Ti and Te

[redcheerio]

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

Genius comes in many forms. I was just pointing out the folly in the professor's claim that Ti wasn't suitable for science.

(I thought da Vinci and Feynman were well-known to be ENTP, but I could be wrong, and that's besides the point anyway.)

 

[lunalum]

I agree with the point about Ti and Te being about exactly the same thing, just one extraverted (more fact-oriented and results driven) and one introverted (more defnition-oriented and understanding-driven). Basically the difference is that Te sees Ti as too slow and nitpicky to the point of irrelevance, and Ti sees Te as too hasty and superficial to the point of wrongness.

 

[Vizzy]

I agree with the point about Ti and Te being about exactly the same thing, just one extraverted (more fact-oriented and results driven) and one introverted (more defnition-oriented and understanding-driven). Basically the difference is that Te sees Ti as too slow and nitpicky to the point of irrelevance, and Ti sees Te as too hasty and superficial to the point of wrongness.

That's my understanding of Ti and Te.
How would you distinguish the preferences from the OP's original post? I definitely relate to one set over another.

- X is more direct and outwardly focused
- X will look for fallacies and be quick to point them out
- Y will notice fallacies as well, but may be content to work with an imperfect system or theory
- X may be more directly skeptical and hesitant to work with a flawed system
- Y can half-accept a theory or system, making use of it while keeping in mind that the results may be inaccurate
- X 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'm rather skeptical about this whole thing. For one, there's (insert logical fallacy here). Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting this theory. If I were you, I wouldn't rely on this."
VS
"Here's the problem with this that I see: (insert logical fallacy here). Still, I suppose we could make use of it anyways as long as we keep in mind that it may not be accurate. It does seem like it could still be useful."

(I replaced the use of "Ti" and "Te" with X/Y because I think they were a distraction)

 

[Crescent Fresh]

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

+1.

 

[Such Irony]

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.

This is exactly why Ti is superior to Te.

 

[Vizzy]

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.

But isn't systemizing and categorizing the human personality what everyone here is trying to do?

Anyway, I have an explanation that I'd like to test here.

As both Ti and Te are considered to be Judging functions, I think it boils down to what Ti/Te judge to be important. In this case, it’s a matter of correctness versus efficiency (as has been mentioned several times in the thread).
You can think of the Judging functions (Thinking, in this case) as the reason for a thought-process or action.

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.

As you can see, Ti and Te can use the same thinking process, but each branch off of different motivations/roots.
Remember, this is about preference - not ability.
I can think of many example of how I've used Te, Se and Ni (uh, maybe not this one) before.

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.

Sorry if it seems like I’m picking on you, RevlisZero.

If I use the explanation I wrote above, then the act of precisely following a formula doesn’t reveal whether one is using Ti or Te. I did find it interesting that your reason for using your own method was clearly because you found the other one too meticulous and inefficient. Perhaps the other students followed the formula because it has been proven to be accurate and flawless – and that’s all they needed. (Of course, it may also mean they haven’t understood the rules of the system as well as you have so would rather just use what they already know, but that’s a matter of ability, I believe – not preference.)
For the record, I'm pretty sure I'm a Ti-user, and I'm absolutely sure I suck at Maths. I was always more of a History/Language person.

Ti is nitpicky and meticulous at its very nature because it wants something to be accurate. Like [MENTION=10653]SuchIrony[/MENTION], I also like efficiency but would never compromise accuracy for efficiency...well, unless it was something I just didn't care about... Of course, Te can also be nitpicky...but not in the sense where they'd be willing to stay at Stage 1 for an "unnecessarily long time, wasting unnecessary effort".

 

[pinkgraffiti]

Basically, Ti is much better than Te? There must be an advantage to Te, right? What is it?

 

[Craft]

About the effectiveness(not efficiency) versus correctness, I'd say those are indirectly caused outcomes when considering an actual person. Ti contributes to the 'tendency' of focusing on Correctness while Te contributes to the 'tendency' of a focus in efficiency. As a whole, aside from cognitive functions, what influences a person's focus is his/her values.

