Te-dom and Te-aux types, how do you describe Te? How does it appear in your life?

[/DG/]

Yeah, I think you're wrong. I would say Te's emphasis on algorithm or procedure necessarily precludes more steps in reasoning, compared to Ti's focus on structure (and to me, "structure" is "getting to the point"). Whether one is more correct or not though is up for grabs. Ti types (at least STP, but probably ENTP too) can be hasty.

Hmm...I guess I was referring to the speaking styles that I normally see* in INTP's versus TJ types. I can see how STP types and ENTP's could be different.

*Obviously this is not everyone.

 

[violet_crown]

Also, re: the bolded, I don't know about other ESTJs, but the way I use my Ne can lend itself to something similar, for example with DIY projects. I find useless things around my house, or in garage sales, or in the trash, and I think "how can I make this into something useful?" and then my Ne seizes control of the Si memory-bank and throws possible ideas to Te, which decides on the final DIY project based on various criteria (e.g. difficulty, budget, available tools/work space, attractiveness of final product).

You know, Ne is always something of the dark horse of the ESTJ functional stack. Gives such an unexpected tang to ya'lls cognitive processes that I think people neglect at their own peril.

 

[KDude]

Hmm...I guess I was referring to the speaking styles that I normally see* in INTP's versus TJ types. I can see how STP types and ENTP's could be different.

*Obviously this is not everyone.

I don't know any INTPs in real life (I think. Unless I'm one myself), but I was hesitant to include them because some like to write walls of texts here, online. It'd be even worse if they spoke like that.

 

[violet_crown]

Yeah, I think you're wrong. I would say Te's emphasis on algorithm or procedure necessarily precludes more steps in reasoning, compared to Ti's focus on structure (and to me, "structure" is "getting to the point"). Whether one is more correct or not though is up for grabs. Ti types (at least STP, but probably ENTP too) can be hasty.

Generally, when people are talking about "getting to the point" they're talking about the big picture, which is typically more about external coherence (Te) than internal (Ti). When someone's asking you to get to the point, they're basically asking you to relate what you're describing to their interest, and answer why should they care about what you're talking about. Some Ti users do that better than others. Te users are always concerned about broader significance. Not just that something works, but why should it matter that it works.

 

[KDude]

Generally, when people are talking about "getting to the point" they're talking about the big picture, which is typically more about external coherence (Te) than internal (Ti). When someone's asking you to get to the point, they're basically asking you to relate what you're describing to their interest, and answer why should they care about what you're talking about. Some Ti users do that better than others. Te users are always concerned about broader significance. Not just that something works, but why should it matter that it works.

I was thinking about this along the lines of Ti seeing the whole in the parts. My habit of figuring out the object of a game or activity, for example, just takes a cursory glance or a quick run through with it. I get the "point" of it fairly easily. The "whole" is often implicitly inferred. I was under the impression that Te wants things explicitly stated (which, in my view, would lead to not getting to the point as quickly. It's more thorough).

 

[violet_crown]

I was thinking about this along the lines of Ti seeing the whole in the parts. My habit of figuring out the object of a game or activity, for example, just takes a cursory glance or a quick run through with it. I get the "point" of it fairly easily. The "whole" is often implicitly inferred. I was under the impression that Te wants things explicitly stated (which, in my view, would lead to not getting to the point as quickly. It's more thorough).

First, I think Te is capable reverse engineering exercises like the one that you're describing. We just think about it a little differently. I think you put it very aptly that Ti "sees the whole in the parts". My impression of Ti is that its focus is on how components, working together, produce an outcome. That's what I meant by the emphasis on internal coherence. Te is less focused on process, and more focused on that outcome. It's not so much that we need it stated explicitly, as we take it as a starting point and move forward from there.

To use your example of an activity, we take as our basic assumption that that activity creates some effect. Whether it be a sense of enjoyment in the participants or creating widgets. Then we want to know how the effect of that activity impacts the enviornment it takes place in. That's what we consider "the point". It's not that baseball is a game where two teams attempt to score the most number of points in a series of nine innings. It's that it's a sport that people rally around because its a symbol of a common national identity, so it can be evoked when you're looking for a short-hand for "traditional American values". That knowledge for me has all kinds of applications.

 

[KDude]

First, I think Te is capable reverse engineering exercises like the one that you're describing. We just think about it a little differently. I think you put it very aptly that Ti "sees the whole in the parts". My impression of Ti is that its focus is on how components, working together, produce an outcome. That's what I meant by the emphasis on internal coherence. Te is less focused on process, and more focused on that outcome. It's not so much that we need it stated explicitly, as we take it as a starting point and move forward from there.

To use your example of an activity, we take as our basic assumption that that activity creates some effect. Whether it be a sense of enjoyment in the participants or creating widgets. Then we want to know how the effect of that activity impacts the enviornment it takes place in. That's what we consider "the point". It's not that baseball is a game where two teams attempt to score the most number of points in a series of nine innings. It's that it's a sport that people rally around because its a symbol of a common national identity, so it can be evoked when you're looking for a short-hand for "traditional American values". That knowledge for me has all kinds of applications.

