The Ti problem solving process vs. the Te problem solving process.

[KDude]

[There are people who have voiced pretty strong opposition to this and I've never understood why.

How about going outside? That might help.

 

[greenfairy]

More questions:

1. How do Ti users feel about doing research to solve a problem?

For me, research is kind of boring; I like learning concepts and applying them, and interesting facts which have application to theories, but if the information is not related to either of these it's a chore and I feel it detains me from my Ti analytical process. I do it though, as I am a pretty anxious person and like the security of knowing things are going to turn out ok. If I'm going to do something which could potentially have negative consequences, I'm going to either do it right or get someone else to do it who will do it right. I prefer the latter some of the time haha. I have networking power and like delegation of responsibility within it.

2. How would Te in the tertiary position solve a problem? Like ENFP's for example.

I can't adequately answer this one. From people I know...my ENFP sister I think would take the following approach: use her Fi to determine the end goal (along with Te for practical value of the goal), use Ne to come up with a million possibilities, then tap into the Si store of knowledge and use Te to find procedures that will allow attainment of the goal.

Because of these things I've mentioned, I think it's generally the case that Ti is deductive whereas Te is inductive. There are people who have voiced pretty strong opposition to this and I've never understood why.

You mean why some people seem to think it is the other way around? I don't know either. It's just plain mistaken. Maybe they misunderstand the meaning of the terms? Or have their own "creative" definitions of them?

 

[Doctorjuice]

You mean why some people seem to think it is the other way around? I don't know either. It's just plain mistaken. Maybe they misunderstand the meaning of the terms? Or have their own "creative" definitions of them?

I didn't know there are people who think it's the other way around; that perplexes me even more.

I have seen posts that generally say that such a relationship cannot be made and that to argue that it can be is silly or pointless. But I see inductive corresponding with Te very well and deductive corresponding with Ti very well.

Induction corresponds with empirical reasoning. Thus, induction corresponds with Te.

Deduction follows strict reasoning and logic. Ti corresponds with applying logical principles. Thus, deduction corresponds with Ti.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Of course, I'm open to any objections.

 

[KDude]

Of course, I'm open to any objections.

Like I said. Go outside. Do you have any ESTP or ISTP friends? Are they really getting all egghead-ish and recalling models and systems before they hop into something? At least in my case, life has been more of an experiment. And I can't recall very many things where I explicitly calculated and abstracted a situation before getting involved. I didn't think of the correct parameters and form before jumping on a skateboard for the first time. Or if I saw a cute girl at a party, I didn't use a deductive process in approaching her, like some PUA dork. I just got involved with the situation.. this is Se.

edit: Oh, and needless to say, this approach was met with plenty of failure. But that's OK.. You live, you learn.

 

[Doctorjuice]

[MENTION=9214]KDude[/MENTION]

How about going outside? That might help.

I sense you being derogatory here. Maybe I'm wrong.

Like I said. Go outside. Do you have any ESTP or ISTP friends? Are they really getting all egghead-ish and recalling models and systems before they hop into something? At least in my case, life has been more of an experiment. And I can't recall very many things where I explicitly calculated and abstracted a situation before getting involved. I didn't think of the correct parameters and form before jumping on a skateboard for the first time. Or if I saw a cute girl at a party, I didn't use a deductive process in approaching her, like some PUA dork. I just got involved with the situation.. this is Se.

edit: Oh, and needless to say, this approach was met with plenty of failure. But that's OK.. You live, you learn.

Anyway, I see your point, but I would argue that you are talking about use of Se which is irrelevant to the discussion of Ti vs Te. In these situations, you're not really judging or coming to conclusions about anything, you are experiencing. Judgment doesn't occur until later or maybe in the moment. When this judgment does occur you are applying logical principles or a framework (Ti, assuming you are xSTP), whether you're fully conscious of the process or not. So then it just comes down to whether applying logical principles can be counted as deduction.

