what I belive I've whitnessed at PerC, interesting.

The thing I grabbed onto from Jungs definitions it that Ti begins and ends in the Ti user, with ventures into Te in the middle if deemed facilitory. Te adjusts oneself to Te, filtering which and what Te through other functions, and of course choosing how to apply and evaluate Te for specific situations.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Hmmm, this is messing with what I belive I've whitnessed at PerC, interesting.


Yes, I think in those definitions you can hear the Ni Ne difference too.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> Hmmm, this is messing with what I belive I've whitnessed at PerC, interesting.
> 
> The thing I grabbed onto from Jungs definitions it that Ti begins and ends in the Ti user, with ventures into Te in the middle if deemed facilitory. Te adjusts oneself to Te, filtering which and what Te through other functions, and of course choosing how to apply and evaluate Te for specific situations.


This is based on Katharine Briggs' notes of her reading of Psychological Types. She could be way off. Or not.

What about the quote conflicts with your understanding exactly? When I compare your reply to the quote I posted, I don't see the difference or how they conflict.

Thanks!


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Consists of a succession of concrete representations that are set in motion not so much by an inner thought activity as by the changing stream of sense perceptions. - sounds like pure Se

Depends upon the facts of experience and regards the abstract idea as unsubstantial and of negligible importance. -this might be splitting hairs but Te will apply abstractions, they just wont imagine or build a new abstraction, my observation/interpretation anyway.

Dwells upon the details of the concrete case, including irrelevancies - for TE? this seems like something dependant upon the person not a function

Is fed from subjective and unconscious roots - archetypes. - for Ti? Unconscious? -sometimes I wish.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> Well, building a structure for how to do something, based first on defining the target - can have that element of words and fine tuning; it seems like perception but is active thinking.


Ti can seem like Ni, but Ti isn't a "just knowing" function. It is distinctly conscious and vivid. Ni is just vivid. There's a difference between arriving at a conclusion and a hunch popping into your head. 

@*MegaTuxRacer* you have a lot more posts than me so I'm just shooting my understanding out there. Perception as a dictionary definition might include volition but as a function, perception just is what it is. I do a lot of defining and classifying of things . . . . . oooooh noooo . . . would that mean I’m Te?

So I could be criticising myself here
http://personalitycafe.com/intj-forum-scientists/170281-your-take-ti-5.html#post4432534[/QUOTE]

That's fine. I do the same thing.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@_reckful_ maybe you could put me back on track about getting my Ti brain around what it is like to operate with Te? The link (in above post) shows my experience of how Ti and Te talk past each other.

*I’m beginning to see how Te and Ti are just different filing systems.
Particularly though, it would seem like Te obeys what is known - period, and yet that isn’t exactly true when you look at Te accomplishment.*

I see a parallel maybe with Si and Ti, that each adds their own interpretation to what would otherwise be the extroverted version. For Ti, everything is filed according to my own use, like mental shop space or computer file folders; a filing system of concept, and paraphrase, and groupings for my own usefulness hierarchy - but not a worth based thing like Fi.

The re-wording, re-defining, and fine-tuning that could be perceived as *INTP knit-picking is an accessing of my Ti files. This would explain my getting frustrated when an INTJ does what seems to me like slapping a formula on something, proving to me they haven’t heard the question . . . or think I’m stupid because they are telling me something I assume most people would know. But the INTJ is accessing their files, needing to compare or categorize a problem according to Te?

But Te Can’t be 100% quoting other people and sources right?
‘Just trying to imagine or walk through the Te process (I also spent time understanding how Ti with Se experiences compare with my own).

And BTW, Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays to whomever is around today.

*INTP knit-picking sometimes is exactly that (for sport - and Ne-Ti can go too far) but often this is our way of learning, not trying to change or correct anyone.