 

[entropie]

But isn't systemizing and categorizing the human personality what everyone here is trying to do?

Yea it is. I as a Ne-dominant will never understand categorizing or systemizing cause it destroys the big picture and takes things so much out of context that they loose all of their original meaning.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

^ wow, i'm also Ne dominant and I do tend to categorise, use common sense, etc. And I think it helps understand the big picture. Maybe there's something wrong with me or my typing...

 

[Vizzy]

About the effectiveness(not efficiency) versus correctness, I'd say those are indirectly caused outcomes when considering an actual person. Ti contributes to the 'tendency' of focusing on Correctness while Te contributes to the 'tendency' of a focus in efficiency. As a whole, aside from cognitive functions, what influences a person's focus is his/her values.

In other words, a Ti-user strives for correctness and a Te-user strives for efficiency. Or is your interpretation something else?
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. (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).

Yea it is. I as a Ne-dominant will never understand categorizing or systemizing cause it destroys the big picture and takes things so much out of context that they loose all of their original meaning.

Yeah, I'm the same way. I've probably said it somewhere before, but I treat this all as a game where I'm just playing along and by the rules. Categorizing people into 16 MBTI types or 9 Enneagram types...it's fun and intriguing for what it is.
Regarding a true or "original meaning", I'm not sure if such a thing actually exists. (I mean, take colour as an example - the fact that we have 'set' colours: red, blue, yellow, green, orange etc. There are other cultures who don't view/systemize colours this way - at all.) There's nothing wrong with taking things out of context. Actually, how can there not be a context when it comes to understanding something? I guess we can only try to keep an open mind and be able to recognise different contexts.

Wow, got a bit philosophical there.

 

[entropie]

Yeah, I'm the same way. I've probably said it somewhere before, but I treat this all as a game where I'm just playing along and by the rules. Categorizing people into 16 MBTI types or 9 Enneagram types...it's fun and intriguing for what it is.
Regarding a true or "original meaning", I'm not sure if such a thing actually exists. (I mean, take colour as an example - the fact that we have 'set' colours: red, blue, yellow, green, orange etc. There are other cultures who don't view/systemize colours this way - at all.) There's nothing wrong with taking things out of context. Actually, how can there not be a context when it comes to understanding something? I guess we can only try to keep an open mind and be able to recognise different contexts.

Wow, got a bit philosophical there.

Let me phrase it differently: I am quite good with people. But if I start to see them with mbti labels, it ruins it for me with people. It changes the interpersonal connection for me so dramatically that I start to operate on a different plane in interaction with people. If then someone would ask me what is my opinion about person XY, I'd give an mbti-influenced answer and nobody would understand me.

To me mbti is poison, I am better getting to know people like they get to know each others without mbti. That integrates me a lot better in the societal mindset and makes it easier for me to communicate.

And that is basically what I am trieing to tell. Many people come here, having zero social competence, having no life experience and seek what they miss in mbti. But this forms a character that is even more incapable to socialize than it was before. Imo you can do mbti the moment you already have a somewhat stable character, if you use mbti as a guideline for human psychology it does make you even a bigger nerd than you were before.

By that I dont want to say that everyone needs to be integrated in the societal mindset, by that I want to say that a realistic human personality analysis, which incorporates all factors involved, cant be made solely by mbti.

 

[Silveresque]

Sorry if it seems like I’m picking on you, RevlisZero.

If I use the explanation I wrote above, then the act of precisely following a formula doesn’t reveal whether one is using Ti or Te. I did find it interesting that your reason for using your own method was clearly because you found the other one too meticulous and inefficient. Perhaps the other students followed the formula because it has been proven to be accurate and flawless – and that’s all they needed. (Of course, it may also mean they haven’t understood the rules of the system as well as you have so would rather just use what they already know, but that’s a matter of ability, I believe – not preference.)
For the record, I'm pretty sure I'm a Ti-user, and I'm absolutely sure I suck at Maths. I was always more of a History/Language person.

