## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by Vizzy
In other words, a Ti-user strives for correctness and a Te-user strives for efficiency. Or is your interpretation something else?
Correction, *might strive.* *Strives* implies "black and whiteness."

I'm not sure about the use of "effective" because to Ti, something is most effective if it's accurate to begin with, and to Te, something is most effective if it is practical and usable.
Effective is as relative as practical and usable. When I say "effective", I mean it as achieving the goal of anything but precision.

(I didn't want to use fuzzy words like 'tendency' because I think no one accepts any of this theorising to be black and white anyway...at least, I hope not)..
Functions are pretty much black and white. How they are manifested isn't.

2. Originally Posted by Vizzy
An emphasis on Correctness (Ti) can mean:
- Following a proven method to solve a problem because you think it can bring you the most correct/accurate results.
- Creating your own method to solve a problem because you think it can bring you more correct/accurate results.
- Categorizing and systemizing so that things make logical sense, first and foremost.

An emphasis on Efficiency (Te) can mean:
- Following a proven method to solve a problem because you think it can bring you the result more quickly/efficiently.
- Creating your own method to solve a problem because you think it can bring you the result more quickly/efficiently.
- Categorizing and systemizing so that things make practical sense, first and foremost.
Practicality seems to apply just as well to ISTPs and likely isn't even that type related in the sense of Ti vs Te. The reason why it may not vibe well with INTPs is the fact that their practicality is based on intuitions that are the opposite of physical-realtiy. Their only other decisive function is Fe and it's inferior. I'll explain a bit.

I like this emphasis overall about all functions, that extroverted functions deal closer with matters of efficiency and introverted functions deal closer with matters of correctness. This easily fits with definitions of Te/Ti, Fe/Fi, and Se/Si. However...

with more emphasis I'd add that the 'overall' theme of Xe seems to be a form of decisiveness, with efficiency being one outlet of decisiveness, and Xi as speculation, with correctness being one outlet of speculation.

It definitely works this way looking at descriptions of Fe, Te, and Se as decisive functions, and descriptions of Fi, Ti and Si as speculative functions. The definitions of Ne/Ni in standard material I believe are a little skewed and tricky, but in practice follow this pattern well. If not for the fact of it applying to the rest I couldn't have noticed it with N as well.

INTPs with Ne have flashes of decisiveness ("assumptions of ideas working" or "the meaning/pattern behind what's going on") in their intuitive impressions, which is why the xNTPs are known as light-bulb thinkers. This seems to reflect onto their ideas overall, and has not much to do with Ti, so they're not so quick to act on and prove these hunches. In the same sense, an INTJ with Te secondary won't necessarily act on their Te, they will just know what needs to be done and maybe put it aside or make reservations for another time.

3. Couple of suggestions on top of what has been said: Ti is striving for long-term "most correct" solution, Te more for immediate practical solution, that solves the problem now, sufficiently.
Also, Ti is looking for solutions to problems that do not even need addressing right now. Te is less likely to do so, because it's not efficient.

I think Te-users and Ti-users of different types might have a different idea what their T-functions strive for...

4. Originally Posted by StrawMan
Couple of suggestions on top of what has been said: Ti is striving for long-term "most correct" solution, Te more for immediate practical solution, that solves the problem now, sufficiently.
Also, Ti is looking for solutions to problems that do not even need addressing right now. Te is less likely to do so, because it's not efficient.

I think Te-users and Ti-users of different types might have a different idea what their T-functions strive for...
This is precisely how I come into conflict sometimes with Te users. I am interested in far more than just solving the problem *now*. I want to look at underlying principles that will allow us to avoid such problems from happening in the future or if they do arise, they will be easier to solve the next time. What I really hate is when there is a problem and there doesn't seem to be any good logical explanation as to what's causing it.

Some of the Te users seem short sighted in my mind because they just want to solve the problem and don't care so much about the underlying cause. Their attitude is, if it happens again, we'll worry about it then.

5. Originally Posted by SuchIrony
This is precisely how I come into conflict sometimes with Te users. I am interested in far more than just solving the problem *now*. I want to look at underlying principles that will allow us to avoid such problems from happening in the future or if they do arise, they will be easier to solve the next time. What I really hate is when there is a problem and there doesn't seem to be any good logical explanation as to what's causing it.

Some of the Te users seem short sighted in my mind because they just want to solve the problem and don't care so much about the underlying cause. Their attitude is, if it happens again, we'll worry about it then.
If you pay the project costs, ...

6. Originally Posted by SuchIrony
This is precisely how I come into conflict sometimes with Te users. I am interested in far more than just solving the problem *now*. I want to look at underlying principles that will allow us to avoid such problems from happening in the future or if they do arise, they will be easier to solve the next time. What I really hate is when there is a problem and there doesn't seem to be any good logical explanation as to what's causing it.

Some of the Te users seem short sighted in my mind because they just want to solve the problem and don't care so much about the underlying cause. Their attitude is, if it happens again, we'll worry about it then.
^Yes.

I can have a hard time talking to dom or aux Te folks. It can be hard discussing ideas with them because they can't see why in the world why I be spending time thinking about this if I'm not going to do something with the idea(s). I've even had them do things like show my writing or ideas to other people because they want to get things started (had to put a stop to that).

I admire/envy their ability to get things done. I'm especially awed when the problem seems complex and they can cut right to the entry point of the solution. I have several friends that I will turn to when I get caught up in analysis paralysis. They are great at saying, "Look, I know you have this going on but you should do this, that, or the other first. Then do a, b, c.".

7. Guess this doesnt necessarily and automatically mean you are incapable of focussing. Especially if you are new to a topic everyone is rather inclined to breathe in every availiable information and go on a lot of tangents.

But if your heart one day will be focussed on the completion of a project or if your head will be in danger to be put on a stick, focus comes automatically

8. Ti is logical and mathematical. Te is empirical and systematic. Ti is quantitative and variable. Te is qualitative and constant.

I've found that it's easier to determine function via observed preference. In humor, for example, Ti-types seem to seek the modularity and randomness in wordplay while Te-types turn to the compound and multiplicative nature of conceptual satire.

9. Originally Posted by Vizzy
@Saturned @redcheerio

Ti and Te both look for fallacies and problems as they're thinking functions.
A Ti-user will be just as likely to point out something that's not consistent...especially on online forums, and I can attest to that.

I'm hesitant to utlilize or work with a flawed system/test because if the principles are fishy, it'll probably produce flawed results, leading to misunderstandings and incorrect answers - all unnecessarily. This may be a simplification, but why bother branching something out when the root was questionable to begin with? I'd rather just stay at Step 1 and fully understand the root of the problem. I may never fully understand it, which may also mean I'll never get to the stage where something real is produced but I guess, as redcheerio said, that's one problem INTPs face. (And I speak for myself when I say I personally don't NEED to come to a conclusion anyway. If it weren't for external pressure...)
Te-users will (half-)accept a system and use it for the sake of reaching any conclusion/getting some empirical data. Point is, this sort of Te-ish tangible thinking (e.g. empirical data and something to show) is what our society seems to prefer.

Disclaimer: In my opinion.
Can really relate to this.

10. Ti works to perfect something from the inside out, dealing with core flaws first and then things on the surface.
Te works outside in, usually dealing with what ever it sees first, so the system can limp on until it gets to the core issues.
Neither is better or worst, but in different situations one might be more efficient.

Just my thoughts, sorry if anyone has said something similar, no time to check.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO