# Thread: Ti vs Te consistency

1. ## Ti vs Te consistency

Ti and Te users have both said, numerous times, that they try to achieve consistency in whatever logic-system preoccupies them.

What is the difference between Ti's desire for consistency and Te's desire for consistency? Is "consistency" a misleading or insufficient word here? What about "reproducibility" or "cross-context applicability" (or is that involving intuitive functions)?

3. The only answer I have right now is based on my apologetics work within Christianity when I was younger, which I think it is indicative of Te-style thinking and quite the pain in my butt.

Te = focuses on external detail (= flesh), getting concrete facts right and organized, puts together concrete facts either in ad nauseum or else pulls the procrustrean thing by avoiding nuance in concept and just trying to state a particular collection of facts proves some point. If you want to compare it to math, then compare it to "computation" -- the actual numbers being calculated out to get a hard answer.

Ti = focuses on the internal concepts and structure (= skeleton), consistency is checked between the concepts to make sure they logically follow each other, facts are used only to try to suggest the concepts are right, the medium worked in is the concept and essence rather than the numbers themselves, if you consider it math then Ti is more like algebra or equations that "define" a particular object or process without you needing to plug in any numbers whatsoever... the equation is adequate to define the object no matter WHAT numbers are plugged in.

4. Originally Posted by Jennifer
The only answer I have right now is based on my apologetics work within Christianity when I was younger, which I think it is indicative of Te-style thinking and quite the pain in my butt.
WOW! my experience exactly! Pretty much burned out from the debates over a year ago. People just cite verses ("the facts") yet they all can make the Bible say whatever they want, and then you have hundreds of different opposing teachings coming from the same texts, and everyone is trying to "correct" each other with them! Looking at the underlying principles (of concepts such as "grace", and what the key "old world/new world" really was), I've come to a completely different view, and it makes no sense to try to argue it with them, as they'll all say it's heretical! (the only thing they would agree on!)

5. So you're saying something like?:

Te = consistent data (the logical principles bend to match the data?)
Ti = consistent logical principles (the data bend to match the principles?)

Whatever that means.

6. Somehow the idea of data bending to match the principle seems out of wack. I'd say Ti would try it's best to incorporate the data, failing to do that, it'll redefine itself as a new fitting model.

Te seems much more concerned with how the system operates, rather than what makes the system. But that's just stating the obvious that's constantly mentioned everywhere. To an extent Te will focus on the structure of the system to use it, but it might not do so to the extent that Ti analyses systems, and it certainly doesn't seem to bother with it as much if there's no real need to understand it in it's entire depth as long as it serves a purpose. Here Ti can be much more focused on just figuring out the system, even if it doesn't really serve any purpose. Te needs a better reason to do so (Person could just be interested/think it's practical to understand all of it.)

Then there's the other idea that perhaps Te users utilise Ti as well. Doesn't sound that unlikely.

7. Te wants it correct, even if there is no notion of why its correct. This applies in logical aspects though, not intuition or sensing.

For instance I can get that something is logically correct, and I'll understand why its correct through my intuition, but to logically understand why would be for me to use my Ti.

Ti = about process and reason

Ni = just knowing what is/isn't probable
Ne = but if this were true...then this

Si = expectations
Se = need to see it

I think consistency, not by type, but simply by Ti and Te (based solely on logic) is hard to estimate, since one needs to include both process, introversion and extroversion.

For me, if the facts are straight, and I know they are, It wouldn't make a difference in the world the inner workings of them. For me it's like taking a microscope to a house. The house is situated, its good. Let's move onto something else. Ni is knowledge of what needs or doesn't need to be explored. And I always see Ti putting out too much extra +++, about insignificant things.

Originally Posted by Cimarron
Is "consistency" a misleading or insufficient word here?
No it's not insufficient. It's different for either one. For me using Te, I just can't see how consistency wouldn't go along with efficiency, but Ti users can.

INTJ workings... data input. no match. data input. match! next...

8. I always figured this was the distinction:

Te: efficiently utilising the resources at hand to reach a stated goal, an intensly linear process
Ti: creating a ruleset in your mind that is considered universally-applicable, an intensly non-linear, webbed process

or something to that effect

9. Ti vs Te consistency that sounds like a sample from a biological experiment

10. In my mind:

Ti = Logical understanding
Te = Logical control

Fi = Personals values
Fe = Values of the group

Si = Perception of what has been
Se = Perception of what is

Ni = Perception of what will be
Ne = Perception of what could be

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•