----------



## Dabbling (Nov 2, 2013)

Old Intern said:


> I've been here for a whole year! ‘just realized I’ve delved into understanding all the functions with one exception? I thought I knew. But maybe there are significant distinctions between Ti and Te that I still can't put my finger on? The last thread I was engaged in, I saw myself making extrapolations from experience, and parallels with anecdotal things I’ve read, and the mental gymnastics for differing views that I recognize as Ti.
> 
> If Ti is inductive, I get that. Looking around, seeing patterns, making guesses that I make a test for. . . applying one set of happenings with identified components - to an understanding of a new situation with a breakdown of similar components, switching a variable to confirm which is the rule and which is incidental to the variables . . . that's what is normal for me. Dividing things into activators and desired outcomes, based on taking things apart and looking, or imagining and poking and watching, would be me being myself, and largely inductive.
> 
> If Te is deductive where do these laws or general concepts come from? Does it all come from a pre-packaged credible source? Not saying that to be antagonistic. It seems that I see what Te sees, but I own it? I've lived it or tested it? For Te to be thinking, I'm sure it has a process, help me see the process?


I'm going to have another go at this, because I am Te being INTJ and the whole Te process for me is quite, quite different from how you describe your Ti...maybe I can start off a train of thought for you and be helpful, but do ask if this isn't clear or correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.

It seems to me that your personal Ne-Ti is like (and this is only guesswork for me based on your posts) starting with a pile of data and facts (visualise those as sheets of paper) from the real world and then internally you classify, sort, label and structure them...this sorting is kind of like you making up your own classifications and structures and labels, and when you want to start to figure out an answer you get the first sheet you need, then look for the second sheet, then the third, and so on building a logical pathway which starts from the first point and continues logically and in steps which obey your internal logic..sort of like starting off a game of chess and every move follows the rules correctly and you started from the correct starting conditions and you then know that the configuration you end up with is a logical possibility from the given conditions and starting point and logical rules. It also seems to me that, like chess, if you think in this way that you can discover many many possible and logical outcomes, and you can end up trying to explain all of these to your listener. At this end point all pathways are equally valid because they all followed the rules of starting conditions and logical rules. And your Ne seeks out more and more sheets of paper as well so the classification system is constantly refined and added to. You might want to tell me if that is what it is like.

Now my method Te with Ni is completely different. You know those puzzles about getting wolves and chickens in boats over rivers where you can't ever leave a wolf alone with a chicken? Both the starting and finishing positions are known and what I do is essentially spend time and energy trying to optimise (minimise) the steps necessary to move from one position to the other. It's analogous to stretching a rubber band from start position to finish position and letting it run as taut as possible, only allowing it to lengthen if the shortest possible step is not logical. I work in jumpy steps, not sequentially but holistically, so I might try to envisage a path which has a central symmetrical stage and double the steps to get there either way from that centre, for example. And my internal data storage has many many such patterns and pathways stored, you call them formulas I noticed but they are not mathematical formulas I don't think, they are far more complex because I can twist and stretch and pattern match and make parallels to previous problems I have encountered and I will see parallels in patterning of solutions between areas of learning which nobody would ever guess who didn't play my kind of thinking games. It's like I have a collection of empirically based rubber bands to try on the problem. Quite different from sheets of paper but it's so difficult to describe them. So for me it is all about finding not just any possible solution which fits both start and end criteria and any rules for each step in between, but finding the most elegant, the shortest, the most efficient method. And because I start at both ends and the middle and one third through and three quarters through and see the whole thing from a very high level, I fill in the detailed steps last. So I will know I can solve it but I will know my solution is a bit weak getting from eg step 5 to step 6, the logic there is a bit weak and might not quite follow the specification. If I'm honest I will own this and tell you this when I'm explaining it to you. Te is involved in the explanation because I have to make it sequential since that is how words behave, but if I can skip this step by using a diagram of the whole solution then I often will.

I will appear weaker on detail than you and maybe seem further from real life than you with your massive database of facts. But I will counterbalance this because I have data storage of how facts fit together in processes which empirically work. So I fit processes together like assembling a jigsaw, where the order of assembly of the pieces doesn't matter but the first (the initial muddle) and final picture does, and if a piece is missing I will fudge it or own it depending on my honesty level. You build structures which are all logical and never fail on details but it is like building with Lego bricks where the final state (built pieces) can have any number of possibilities. You fail on selecting the 'best' solution to a problem but would be able to offer many logical possibilities.