Ti is nitpicky and meticulous at its very nature because it wants something to be accurate. Like [MENTION=10653]SuchIrony[/MENTION], I also like efficiency but would never compromise accuracy for efficiency...well, unless it was something I just didn't care about... Of course, Te can also be nitpicky...but not in the sense where they'd be willing to stay at Stage 1 for an "unnecessarily long time, wasting unnecessary effort".

Based on this, I don't know if I can decide whether I prefer Ti or Te more. For things I really care about (like finding my type), I can be extremely nitpicky and value accuracy above all else. Though for most things, I don't really care that much and would rather just get it done as quickly as possible, even if I don't do it perfectly. Which definition fits me more is entirely dependent on the context, because what I'm dealing affects my priorities, and whether I would prefer to get it done fast or to get it done right. (Is it just me or does this sound like Fi + Te?)

 

[Vizzy]

Based on this, I don't know if I can decide whether I prefer Ti or Te more. For things I really care about (like finding my type), I can be extremely nitpicky and value accuracy above all else. Though for most things, I don't really care that much and would rather just get it done as quickly as possible, even if I don't do it perfectly. Which definition fits me more is entirely dependent on the context, because what I'm dealing affects my priorities, and whether I would prefer to get it done fast or to get it done right. (Is it just me or does this sound like Fi + Te?)

Let's use the Maths example you mentioned before. You displayed a preference for efficiency there. If we go further back to our little discussion about the Cognitive Functions test, you displayed a preference for using the (questionable) system in practice anyway for what it was worth. Would you say those are both fairly neutral situations?
(That's another thing I was wondering today. What kind of examples/situations do we consider with regard to thinking functions? One where there is no emotional influence?
Surely, everyone does things half-assedly when it's something they really don't care about. And of course, they'd be extremely precise if it was something extremely personally significant.)

By the way, check out this thread from PersonalityCafe:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/68477-am-i-right-about-te-ti.html Post #9 is basically what I've been trying to communicate here.
What do you think?

 

[Silveresque]

Let's use the Maths example you mentioned before. You displayed a preference for efficiency there. If we go further back to our little discussion about the Cognitive Functions test, you displayed a preference for using the (questionable) system in practice anyway for what it was worth. Would you say those are both fairly neutral situations?
(That's another thing I was wondering today. What kind of examples/situations do we consider with regard to thinking functions? One where there is no emotional influence?
Surely, everyone does things half-assedly when it's something they really don't care about. And of course, they'd be extremely precise if it was something extremely personally significant.)

By the way, check out this thread from PersonalityCafe:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/68477-am-i-right-about-te-ti.html Post #9 is basically what I've been trying to communicate here.
What do you think?

I get what you're saying, but again, it depends. When it comes to finding my type, I want to be 100% certain, and it really bugs me when I don't know my type. I feel like I must spend every waking minute analyzing and figuring out my type when I feel uncertain about it. I'm also pretty nitpicky about foreign language and want to make sure every detail is grammatically correct and perfect, and I will settle for no less. But that's because I care about my type and about language. For things I don't feel strongly about, like some boring English paper, I will put in the minimum effort required to get a decent grade on it. I'm only an overachiever in subjects I care about.

And about Te wanting to make decisions, I guess I want to decide on a type for myself, but I also want it to be correct, and even after I've decided, I'll keep adding more knowledge as it comes up in order to be more certain. Though somehow, the more information I get, the less certain I get it seems...

 

[Vizzy]

I get what you're saying, but again, it depends. When it comes to finding my type, I want to be 100% certain, and it really bugs me when I don't know my type. I feel like I must spend every waking minute analyzing and figuring out my type when I feel uncertain about it. I'm also pretty nitpicky about foreign language and want to make sure every detail is grammatically correct and perfect, and I will settle for no less. But that's because I care about my type and about language. For things I don't feel strongly about, like some boring English paper, I will put in the minimum effort required to get a decent grade on it. I'm only an overachiever in subjects I care about.

And about Te wanting to make decisions, I guess I want to decide on a type for myself, but I also want it to be correct, and even after I've decided, I'll keep adding more knowledge as it comes up in order to be more certain. Though somehow, the more information I get, the less certain I get it seems...