EDIT: Also, deduction is not something that has to occur before experiencing something. You can come to judgments about an experience through deduction after the fact.

 

[KDude]

[MENTION=9214]KDude[/MENTION]


I sense you being derogatory here. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm stating a fact. Which may or may not be derogatory. You need to observe more STPs.

Anyway, I see your point, but I would argue that you are talking about use of Se and is irrelevant to the discussion of Ti vs Te.

No, it's not irrelevant. These functions don't exist in isolation. The sooner you learn that, the sooner you won't associate me with yourself. I don't want anything to do with your type of approach. It has no balls. It's signals a fear of involvement.

 

[Doctorjuice]

I'm stating a fact. Which may or may not be derogatory. You need to observe more STPs.

Well, one of my closest friends is an ISTP, and I have interacted with a couple other STPs on a long-term basis. So, I don't think any further observation of STPs is going to change my opinions.

 

[KDude]

Well, one of my closest friends is an ISTP, and I have interacted with a couple other STPs on a long-term basis. So, I don't think any further observation of STPs is going to change my opinions.

It doesn't add up. Your approach is one that seemingly wants to tighten all the screws before you get engaged. You seek structural, system wide integrity. And Ne keeps informing where these screws may be. It goes on and on. You see more sides to the problem(although to be fair, that can be very useful too). I don't need to know all of that. ISTPs just need situational cues. And even if they were need of the understanding you aspire to, they're only going to learn the hard way. Or they're going to dodge the ensuing problems and obstacles coming their way.

 

[Doctorjuice]

It doesn't add up. Your approach is one that seemingly wants to tighten all the screws before you get engaged. You seek structural, system wide integrity. And Ne keeps informing where these screws may be. It goes on and on. You see more sides to the problem(although to be fair, that can be very useful too). I don't need to know all of that. ISTPs just need situational cues. And even if they were need of the understanding you aspire to, they're only going to learn the hard way. Or they're going to dodge the ensuing problems and obstacles coming their way.

I won't argue with what you say here, it all seems on-target to me.

To be clear, what you have said in your previous post applies quite well to ISTPs in my experience. We (You and I) do not differ in our general perceptions of ISTPs. In that regard, we are congruent with each other. Rather, we differ in how we are defining and categorizing ISTPs and their approaches to life. We also differ in how we categorize, define, and approach understanding Ti vs Te. You see isolating individual functions as fruitless in understanding them and that interplay between other functions must always be taken into account whereas I do not.

 

[KDude]

I won't argue with what you say here, it all seems on-target to me.

To be clear, what you have said in your previous post applies quite well to ISTPs in my experience. We (You and I) do not differ in our general perceptions of ISTPs. In that regard, we are congruent with each other. Rather, we differ in how we are defining and categorizing ISTPs and their approaches to life.

Fair enough. I know I've approached this rudely in some spots. I'm not making an excuse, but I was trying to set a boundary as clear as possible. Once we turn our attention to something, I think there's noticeable level of impatience between our types (where ISTP would be the impatient one).

 

[Cellmold]

Ti :

Although to be fair this could easily apply to thinking in general.

 

[Kalach]

Meh. Death is Coming.

It's not really about time. Where reason moves into questions of logical purity, this TJ feels we are stepping away from confirmation. There's a sense of purposes gone awry.

It's difficult to overstate how much I loathe the kind of box-checking exercises that TJs glory in. Procedure layered on top of pointless, wasteful procedure. Complication as a means of career-building. Bureaucracy.

IRL, I have from time to time to deal with an INTP and a different guy I think is probably ISTP. Since with either of them I'm usually making arrangements or comparing timetables and activities, I often want to finish up with some statement of what we've decided. "So," I'll winningly assert, "we're going to XYZ?" And I look to them for confirmation. They, every time, stare back at me like I've spoken a short sentence of some language they don't know. Every time. They look just like they have no idea what I said.

 

[Kalach]

Meanwhile, I have a thesis about Marketing.