So, how to work together? I suspect I use both Ti and Te, but predominantly Te with Ni. 

Use Ti skills to brainstorm ideas, to check logicality of steps, and especially on open ended problem types.
Use Te skills to refine possible solutions, to choose the best solution from several possibilities, and especially on problems where the desired outcome is specified.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@*Dabbling* your post is really good. I will have to study it more and come back to it, Holiday time approaching and all, but you gave me a walk through which is what I was looking for (and I did thoroughly read it through once so far). Thank you!

I think I see how the challenge for Te-Ni efficiency works in your post. The chess analogy fits me “winning” is *- interactive just like chess.

I plan categorically, based on knowing what is important to me, how I operate best, what works with developing my best or favorite strengths and interests. Being my best self means having competencies that move with me, like on a flash drive (not where I am on a map?). I think in terms of always finding a good fit, a different kind of efficiency? Like a software program with pluggins, I have specific controls over a limited range, but broad based compatibility. If *Ti is portable software on a flash drive, Te is a map?* Or . . . . .I will be reading your post again, mulling it over.

*It’s the same way I grocery shop. Categorized and quantified but rarely itemized, the end purchases reflect what is on sale. With or without concern for frugality, I would still want to take advantage of opportunities, not keep buying the same things on a list. - But I don’t randomly buy deals either. (I’m not THAT Pe?)

I don't do a massive database - I paraphrase often, or make something into a mental pdf?
I thought the massive database would have to be Te. -So Ill have to revisit this later.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Dabbling said:


> I'm going to have another go at this, because I am Te being INTJ and the whole Te process for me is quite, quite different from how you describe your Ti...maybe I can start off a train of thought for you and be helpful, but do ask if this isn't clear or correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.
> 
> It seems to me that your personal Ne-Ti is like (and this is only guesswork for me based on your posts) starting with a pile of data and facts (visualise those as sheets of paper) from the real world and then internally you classify, sort, label and structure them...this sorting is kind of like you making up your own classifications and structures and labels, and when you want to start to figure out an answer you get the first sheet you need, then look for the second sheet, then the third, and so on building a logical pathway which starts from the first point and continues logically and in steps which obey your internal logic..sort of like starting off a game of chess and every move follows the rules correctly and you started from the correct starting conditions and you then know that the configuration you end up with is a logical possibility from the given conditions and starting point and logical rules. It also seems to me that, like chess, if you think in this way that you can discover many many possible and logical outcomes, and you can end up trying to explain all of these to your listener. At this end point all pathways are equally valid because they all followed the rules of starting conditions and logical rules. And your Ne seeks out more and more sheets of paper as well so the classification system is constantly refined and added to. You might want to tell me if that is what it is like.
> 
> ...


Nice post. My Ti wants to break down every single detail of your post and respond to it, piece by piece. That's some of the "detail" that you're talking about. But, I resist the urge because it would take far too long and we'd just be splitting hairs - i.e., it's not truly necessary.

You likened Ti/Ne to "sheets of paper" (more concrete) and Ni/Te to "rubber bands" (malleable, changeable, flexible). You're partially right. Ti is the "sheet of paper", Ne is our "rubber band". I believe that Ni is your rubber band and Te is your "sheet of paper". If either of us wants to produce something in the real world, we have to have a function that produces something tangible (like the sheet of paper). In life, we often have to reduce our vast array of possibilities and contingencies down to "one chosen route". For instance, there may be several careers that you could choose and excel at (and me too) - your Ni tells you this, and my Ne tells me this. We observe people in those professions, we read about what it takes to be good in those careers, and we reason (via Ti or Te) that it's a real possibility - with some effort, we could do it. But, we can't choose 10 careers. We have to choose 1, or maybe 1 with a couple hobbies on the side. The other possibilities often have to be forsaken, if we are ever to produce anything or get anything done in the real world. 

