Ti and Te

[highlander]

I stand by what I said here:

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50804&p=1684275&viewfull=1#post1684275

Didn't really do justice to Ti though.

I think we should be careful on inventing things that aren't really characteristics of the functions.

 

[Such Irony]

I'm wondering about some possible differences I've noticed between Te and Ti:

-Te is more direct and outwardly focused
-Te will look for fallacies and be quick to point them out
-Ti will notice fallacies as well, but may be content to work with an imperfect system or theory
-Te may be more directly skeptical and hesitant to work with a flawed system
-Ti can half-accept a theory or system, making use of it while keeping in mind that the results may be inaccurate
-Te can half-accept a theory or system as well, but may prefer to refrain from using it until sufficient evidence is found to support it or until it is improved

My theory is that both functions notice fallacies and can be skeptical, but they often express this in different ways that can best be explained through example.

I've bolded what applies to me. Either you've got them switched or I'm not Ti dominant.

Hope we get some replies soon!
The way I see it, you've got those bottom Ti and Te quotes swapped around. From what I've read, Ti is more concerned with correctness, and Te with efficiency. That's why they say Ti is prone to building castles in the sky, versus the Te preference to use a system (even with its inaccuracies) simply because they think it could be useful anyway.

I'm generally more concerned about correctness than efficiency. I do care about efficiency and I have been known to complain about inefficient systems from time to time but I am usually reluctant to compromise accuracy for efficiency.

 

[Silveresque]

Hope we get some replies soon!
The way I see it, you've got those bottom Ti and Te quotes swapped around. From what I've read, Ti is more concerned with correctness, and Te with efficiency. That's why they say Ti is prone to building castles in the sky, versus the Te preference to use a system (even with its inaccuracies) simply because they think it could be useful anyway.

I've bolded what applies to me. Either you've got them switched or I'm not Ti dominant.

So I guess that's not how it is after all. I do find it interesting that you both think I've got the two functions swapped, though, because that would make me a Te user. But I suppose there's also the possibility that it doesn't have anything to do with Ti/Te.

I'm generally more concerned about correctness than efficiency. I do care about efficiency and I have been known to complain about inefficient systems from time to time but I am usually reluctant to compromise accuracy for efficiency.

I'm more concerned about correctness as well, though I do often care about efficiency. What I meant by "Ti can half-accept a theory or system, making use of it while keeping in mind that the results may be inaccurate", is that I will still consider input from an imperfect or flawed system, but with much less weight. So in that way I'm using it as a tool for better understanding, so that I can reach correctness.

 

[Oaky]

Not necessarily. I'm certainly no perfectionist, although I can be for certain things. And even when I do get nitpicky, I still usually half-accept the theory or system while I'm trying to understand it better--that's the point I was trying to get across. While I wouldn't say that Ti always nitpicks every detail, it certainly can, though this doesn't stop it from seeking further understanding by setting aside skepticism and postponing judgement.

This is how it is for me. I can't speak for all Ti users, nor can I say that Te is not like this. It may not even have anything to do with Ti vs. Te. That's what I'm trying to find out by making this thread.

Ti engineers everything within the mind to properly construct a sequence of logical connections between all particular variables perceived within a system or theory. They don't 'go' until the picture is properly constructed and everything seems to connect correctly. Perhaps because of pressure of certain variables such as time, younger INTPs would fall victim to lack of perfectionism within the logical picture making them assume certain things a bit too quickly.

 

[Silveresque]

Ti engineers everything within the mind to properly construct a sequence of logical connections between all particular variables perceived within a system or theory. They don't 'go' until the picture is properly constructed and everything seems to connect correctly. Perhaps because of pressure of certain variables such as time, younger INTPs would fall victim to lack of perfectionism within the logical picture making them assume certain things a bit too quickly.

I agree with what you've said for the most part. I don't think Ti can't 'go' until everything is working correctly, but I think it's preferred that way. When I think about it, I can be pretty perfectionist in certain topics of interest such as typology and language, though for other things that I don't particularly care I about, I'm not a perfectionist at all. So I suppose that makes it "selective perfectionism".

I wonder though, couldn't Te be nit-picky and perfectionist about efficiency and making sure things work properly? Couldn't that cause a Te user to want to fix a broken system, or else see that it gets fixed, before using it? I've definitely seen this before, but it could just be an e1 thing.

 

[Oaky]

I don't think Ti can't 'go' until everything is working correctly, but I think it's preferred that way.

It's a defining factor of Ti. It doesn't necessarily 'go'. It just 'analyses and concludes'.

I wonder though, couldn't Te be nit-picky and perfectionist about efficiency and making sure things work properly? Couldn't that cause a Te user to want to fix a broken system, or else see that it gets fixed, before using it? I've definitely seen this before, but it could just be an e1 thing.

Ah, Te is far more about the results. How the system works bears less importance but Te will do what it should to get whatever works to work to get the results it wishes, whether or not it's fully understood. If you imagine a raging Te-dom boss who shouts at his employees to get things done even when there is a problem on the employee's part. The Te boss doesn't care what the problem is, he just wants his employees to do their part.
A Ti-dom boss will probably look deeper into the issues to analyse the problems within the problems.