Well, I have a made up hypothesis with tiny shreds of maybe no evidence at all. It go a little somethin like this...

Lots of (1, possibly 2) NTPs write marketing textbooks. And Biz Admin books. I've had to read a few. I pick the NTP authors by how early on in the text they make marketing decisions depend on reference to company policy. "Company policy" will of course be a collection of well-thought out and exhaustively researched principles describing what the company can or will do. But TJ authors--or at least I identify them as TJ because of this--say marketing decisions depend on or flow from relationships we decide exist between people we might call customers and offers our company might make.

 

[wildcat]

So I've been looking everywhere for answers on this question that I have, but no one can answer this question so far. My question is this: What is the main difference between the Ti problem solving process and the Te problem solving process? So far I have come up with this:

With the Ti problem solving process, the individual in question solves a problem in their own head. They first identify the problem and understand it fully. Then they come up with a solution by themselves, without really consulting external forces. The Ti method of solving a problem seems to be trial and error, trial and error. The Ti user first comes up with a possible solution that will work to solve a problem then tries it, and if it doesn't work, they try something else. When I think of the Ti problem solving process I think of Thomas Edison's invention of the light bulb: He had many different solutions in mind to possibly solve his problem and kept trying thing after thing until it worked. Ti seems to have the tinker toy methodology to solving problems. Ti seems to only consult external resources when it gets stuck, and can't figure something out. It should also be noted that it is much more important for the Ti user to understand the full nature of their problem solving process and the problem at hand. You can't just give a Ti user a task and tell them to do it, because the common response you will get out of them is, "Why am I doing this?" and "How does it work"? This often angers Te users because they will say to themselves, "Who cares how it works, just do it! This is wasting time having to explain it to you", and this in turn often angers Ti users.

The Te problem solving process seems to be more external. When the Te user is trying to solve a problem, they look to the external world. In order to solve a problem the Te user, will often consult an expert in the field of the problem that he is trying to solve: the Te user will go to known authorities on a subject. In addition, the Te user will conduct research and look at external facts from things such as books by accredited authors. When I think of the Te method to solving a problem I often think of writing a college paper: You do loads of research on a subject, get the facts, organize the data, and state the "credible" external sources where you got the information. Boom! Problem solved.

Would you folks agree with this, and/or would you like to add more to this post?

Ti does not want to solve problems. Te does.

 

[Salomé]

It's not really about time. Where reason moves into questions of logical purity, this TJ feels we are stepping away from confirmation. There's a sense of purposes gone awry.

IRL, I have from time to time to deal with an INTP and a different guy I think is probably ISTP. Since with either of them I'm usually making arrangements or comparing timetables and activities, I often want to finish up with some statement of what we've decided. "So," I'll winningly assert, "we're going to XYZ?" And I look to them for confirmation. They, every time, stare back at me like I've spoken a short sentence of some language they don't know. Every time. They look just like they have no idea what I said.

Lol. Given what I know of your communication style from these here forum thingys, I find your anecdote ...unsurprising.

Ti does not want to solve problems. Te does.

Oh you. Always with the terse brilliance.

I wrote a whole bunch but this really does say it all...

 

[yenom]

So I've been looking everywhere for answers on this question that I have, but no one can answer this question so far. My question is this: What is the main difference between the Ti problem solving process and the Te problem solving process? So far I have come up with this:

With the Ti problem solving process, the individual in question solves a problem in their own head. They first identify the problem and understand it fully. Then they come up with a solution by themselves, without really consulting external forces. The Ti method of solving a problem seems to be trial and error, trial and error. The Ti user first comes up with a possible solution that will work to solve a problem then tries it, and if it doesn't work, they try something else. When I think of the Ti problem solving process I think of Thomas Edison's invention of the light bulb: He had many different solutions in mind to possibly solve his problem and kept trying thing after thing until it worked. Ti seems to have the tinker toy methodology to solving problems. Ti seems to only consult external resources when it gets stuck, and can't figure something out. It should also be noted that it is much more important for the Ti user to understand the full nature of their problem solving process and the problem at hand. You can't just give a Ti user a task and tell them to do it, because the common response you will get out of them is, "Why am I doing this?" and "How does it work"? This often angers Te users because they will say to themselves, "Who cares how it works, just do it! This is wasting time having to explain it to you", and this in turn often angers Ti users.