Judging functions are often recognized as our "decision making functions". So, Ni and Ne (perceiving) shows us all the possibilities and allows us to maneuver or flex according to the circumstances. But, Ti and Te have to "decide" which route to take. We can't be in New York and Miami at the same time, even if we may want to be. So, the tangible product of a sheet of paper is Ti (not Ti + Ne). And it's Te (not Te + Ni). It's the route we choose and it's the tangible product of our choices. 

Ne allows us to flex and it actually allows NTP's to be quite comfortable with change and so-called "curveballs". Let's put it this way: I've observed that NTJ's are often frustrated or thrown off by change. They don't like there to be significant changes in their surroundings. If they go into work and the secretary isn't there to help them, it can throw them off. Because Te, being their first extroverted function, represents how they like their "outer world" to be (consistent, predictable), the change frustrates them. It's the opposite for us. We thrive on change and novel circumstances. If the secretary is gone, we feel energized that we have another opportunity to "problem solve". Our Ne represents how we like our outer world to be - ever changing, full of novelty, requiring troubleshooting. If everything in the outer world was always the same, our Ne would starve. When something doesn't go according to plan, our Ne "rubber band" goes into action. It causes us to have to react. It's often said that NTP's are calm in a crisis - this is why. Something goes wrong? OK, just flex with it. Go with the circumstances. I've said before, NTP's try to wait to see what each day presents them, and then they react according to what is in front of them. Ne is quick on its feet - it's not as slow and methodical as Ni. 

I walk to work. I don't even check the weather forecast at all. If I leave work and it's pouring rain, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as I see it bothering other people. I actually laugh and I'm happy - in a weird way. I'm happy that life has presented this challenge to me, that it has made a boring day more interesting, and now my Ne rubber band has to improvise among a wide variety of possibilities: should I call a cab? catch a ride home with a friend? stay at work longer until it stops raining? see if someone has an extra umbrella? Nah...I just run home - in the rain and enjoy it. I flex to the circumstances. Life's curveballs are opportunities to use the rubber band. I know an INTJ who will often say to me, "I hadn't planned on that today. I don't want to do it, because it wasn't in my gameplan for today." And I think to myself, "Well, why can't it be in your gameplan NOW? Can't you see that this particular thing has presented itself as important and in need of being handled NOW? You made your plans yesterday, or last week, but "stuff happens" - today the circumstances are different than you had planned for. NTJ's often seem unwilling, or unable (?) to flex to these curveballs. They hate the detour. 

Now, moving to something else: You mentioned how your "step 5 to step 6" might be weak. Well, yes, Ti tries to figure all of that stuff out on the front end - which actually makes us less productive than NTJ's in a sense. We want to do all the homework up front (maybe that's just INTP's, not ENTP's) and make sure each step is going to be strong and sturdy. It's been said before that an ENTP will have 100 ideas, act on 20 of them, and 10 of them will be a success. INTPs will have 20 ideas, act on 1 of them, and it will be a success. We tend not to act until we've seen all the steps in advance and seen that they're extremely strong at each stop (pillars). That may seem quite opposite from my earlier description of Ne (flexible), but this is one key difference between Ti and Ne. Ti wants everything to be worked out, concrete, flawless, etc. Ne just wants to roll with the punches and figure it out on the fly. If Ti breaks down a plan - like a business plan for example - and sees that there are TONS of unknown variables, we're not likely to act on it. The ENTP is more likely to go for it and get by on sheer passion, determination, and Ne improvisation/versatility. 