The more you learn, the more questions you ask. Ah, isn’t that the beauty of life? (And I’m not being sarcastic at all when I say that.)

I've always found it interesting how adamant you are at deciding on a type.
Would you be satisfied with understanding the rules of MBTI but, at the end of it, not deciding on a type for yourself? Or is that unthinkable because reaching a conclusion is the reason you’re doing all this anyway?
In a way, I'm a bit different. I'm happy to "merely" understand the whole typing system and am not too fussed about settling on any type. Why? Probably because I don't take MBTI or any system that tries to type the human personality - a HUGE endeavour - too seriously anyway. I guess you could say I’m here mainly for the ride.

 

[Silveresque]

The more you learn, the more questions you ask. Ah, isn’t that the beauty of life? (And I’m not being sarcastic at all when I say that.)

Indeed.

I've always found it interesting how adamant you are at deciding on a type.
Would you be satisfied with understanding the rules of MBTI but, at the end of it, not deciding on a type for yourself? Or is that unthinkable because reaching a conclusion is the reason you’re doing all this anyway?
In a way, I'm a bit different. I'm happy to "merely" understand the whole typing system and am not too fussed about settling on any type. Why? Probably because I don't take MBTI or any system that tries to type the human personality - a HUGE endeavour - too seriously anyway. I guess you could say I’m here mainly for the ride.

I'm not entirely sure why this is so important to me. I guess I just feel like my type is a part of me, so I must know that I have the correct type, otherwise I've either failed to fully comprehend the system, or worse--I've misunderstood myself. I don't think I would be at all satisfied to merely understand the typing system and not know my own type. One of my main reasons for my interest in typology is so that I can achieve a better understanding of myself, so if I couldn't accomplish that, I would likely become disenchanted with typology, feeling like there's no real point.

 

[Vizzy]

I'm not entirely sure why this is so important to me. I guess I just feel like my type is a part of me, so I must know that I have the correct type, otherwise I've either failed to fully comprehend the system, or worse--I've misunderstood myself. I don't think I would be at all satisfied to merely understand the typing system and not know my own type. One of my main reasons for my interest in typology is so that I can achieve a better understanding of myself, so if I couldn't accomplish that, I would likely become disenchanted with typology, feeling like there's no real point.

I expected to get an answer like that from you. Remember that Fi is also a rational/judging function...so it's no less analytical than Ti. What you said above sounds like the personalized Fi approach to analysing and understanding...supported by Te.

I'm just as fascinated by MBTI...but I've noticed that you and I approach it quite differently.

It was especially telling when you said that you'd be disenchanted with MBTI if, at the end of it all, it couldn't help you understand yourself. Keeping in mind that everybody is interested in learning about themselves anyway, I think a Ti-user would be extremely satisfied if he/she could learn something good about personality typing...even if they couldn't "harmonise" it with themselves or their own values.
Can you see where I'm coming from?

 

[Silveresque]

I expected to get an answer like that from you. Remember that Fi is also a rational/judging function...so it's no less analytical than Ti. What you said above sounds like the personalized Fi approach to analysing and understanding...supported by Te.

I'm just as fascinated by MBTI...but I've noticed that you and I approach it quite differently.

It was especially telling when you said that you'd be disenchanted with MBTI if, at the end of it all, it couldn't help you understand yourself. Keeping in mind that everybody is interested in learning about themselves anyway, I think a Ti-user would be extremely satisfied if he/she could learn something good about personality typing...even if they couldn't "harmonise" it with themselves or their own values.
Can you see where I'm coming from?

Yeah, I see where you're coming from. I'm not ruling out the possibility of being an INFP at this point, though I'm not convinced from this alone that I've been mistyped. Every description I've read of Ti has confirmed that I use that function, while only some parts of Te descriptions resonate with me.

I'm curious though, how valid/accurate would you consider the points on this function questionnaire (especially for Te and Ti)?

 

[jixmixfix]

Te:

Ti:

The mech is way cooler.