Cool.

Although the stuff about baseball sounds more like introverted perception (and maybe Ni specifically).

 

[violet_crown]

Cool.

Although the stuff about baseball sounds more like introverted perception (and maybe Ni specifically).

It's hard for me to decouple Te and Ni. On its own, I think Te is kind of mindless. Like you were getting at, any idiot can point at something and say that it does such and such a thing. It's the application--figuring out the point, in other words--that makes it interesting.

 

[pinkgraffiti]

mmm, no, from a by-stander i totally understood FDG's post (and found it funny!) and found the other poster to be pretty dumb and unnecessarily offensive.

To be fair, FDG, your phrasing was not very clear. I was confused by your double negative, too, and interpreted it the same way yenom did -- not in the "stupid FDG" sense, but in the "FDG is telling people who aren't always focused on efficiency to get a life" sense.

So... let's everyone take one of these.

 

[EJCC]

You know, Ne is always something of the dark horse of the ESTJ functional stack. Gives such an unexpected tang to ya'lls cognitive processes that I think people neglect at their own peril.

It really does tend to surprise people! I love watching the reactions when people see my silly side for the first time...

First, I think Te is capable reverse engineering exercises like the one that you're describing. We just think about it a little differently. I think you put it very aptly that Ti "sees the whole in the parts". My impression of Ti is that its focus is on how components, working together, produce an outcome. That's what I meant by the emphasis on internal coherence. Te is less focused on process, and more focused on that outcome. It's not so much that we need it stated explicitly, as we take it as a starting point and move forward from there.

^ Yep.

A really good example of that is your typical INTP/ESTJ brainstorming session.

ESTJ: Which of the two options should we choose? X or Y?
INTP: *Goes off on very detailed descriptions of options X and Y*
ESTJ: So, you're saying option Y is better.
INTP: Well... in a sense... *adds even more data*
ESTJ: Yep, sounds like option Y is better. Let's do it.
INTP: ... *fumes over all the data that the ESTJ ignored*

Ehhh...I try not to make threads like this about me. Really, it's the whole bit about me never fully comprehending the cognitive functions. One day, I'll think I totally have it, but the next I realize I don't.

The bolded is probably another issue I have due to not being at all like an intuitive. Thing is, I dislike the descriptions.

Well, damn. Usually I tell people to try and look through the BS details of type descriptions to the "important parts" and the "general gist", but I guess that won't work here.

Have you looked at "Was That Really Me" by Naomi Quenk? It's really, really well written, with a ton of real-life examples, and also explains the functions very clearly. I related to literally every sentence of the Te-dom section.

mmm, no, from a by-stander i totally understood FDG's post (and found it funny!) and found the other poster to be pretty dumb and unnecessarily offensive.

I just meant that I didn't think it was dumb. Offensive, yes, but I was being devil's advocate about the miscommunication aspect of it.

 

[yenom]

You are completely dumb, because I was saying EXACTLY what you are saying (notice the "non" at the start of my sentence): that if you don't enjoy your free time in unproductive ways, you should get a life. Learn to read next time.

i think being called dumb by you is a privilege not many people can enjoy.

 

[EJCC]

GUYS.



This is neither the time, nor the place. Take it to the Graveyard, or PMs.

 

[violet_crown]

GUYS.



This is neither the time, nor the place. Take it to the Graveyard, or PMs.

Taking time to criticize someone via PM sounds like foreplay to me. Just sayin.

 

[yenom]

minimize the work and maximize the fun!

 

[FDG]

minimize the work and maximize the fun!

And with that I would agree.

 

[EJCC]

minimize the work and maximize the fun!

But if [MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION] is right, wouldn't PMs be more fun?

(And you were right, Rex -- didn't cross my mind because I forgot that some people actually like fighting with one another like that.)

 

[/DG/]

Well, damn. Usually I tell people to try and look through the BS details of type descriptions to the "important parts" and the "general gist", but I guess that won't work here.

Have you looked at "Was That Really Me" by Naomi Quenk? It's really, really well written, with a ton of real-life examples, and also explains the functions very clearly. I related to literally every sentence of the Te-dom section.

I have not, but I just found it online. I'll be checking it out!

 

[Ene]

I think [and I could be wrong. I'm new at this stuff] that maybe Te is what makes me say things like, "Oh, for crying out loud, can you get to the point already? What's the purpose of this anyway?"

 

[EJCC]

"Oh, for crying out loud, can you get to the point already?"

That seems more Ti. Te users do like getting to the point, but Ti users have such an obsession with conciseness and elegance of expression (e.g. in mathematical equations), and things expressed in just the right way. Like Fi, but with ideas instead of feelings. Te users don't care as much; it's more about what their expression can accomplish, than about the exactitude of the process of expressing it.

"What's the purpose of this anyway?"

Yeah, that seems more Te. "But what will this do? How does it get things accomplished?" More action-oriented and goal-oriented.