 

[Vizzy]

So I guess that's not how it is after all. I do find it interesting that you both think I've got the two functions swapped, though, because that would make me a Te user. But I suppose there's also the possibility that it doesn't have anything to do with Ti/Te.

If what we've been talking about has nothing to do with the thinking functions, then I don't know what does.

I agree with what you've said for the most part. I don't think Ti can't 'go' until everything is working correctly, but I think it's preferred that way. When I think about it, I can be pretty perfectionist in certain topics of interest such as typology and language, though for other things that I don't particularly care I about, I'm not a perfectionist at all. So I suppose that makes it "selective perfectionism".

Well, I think it's pretty natural for people to be more careful and pedantic with things they take a personal interest in - but even so, you'll have noticed that we think/go about things differently.

If you don't mind me saying, (and I hope this isn't too blunt) I see two problems here:

1) You have your Ti and Te swapped.
2) You've already concluded that you're an INTP and seem to be working backwards to justify that conclusion rather than considering that you may have other functions...although this may be because you're convinced you have Ti (which goes back to problem 1).

 

[Silveresque]

Well, I think it's pretty natural for people to be more careful and pedantic with things they take a personal interest in - but even so, you'll have noticed that we think/go about things differently.

If you don't mind me saying, (and I hope this isn't too blunt) I see two problems here:

1) You have your Ti and Te swapped.
2) You've already concluded that you're an INTP and seem to be working backwards to justify that conclusion rather than considering that you may have other functions...although this may be because you're convinced you have Ti (which goes back to problem 1).

Do you think I'm not an INTP, then? I Ti-analyze things so much that I find it hard to believe I could not be a Ti-user, unless Te can look very similar, in which case I'm not sure how the two would be distinguished.

And don't worry about the bluntness, I don't mind at all.

 

[Vizzy]

Do you think I'm not an INTP, then? I Ti-analyze things so much that I find it hard to believe I could not be a Ti-user, unless Te can look very similar, in which case I'm not sure how the two would be distinguished.

And don't worry about the bluntness, I don't mind at all.

Glad you're such a good sport. I think the issue lies in the bolded bit. You say you Ti-analyze and are a Ti-user...but your definition of Ti seems to be Te, and vice versa. Other posters in this thread have given examples of how the two functions differ. Does it help?

 

[entropie]

I am a Ti - user without my daily dosage of Ti, I'ld start to look like that:

 

[Silveresque]

Glad you're such a good sport. I think the issue lies in the bolded bit. You say you Ti-analyze and are a Ti-user...but your definition of Ti seems to be Te, and vice versa. Other posters in this thread have given examples of how the two functions differ. Does it help?

Not particularly. I think we're not all on the same page, or at least I'm certainly not. Anyways, I think my statements in the OP are too easy to interpret in different ways, so while I could see myself in the Ti descriptions, I can also see myself in the Te descriptions depending on how I interpret it and what examples I happen to think of. Though in general I think I relate more to the Ti descriptions (that are apparently Te). I'll have to look into this more because if I've got the wrong understanding about Ti, then I very well may have mistyped myself.

But then another problem is, if I'm an INFP and not an INTP, that would mean I don't use Fe, and I'm pretty sure at this point that I do...

 

[Silveresque]

So I've been reading Ti vs. Te threads, but the problem is I can't tell which function I relate to more. Maybe I'll post an example of my thought process, and someone can help clarify whether it's Ti or Te.

Last year I had an interesting math class. There were only six people in the class (including myself), and there was a lot of flexibility with how you could solve problems, which I liked very much. If a method seemed too meticulous or annoying to me, I would often invent my own way to solve it, which often involved guess-and-check. I got pretty good doing at guess-and-check using the graphing function on my calculator. It saved me a lot of time and energy. Another thing is that I had a somewhat unique way of solving convergence/divergence problems. Instead of using the formulas like everyone else (I find following a long step-by-step process annoying), I would look at the function and estimate whether it converged or diverged by assigning approximate, greater than/less than values to the parts, and essentially learning the rules of the system. For example, (in a summation equation where x approaches infinity) x^x > x! > x^5 > 5. Therefore, a function like (x! + 5) / (x^5 + 7) would diverge because x! is greater than x^5, and the constants are irrelevant.

I think this is Ti, but since I seem to have the wrong impression of Ti, I can't be sure. My classmates were mostly Te users (I think) who followed the formulas exactly and did all the steps the way they were supposed to, and I don't think they really understood my strange methods.

 

[entropie]

Ti, cause a Te would never count the people in class as people but divide into male or female. Also S, cause a N would never notice that there are people in class

Jokes aside, you basically have the same problem like any intp and it will be your downfall in the end. You cant catalogue and categorize the world just like that and say thats Te and thats Ti. All things are always a product of the interconnection of the functions, so for example your behaviour shows that you are an intp cause you try to systematize a thing that is not categorisizeable.

it wont work if you look in Ti or te in people, you can only see people and their whole sum. If you keep denieing you that and run thru the world analyzing people like mathematical systems, you'll never understand what it means to be human. Trust, love, hate, devotion will forever be alien irrational concepts to you, yet they play an integral part in every human analysis

 

[LaconicSesquipedalia]

Wow, I have just concluded that I am paying too much for my education (Ni). Wait 'til you xNTP's get a load of this: my personality theory professor just stated that Ti is "subjective" and NOT conducive to scientific work. Apparently, Te is more "objective" and better suited for science.

