KDude
New member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2010
- Messages
- 8,243
[There are people who have voiced pretty strong opposition to this and I've never understood why.
How about going outside? That might help.
[There are people who have voiced pretty strong opposition to this and I've never understood why.
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.More questions:
1. How do Ti users feel about doing research to solve a problem?
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.2. How would Te in the tertiary position solve a problem? Like ENFP's for example.
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?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?
Of course, I'm open to any objections.
How about going outside? That might help.
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.
[MENTION=9214]KDude[/MENTION]
I sense you being derogatory here. Maybe I'm wrong.
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.
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.
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.
Meh. Death is Coming.
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.
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?
Lol. Given what I know of your communication style from these here forum thingys, I find your anecdote ...unsurprising.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.
Oh you. Always with the terse brilliance.Ti does not want to solve problems. Te does.
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?
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.
[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.
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?
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.
Ti does not want to solve problems. Te does.
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.