So, in a sense, it's like this: Ne feeds us all kinds of information, possibilities, and information. And then Ti has the ability to take all of that highly nuanced information and, based on likelihoods/probabilities, Ti can aptly break it down and to find the best plan of action. I could do a, b, c, d, e, f, or x....but, based on all the probabilities, "d" is the best option to move forward with. If someone builds something with legos with Ne, it can have any number of outcomes and those outcomes will be creative and unique. I know an ENTP business person who designs high-end jewelry and travels all over the world selling it. On Saturday, he'll be in Milan, and still not know where he wants to be on Monday. Sunday, he'll call his assistant and have her make flight/hotel/car reservations in Johannesburg. Or, he might go to Tokyo. Or Sydney. He improvising - it's a sort of creativity/intuitive, gut reaction. It's not highly planned. If I build a business with Ti, it's much more highly organized: "we're going this route and we're not straying from that. this is the plan and this is what we're doing. period." I would have Johannesburg planned out 3 months in advance and wouldn't stray from it. Ti is less about creativity, and more about factual knowledge. Ne: maybe Johannesburg, maybe Tokyo, maybe Syndey - we'll play it by ear. Ti: January - Johannesburg; February - Tokyo; March - Sydney, with all the minute details worked out. But it's OK if a few details don't go as we planned, because Ne can improvise for us. If I fly to Tokyo and I'm unable to sell jewelry in the city I normally sell in, it's OK, I'll find a different city in Japan that will let me in. I'll create something from nothing. I'll open a door that was previously closed. 

That's really long, but hopefully it helped clarify the Ti/Ne process.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

As another example of Ne: I love to play basketball and to ski. Why? It's an intense work-out for me Ne. These environments are full of obstacles, they are ever-changing, and you have to react quickly and intuitively/spontaneously based on what happens in front of you. And it's often almost instantaneous. Many things happening very quickly and you have to adapt and flex - you don't really have time to mull things over. I can't decide what I want to do and just do it easily. There are people and things getting in my way and trying to stop me, so I have alter my plan accordingly. Ne thrives on that kind of stuff. It's an intense rush. This stuff is very Se/Ne friendly.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

ENTJ: "Business Principles Applied to the Global Economy" 
(a few deep specialty areas (Ni) - i.e., marketing, management, finance, human resources, entrepreneurship, applied very broadly (primary Te)).

INTJ: "The Implementation of Effective Information Systems in the New, Changing Environment of U.S. Business"
(more narrow focus, and very deep, a literal expert among experts (primary Ni), applied a little less broadly (Te)).

ENTP: "Essays on the History of Mankind: Cultures, Languages, Governments, Human Motivations and How They Have All Evolved"
(Very broad interests and exploration (primary Ne), understood and explained in depth (Ti)).

INTP: "An Exhaustive Explanation of Human Motivations" 
(Broad interests and exploration (Ne) - "Human Motivations" is a large domain, understood/explained literally exhaustively in-depth (primary Ti)).


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Eleventeenth said:


> ENTJ: "Business Principles Applied to the Global Economy"
> (a few deep specialty areas (Ni) - i.e., marketing, management, finance, human resources, entrepreneurship, applied very broadly (primary Te)).
> 
> INTJ: "The Implementation of Effective Information Systems in the New, Changing Environment of U.S. Business"
> ...


This is close to offensive, maybe you talk just to make noise but I don't.

@*Eleventeenth* you are putting your own valuation of Si into your ENTP description? (the activity you describe for ENTP? - zzzzz Ne is forward thinking not purely undiciplined). In my case, (example) I was quick to jump on HTML email and social media-discussions as a way to introduce services and direct people to a small business website, before these became the mainstream things to do. My INTJ friend was stuck on pure SEO which does have its place. But I knew my best prospects wouldn't even know what to search for - yet. I built my own architecture, so to speak. We live in an age where we increasingly need to set up feedback loops and draw our own conclusions; no failsafe Te exists for some of today’s concerns.

@*Dabbling*, one of the difficulties of discussing Te and Ti is that it's hard to dissect Ti from its perceiving function when defining it, as you and I saw from another post above. Yes Ne generates multiple possibilities without even trying, and it’s not the job of Ne to choose the best option, being it’s not a judging function. Your board game analogy spoke to me though, I think I get it. *Te (with an Fi anchor) = system implementation, gauged to align with assesment of rewards and punishments. 
*
Ti in raw form = curiosity, this definition works with Se and Ne, and runs a parallel with Ni; one main difference being that Ti is driven to find words (making it a judging function). In an assessment of punishment and rewards, (Te-Fi) words are not essential (Ni). Ti’s do make models. My own observation or testing of a theory is still my observation, my test, and usually my theory too. With Ti though, “testing” is part of preparing findings (Fe) – or not offering something not found. *Ti at its most basic essence (Fe being the external ref. point), is not a negotiation of reward and punishment; it is a negotiation of one’s place in the herd, (with how much autonomy) and this has its own adaptive value. 
*
Einstein – was aimed at efficiency? BUT would any scientist pursue satisfaction of curiosity (when Ti motivated), if they believed all findings would die with them? - Of course not. Ti builds an architecture, and negotiates a system where discovery (investigation) and prototype building is rewarded through Fe, not direct punishment or reward in an Fi sense. Fe being the means *or* the end though depends on the individual and where they are on a Ti-Fe spectrum.

Just because ENTJ's are called the executives (in websites or somebody's theory) doesn't mean J=business. Adaptability and opportunity looking, and responsiveness are what we label "p" traits and work well for Entrepreneurship. It's just that mature ENTP's want to build the prototype - not tweak the spreadsheet once something is working.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Old Intern said:


> Just because ENTJ's are called the executives (in websites or somebody's theory) doesn't mean J=business. Adaptability and opportunity looking, and responsiveness are what we label "p" traits and work well for Entrepreneurship. It's just that mature ENTP's want to build the prototype - not tweak the spreadsheet once something is working.


I was recently in the position of having to write out a rough outline of a proposal for doctoral research. My process went to execution before it went to topic. I knew what sub-field I wanted to do my research in, but what was the decider was the mix of research data access, methods and future potential. 

My mind makes pretty much everything into general principles, it strips away detail, it tries to make everything into simple variables that can be applied to a wide range of situations and in essence goes from the specific to the general. 

I had an INTP colleague, who spent 5 years of his life studying late 18th century French philosophy, and while I can see a point to studying philosophy, I don't see a point in being specialized down to about 30 years worth of philosophy, in 1 geographic region, when the history of philosophy is at the very least at least 6000 years and a global phenomenon. It's in essence saying that "I want to become an expert on 0.5% of the total history of my field within a region that makes up 0.8% of habitable land mass. 

If he insisted on working in that area, he should have formulated his research question as "The principles of 18th century French philosophy as reflected in the field of general philosophy" or "A mathematical exploration of 18th century philosophy" since that would have given him methods that he could apply to his entire field as a result of his specific study.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Old Intern said:


> This is close to offensive, maybe you talk just to make noise but I don't.
> 
> @*Eleventeenth* you are putting your own valuation of Si into your ENTP description? (the activity you describe for ENTP? - zzzzz Ne is forward thinking not purely undiciplined). In my case, (example) I was quick to jump on HTML email and social media-discussions as a way to introduce services and direct people to a small business website, before these became the mainstream things to do. My INTJ friend was stuck on pure SEO which does have its place. But I knew my best prospects wouldn't even know what to search for - yet. I built my own architecture, so to speak. We live in an age where we increasingly need to set up feedback loops and draw our own conclusions; no failsafe Te exists for some of today’s concerns.


No need to get offended. My intention was to illustrate the fact that ENTPs know a lot about a wide variety of topics and they are able to tie them all in to a sort of comprehensive world view. Ne (and all extroverted functions) do in fact excel at breadth.

Even if those topics I listed are not necessarily "future oriented", I don't know many Si-doms that make a habit of being interested in those types of things. But whatever, I was just going off my own experience and shooting from the hip.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> My mind makes pretty much everything into general principles, it strips away detail, it tries to make everything into simple variables that can be applied to a wide range of situations and in essence goes from the specific to the general.
> 
> I had an INTP colleague, who spent 5 years of his life studying late 18th century French philosophy, and while I can see a point to studying philosophy, I don't see a point in being specialized down to about 30 years worth of philosophy, in 1 geographic region, when the history of philosophy is at the very least at least 6000 years and a global phenomenon. It's in essence saying that "I want to become an expert on 0.5% of the total history of my field within a region that makes up 0.8% of habitable land mass.