I just about poked a hole through my cheek with my tongue, trying not to state several examples as to why this is simply wrong. Hopefully those who aren't idiots took the fact that she considered Ti to be "cold" and too "emotional" to succeed in science to be an indicator of how qualified she is to be teaching a 400 level personality course. I realize this Jungian/MBTI stuff isn't the most popular in contemporary professional psychology, but come on.

 

[entropie]

Wow, I have just concluded that I am paying too much for my education (Ni). Wait 'til you xNTP's get a load of this: my personality theory professor just stated that Ti is "subjective" and NOT conducive to scientific work. Apparently, Te is more "objective" and better suited for science.

I just about poked a hole through my cheek with my tongue, trying not to state several examples as to why this is simply wrong. Hopefully those who aren't idiots took the fact that she considered Ti to be "cold" and too "emotional" to succeed in science to be an indicator of how qualified she is to be teaching a 400 level personality course. I realize this Jungian/MBTI stuff isn't the most popular in contemporary professional psychology, but come on.

The problem I see here is that the further you go with function theory the more you start to categorize people and by labeling them you can easily discourage them to do the thing they are good at. Especially from young age on til adulthood you change so often, its not like you are born intj or entp.

Look at me for example, I majored in german and english literature studies in school and barely made it thru school cause I never was able to grasp theories from physics nor was I able to understand math. I am the best human calculator on earth and I can fix every broken electric or mechanic piece, I repair cars in the neighbourhood for money and I have a huge liking towards mathematical models which fall in place or are well-rounded, like control engineering or programming. I am an idea generator and I can find multiple technical solutions to a problem, I am given the most impossible tasks at work, other people would need half a year of study for, but I am able to generate so many ideas in just 2 hours that its only left to my boss to figure which is good and which not.

I didnt know I was able to do all that and when I finished school I had never dreamt to study natural sciences, tho I was always drawn to it. Now I am about to finish my master in engineering and I definitly want to do a PhD. I am not such a good learner and my grades suck, but my practical experience in the real world is already unmatched to the practical experience of most of my study colleges.

What would have been now, if I was told after school, because I studied english and german I was a infp and my primary function Fi is this or that. I bet I'ld have never dared to make a shot for natural sciences. And that is what I mean, you have to give room for kids to make their own mistakes and to discover the world themselves. If you map their personality to them just like that at young age, you appeal to them cause you speak to their wish for identity every pubvertarian adult has and by doing so you influence them and destroy an independant development.

I dont say that type theory isnt an inherently logical system, but it is with all things from science that the big picture plays a role as well and the place and meaning some things are used for or interpreted in. I am convinced Einstein had eaten the theories of fission if he had known they build the atomic bomb from it. Science without reason is very subjective, tho it always would claim to be the most objective of them all

 

[LaconicSesquipedalia]

It's in my nature to want to categorize things, though; it's almost like a built-in heuristic for me to approach the world. I can agree that personality is dynamic, but does that change the applicability of this system, insofar as your approach to others? Also, if you have the stance that it is dynamic, why bother to display your type? As far as I've seen, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary here to elect not to.

 

[redcheerio]

Wow, I have just concluded that I am paying too much for my education (Ni). Wait 'til you xNTP's get a load of this: my personality theory professor just stated that Ti is "subjective" and NOT conducive to scientific work. Apparently, Te is more "objective" and better suited for science.

I just about poked a hole through my cheek with my tongue, trying not to state several examples as to why this is simply wrong. Hopefully those who aren't idiots took the fact that she considered Ti to be "cold" and too "emotional" to succeed in science to be an indicator of how qualified she is to be teaching a 400 level personality course. I realize this Jungian/MBTI stuff isn't the most popular in contemporary professional psychology, but come on.

Um, yeah. According to that logic, Einstein, Feynman, Tesla, da Vinci, and other historical figures/ Nobel Prize winners should not have been working in science.

I agree she shouldn't be teaching a personality course.

 

[LaconicSesquipedalia]

Um, yeah. According to that logic, Einstein, Feynman, Tesla, da Vinci, and other historical figures/ Nobel Prize winners should not have been working in science.

LOL that is virtually identical to the response in my head. If Ti = not good for scientific endeavors, that noise in the background is a bulldozer, rapidly approaching the Jungian/MBTI construct.

 

[FDG]

da Vinci and Feynman were probably ENTjs....da Vinci maybe even ESTj. So yeah 50-50 among the geniuses, lol.

 

[LaconicSesquipedalia]

da Vinci and Feynman were probably ENTjs....da Vinci maybe even ESTj. So yeah 50-50 among the geniuses, lol.

I've seen him listed as INTP plenty. And the correct term for him would be polymath.