The Te problem solving process seems to be more external. When the Te user is trying to solve a problem, they look to the external world. In order to solve a problem the Te user, will often consult an expert in the field of the problem that he is trying to solve: the Te user will go to known authorities on a subject. In addition, the Te user will conduct research and look at external facts from things such as books by accredited authors. When I think of the Te method to solving a problem I often think of writing a college paper: You do loads of research on a subject, get the facts, organize the data, and state the "credible" external sources where you got the information. Boom! Problem solved.

Would you folks agree with this, and/or would you like to add more to this post?

Get things done on time, follow schedule and plans , can solve problems?

Its all about planning and controlling BS, making things follow according to plan and goal. Nothing to do with solving problems.

 

[yenom]

How do I solve problems? Look for parameters and authorities, then synthesize. The particular synthesis will include more than the authorities suggest though since I'll be drawing on a history of collected as well as prompted intuitions. But if it's to be straight Te(/Se), then stipulations and ad hoceries are my friends.

It occurs to me actually that I can't "do" Te without setting it in the terms of one or the other of the perception types. Completely absent some conditioning perception, it seems like Te would be all and only about the authorities. Who or whatever is presently available outside as the procedure for creating an answer is what will create "the answer".

(It'd be a mistake though to imagine that relying on authorities rules out testing authority to determine its actual level. The testing takes the form you'd expect: candidates are compared to outside conditions and ranked.)

What this all lacks in beauty it makes up for in lack of beauty, (long term) elegance of solution being extraneous to (immediate) efficacy of solution. Aesthetics eventually becomes an issue though inasmuch as the ad hoc piled on the pragmatic eventually becomes inefficient.

foh shizzle my nizzle drizzle chizzle

 

[INTP]

Both use logic and reasoning, but the difference is that Ti trusts internal reasoning over what the world says. If you have one horse and you add one more, you must have two, no matter what some scientist says, unless he can give some logical argument for why it is not two horses. Te on the other hand tries to reason using external data and trusts it more(provided that its coming from trusted source ofc). Naturally there is a subjective factor to Te aswell, but its more about how the two external things fit together and subjective reasoning is aimed to fit the external "proofs". While with Ti proof is only a proof when it resonates with internal logic, even then its more likely just the most probable answer, because every good Ti user should realize that nothing can be proven, because you cant prove that there isnt some missing factor that just makes it seem as if there is proofs.

 

[The Great One]

[MENTION=15607]The Great One[/MENTION]

I think your OP was generally on-target. I wasn't sure about equating Ti to a trial-and-error process, I just don't think that's a very significant facet of Ti, if it is a facet at all.

Te is primarily empirical in its approach to solving problems. Ti applies logical principles and/or a framework to a problem. If the end-result is known, that is good enough for Te. This is far from satisfactory for Ti which needs to understand something's internal structure thoroughly.

Because of these things I've mentioned, I think it's generally the case that Ti is deductive whereas Te is inductive. There are people who have voiced pretty strong opposition to this and I've never understood why.

EDIT: I now clearly see how you came up with your trial-and-error explanation. I'm not sure what to say about it.

Do you still disagree with it though?

For me, research is kind of boring; I like learning concepts and applying them, and interesting facts which have application to theories, but if the information is not related to either of these it's a chore and I feel it detains me from my Ti analytical process. I do it though, as I am a pretty anxious person and like the security of knowing things are going to turn out ok. If I'm going to do something which could potentially have negative consequences, I'm going to either do it right or get someone else to do it who will do it right. I prefer the latter some of the time haha. I have networking power and like delegation of responsibility within it.