I think all of this supports the fact that extroverts (or, more accurately, extroverted functions) are about breadth (and the "general", as you mention), while introverts (err, introverted functions) are about depth. I'm always amazed at how fluidly extroverts are able to handle multiple things going on at once without really missing a beat. It just doesn't work that way for me. I have to kind of focus on one topic at a time, and really "dive into it". Anything else is kind of a distraction. And, by being this way, one develops very deep, albeit more narrow, interests.

If you're interested, this short video aptly describes the unconscious drive of the INTP to really drill down deeply into a topic in order to understand it very thoroughly. The video really plays up INTP intelligence, so ignore that part - that's not the point. More importantly, he describes the "depth" thing pretty well.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Eleventeenth said:


> I think all of this supports the fact that extroverts (or, more accurately, extroverted functions) are about breadth (and the "general", as you mention), while introverts (err, introverted functions) are about depth. I'm always amazed at how fluidly extroverts are able to handle multiple things going on at once without really missing a beat. It just doesn't work that way for me. I have to kind of focus on one topic at a time, and really "dive into it". Anything else is kind of a distraction. And, by being this way, one develops very deep, albeit more narrow, interests.
> 
> If you're interested, this short video aptly describes the unconscious drive of the INTP to really drill down deeply into a topic in order to understand it very thoroughly. The video really plays up INTP intelligence, so ignore that part - that's not the point. More importantly, he describes the "depth" thing pretty well.


Since everyone uses a mix of introverted and extroverted functions, your "fact" leaves a few things to be desired.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> Since everyone uses a mix of introverted and extroverted functions, your "fact" leaves a few things to be desired.


Right, but if theories hold, our dominant function is our "go to" function. It's where we "live" most of the time. I'm not talking black-and-white, either-or, here. I'm talking general tendencies. An extrovert has the ability (and the functions) to delve deep, and the introvert has the ability (and functions) to go broad - it's just not going to be their bread and butter, so to speak.

If you say that you're more about depth and more narrow topics, and your INTP colleague is more about breadth and stretching far and wide, then I guess I stand corrected.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Eleventeenth said:


> Right, but if theories hold, our dominant function is our "go to" function. It's where we "live" most of the time. I'm not talking black-and-white, either-or, here. I'm talking general tendencies. An extrovert has the ability (and the functions) to delve deep, and the introvert has the ability (and functions) to go broad - it's just not going to be their bread and butter, so to speak.
> 
> If you say that you're more about depth and more narrow topics, and your INTP colleague is more about breadth and stretching far and wide, then I guess I stand corrected.


That depends on the theory. In the case of socionics for instance, you have subtypes with a penchant for the creative function and those with a penchant for the dominant function. 

It also hinges on your definition of "broad" and "deep". I'm a firm believer in that you get depth by going broadly, and lose depth by being narrow. This is due to diminishing returns, at some point in your inquiry but also due to the synergies between differing fields. 

It strikes me that you're arguing breadth and depth as a modern day phd, whereas I think of it more in terms of being a polymath. I realize those aren't mutually exclusive, however they function as illustrations of the positions. 

In terms of investment, it would also be easy to argue that diminishing returns and a lack of synergies result in depth as you appear to define it, would inevitably lead to a poorer return on time/effort invested.


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> That depends on the theory. In the case of socionics for instance, you have subtypes with a penchant for the creative function and those with a penchant for the dominant function.
> 
> It also hinges on your definition of "broad" and "deep". I'm a firm believer in that you get depth by going broadly, and lose depth by being narrow. This is due to diminishing returns, at some point in your inquiry but also due to the synergies between differing fields.
> 
> ...


Te, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Te, ladies and gentlemen.


Sometimes in more judgmental moments I find myself wanting to quote the following: 

"I never said that you're not good at what you do, it's just that what do you isn't worth doing" Sheldon Cooper 

At INTPs


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> Sometimes in more judgmental moments I find myself wanting to quote the following:
> 
> "I never said that you're not good at what you do, it's just that what do you isn't worth doing" Sheldon Cooper
> 
> At INTPs


Yeah those guys collectively suck. I mean I don't know all of them or anything...


