Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
You said that you use Te. Te isnt something you use, T is what you use I and E are attitudes towards using thinking. Like i mentioned attitude is habitual and automatic thing, as you probably know because you talk english. Now if you take some really empathetic person for example, his attitude towards people is relating with empathy, instead of anger or hatred. How could his automatic reactions to people be both empathetic and anger? That just doesent make any sense and its the same thing with Te and Ti. Te's attitude towards things in external world is trusting, what is observed is a fact, end of story. Ti on the other hand has an attitude of trusting subjective rationalization over what just seemingly makes sense about external world. How can you both trust your subjective logic and some observed fact at the same time if the external fact happens to contradict your logic? It just makes no sense. What im pretty sure you think equals Te is organizational skills etc. but thats not Te, its just what comes easily out of trusting external facts, but can be done by someone preferring introversion in thinking. There is also such thing as concrete thinking, which is something that Te does and Ti is capable of doing aswell in certain situations when S function is undifferentiated. Basically what it means is to use thinking that is directed by things in external world, in Ti's case its about S and Ti working together, S directing the focus of Ti.

There is this blue text in my sig that says "Read", click it.
Yes there is automatic reactions, but there is also different reactions to different situations, as well as learned behavior. Essentially what I mean when I say I use both Ti and Te is that I use Thinking, and I naturally use it in the way you describe Ti, but there are some things I decide it is more efficient to just go on what is observed, usually organizational/logistical things like you said though. Like I said originally, can't really do both at the same time. Maybe this is just the concrete thinking which you described, that actually sounds fairly accurate.
And thank you for the link, I will definitely be reading through that when I have more time on my hands.