I can't adequately answer this one. From people I know...my ENFP sister I think would take the following approach: use her Fi to determine the end goal (along with Te for practical value of the goal), use Ne to come up with a million possibilities, then tap into the Si store of knowledge and use Te to find procedures that will allow attainment of the goal.

You mean why some people seem to think it is the other way around? I don't know either. It's just plain mistaken. Maybe they misunderstand the meaning of the terms? Or have their own "creative" definitions of them?

Yes, I have always preferred the "hands on" method of learning as well. I personally hate the classic way of learning that is taught in school, which is basically, "Read, memorize, and then recite. Then rinse and repeat". My method of preferred learning is to discuss things with another person and bounce ideas off of each other. My method of learning is much more interactive. When I try to read a book, I almost never finish the damn thing because I will read a little bit of it, and then my mind will just space out into the crab nebula or worse: I will get a book and then it will give me a new idea to read a new book and then I will abandon the current book for a new one. It's so fucking hard for me to finish things!

However, you say that you hate to do research, but then if you hate doing this, then how do you gather information? I mean, obviously you aren't going to go out and rediscover everything right? For example, if you won $2,000,000 today in the lottery and decided that you now want to learn about the stock market and learn to invest this money in hopes that you will grow your money how would you do this? Would you go to professionals in the industry and have them show you everything they know? Would you go to seminars? Would you just start reading a book on investing and then just do a trial and error method of investing to see what works and what doesn't? I'm really trying to understand the Ti process more vividly here.

 

[The Great One]

Like I said. Go outside. Do you have any ESTP or ISTP friends? Are they really getting all egghead-ish and recalling models and systems before they hop into something? At least in my case, life has been more of an experiment. And I can't recall very many things where I explicitly calculated and abstracted a situation before getting involved. I didn't think of the correct parameters and form before jumping on a skateboard for the first time. Or if I saw a cute girl at a party, I didn't use a deductive process in approaching her, like some PUA dork. I just got involved with the situation.. this is Se.

edit: Oh, and needless to say, this approach was met with plenty of failure. But that's OK.. You live, you learn.

I agree with this: when comparing the Ti<Ne and Ti<Se users, I believe that this is generally correct. When Ne<Ti users want to solve a problem they generally clearly define the problem, think about the multiple ways that they could solve the problem, abstract the problem, and finally begin testing methods to solve that problem. Se<Ti users don't really think about the problem as much and intellectualize it as much. Generally they just immediately take action and just start trying things to solve the problems. Problem solving for Ne<Ti users is more head type whereas problem solving for Se<Ti users is more gut type.

Ti does not want to solve problems. Te does.

This doesn't make any damn sense. However, I think I know where you were going with this: Ti users care much more about understanding the problem solving process, and Te users are much more focused on solving the problem in general. They don't really care if they understand it, as long as the problem is solved efficiently and effectively.

Both use logic and reasoning, but the difference is that Ti trusts internal reasoning over what the world says. If you have one horse and you add one more, you must have two, no matter what some scientist says, unless he can give some logical argument for why it is not two horses. Te on the other hand tries to reason using external data and trusts it more(provided that its coming from trusted source ofc). Naturally there is a subjective factor to Te aswell, but its more about how the two external things fit together and subjective reasoning is aimed to fit the external "proofs". While with Ti proof is only a proof when it resonates with internal logic, even then its more likely just the most probable answer, because every good Ti user should realize that nothing can be proven, because you cant prove that there isnt some missing factor that just makes it seem as if there is proofs.

Yeah, I agree with this. I mean, I will often go out into the external world to get ideas for problem solving. However, I don't just believe these external resources hook line and sinker like a Te user. Generally I will seek out multiple resources, and kind of formulate my own opinion and sort of combine these resources in my head, if that makes any sense, and ultimately come up with my own solution.