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> That depends on the theory. In the case of socionics for instance, you have subtypes with a penchant for the creative function and those with a penchant for the dominant function.
> 
> It also hinges on your definition of "broad" and "deep". I'm a firm believer in that you get depth by going broadly, and lose depth by being narrow. This is due to diminishing returns, at some point in your inquiry but also due to the synergies between differing fields.
> 
> ...





Scelerat said:


> Sometimes in more judgmental moments I find myself wanting to quote the following:
> "I never said that you're not good at what you do, it's just that what do you isn't worth doing" Sheldon Cooper
> At INTPs


I appreciate what you're saying here. It appears that we might be arguing for different things, however. I'm not stating anything with regards to which method is inherently "better" or which is inherently "inferior" and ends up with diminishing returns or whatever.

Perhaps our definitions of deep and wide are different. All I'm really stating is this: If I take a shovel and dig two 12 foot deep holes, I'm going to find certain kinds of things in the ground, and for varying reasons (historical, cultural, geological, etc.). If you dig four 6 foot deep holes, you'll find certain kinds of things in the ground, for specific reasons as well. Some of our finds will be the same or similar, and it's on those planes that we'll be able to have a common-ground discussion. But, inevitably, you'll find some things that I won't, and I'll find some things that you won't - and if we're open-minded folks, we'll be able to share our discoveries with one another and learn from each of our efforts. If we're not, we won't. 

I'm not saying that my method is better than anyone else's, I'm simply saying "that's my method". If you want to argue that my method is inherently flawed or inferior to yours, or even less valuable to society, knock yourself out.


----------



## Eleventeenth (Aug 24, 2011)

Scelerat said:


> It strikes me that you're arguing breadth and depth as a modern day phd


Fortunately or unfortunately, I claim no such degree.


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Eleventeenth said:


> No need to get offended. My intention was to illustrate the fact that ENTPs know a lot about a wide variety of topics and they are able to tie them all in to a sort of comprehensive world view. Ne (and all extroverted functions) do in fact excel at breadth.
> 
> Even if those topics I listed are not necessarily "future oriented", I don't know many Si-doms that make a habit of being interested in those types of things. But whatever, I was just going off my own experience and shooting from the hip.


No problem, only that your understanding of ENTP seems like a dialed up version of INTP which wouldn't be accurate. 

From what I've seen around PerC, INTP's are often serial specialists (which lines up with your understanding of yourself and introversion). ENTP's are not INTP's with shorter attention spans and broader interests. For you, the need to understand things in depth is the primary thing and then Ne finds the next new thing. This ties in with the semantics problem when we talk about scope or depth and think in terms of narrow or broad (mentioned by @*Scelerat*)*. 
*
I’ve said in other posts that someone with a dominant introverted function is a specialist by nature, even if they have a job of management it will be executed from a specialist mindset. Extroversion has an overview mindset; that is, when we talk about extroverted functions we are not exactly talking about how sociable someone is, or how broad their knowledge is.

*My judgment function being unapologetically subjective,* I suppose this makes me a 50ft overview person and Te might be more of a 100ft overview - Maybe. Ne dom doesn’t mean that I have a million possibilities and then randomly or consecutively explore each one. With Ne being my “on” switch, Ti needs to be my off switch or funnel. 

@*Scelerat,* I sort things into categories too, but in my own subjective filing system. This can be summed up with – “what is the target” – period. The target can be a project, or a milestone. The target can be mine; the target can be my own assessment of a person, in terms of what I believe defines them - like the mission statement they seem to have even if they don’t know it. If I define someone’s “targets” for my filing system, my impression is all that counts because “the file” is for my use. Often I keep these things to myself, and since Ne is the open valve I have no problem with “adjusting files” as needed. 

It’s like the Cheshire cat’s comment -in Alice in Wonderland, “If you don’t know where you want to go, it doesn’t matter which road you take”.

So I still welcome any more examples or illuminations about what an “objective” (TE) filing system works like. Thanks, all. I'm going back to finish reading in depth now.


----------

