Ti/Te users: Explain the differences.

[Laurie]

I've become more I-looking since staying home with my kids. I can understand being confused about that.

 

[pkr289]

I know just what you mean about being isolated, it's one of the suckiest things ever if you ask me, even though I'm a pretty hard line introvert. I think to me it's mostly about needing stimulation, without it I end up thinking too much about the past and that's not very good.

 

[Llewellyn]

My recent view on this:

Ti: personal, subjective thinking. Can think anything.

Te: general, objective thinking. The thinking of a certain era. Moral, broad categories, like 'types of cultures'.

 

[Athenian200]

I posted this thread before. Here's my take, again.

I'm trying to further my understanding of the differences between Ti and Te. I know that they are both logical functions that make decisions oriented on the impersonal/objective factor. I think my abstract definitions, previously posted here, are potentially useful.

Ti -- Modifies/understands an external system via internal rules/principles.
Te -- Modifies/understands an external system via external rules/procedures.

What I'm interested in now, is how users of each function see their own use of it, and how they contrast themselves with a user of the oppositely directed version of the Thinking function. Depending on how many respond, we may also be able to explain/understand the differences between the dominant and auxiliary roles of each type of Thinking.

My theory about Thinking in general, whether it's introverted or extraverted, is that it tries to be primarily oriented to that which is outside the self-perception, the external system, or the objective factor, as much as possible. I think Ti is more focused on understanding/explaining the objective factor as completely/precisely as possible, and Te is more focused on applying the objective factor to situations as impersonally as possible.

So, please attempt to describe how your thinking function works for you.

 

[527468]

Athenian 1, lemons 0.

This would not be the best example for either types of thinking.

 

[Venom]

we would need to have 4 definitions actually.

Te with Ni looks, and IMO works, completely different than Te with Si.
same for Ti Se Ne...

my best attempt:

Ti - global logic (cant be any exceptions in any explanation/solution)
Te - compartmentalized logic (as long as solution/explanation works for what it was designed to do, who gives shit if there is some random exception)

 

[alicia91]

Thanks everyone.

Jeez, I didn't see that there was already a thread about this exact thing just yesterday. I did do a board seach first and nothing came up.

 

[Athenian200]

Jeez, I didn't see that there was already a thread about this exact thing just yesterday. I did do a board seach first and nothing came up.

Not only was there a thread about it yesterday, but there was ANOTHER thread about it two years ago.

It doesn't come up because one search feature has trouble with smaller words, and the other doesn't have the newer posts. Don't feel too bad, it's nice to have another opportunity to share these views with people who might not have heard them the first time.

 

[entropie]

There was that nice question in the "programmer dude test" that were:

If you were faced with the task to programm something, how would you proceed ?

Answer A) Shut myself off from the outside world, enter a parallel universe and start coding.

Answer B) Discuss the task with as most people as possible to get input, planning through on how you are going to proceed.

---
So there must be more to it. To say the one thing is only about planning or the one thing is about gaining input from the outside, is not all. Its more like a cocktail and these two factor into it.

I know that really cool guy, ESTJ probably. He has an odd trait, I really find strange but I like it. If you cancel a meeting with him he is perfectly fine, even happy. If you dont cancel it on time, he will be angry and hate you from now until forever. I experienced that first hand, I gladly was the one who canceled meetings in time.

I personally dont care, if someone cancels a meeting or not. Considering the facts of course that neither my ESTJ buddy nor me have to travel great lengths for the meeting location. I simply wait 10 minutes, then call him, if I get no answer after the second call 10 minutes later, I am gone.

I of course do not want to be left hanging, but what I found so special was to see that guy actually being really happy about someone acting according to protocol. It was hilarious and I of course played along, even if I could have blown the whole thing.

---
So what I wanted to say, I think there is more to it. Primary thinkers especially have a knack to use the Te aswell as Ti, disregarding of what they are. Socionics tend to call my Te the Demonstrative Function and it means I can use it well, but I mostly only use it to prove a point. That means for example to get things going or to make fun out of routine rigid people. To Ti primaries it would be the Ignoring Function, which describes that they would be good at it, but they just ignore it, due to several case-related reasons. My ignoring function would be Ni and I understand why I ignore it, cause I do not want to loose my mind and make 2800 posts about my own typology world ! Though wait... *error*

 

[Xander]

Introverted world = time alone thinking, making plans, etc.
Extraverted world = out with people, socializing

Is this what you mean?

Not precisely no. Personally I quite like to sit around and just discuss a theory. Even one that has no bearing on what I'm about to do like I dunno the various drawbacks of Freuds approach. My father would tire of such things quickly but would be enervated by the idea of tackling an organisation's processes.

Even better contrast would be that he would prefer to marshal people and talk with people face to face where as I would prefer to tackle the computers and talk to people on forums..

Of course that's more E versus I than typically T things but that's the point. The T element remains constant, only the arena in which we prefer to apply it changes.

Lately I've noticed that I'm happiest when I'm out and about, being around others, feel more energized and alive. When I look back at the happiest times in my life - it was when I was more outgoing and leading people. But I've gotten into this rut staying home with the kids and being so isolated - and convincing myself that this is making me happy.

Leading people? I've not much idea about that...

The most certain method is to read each type as a whole and forget about the background "functions" and such stuff. It's basically the building blocks that make the types. As with buildings, two buildings can be built with the same techniques and materials and yet be totally different.

 

[alcea rosea]

*sigh*

I guess I failed then to properly educate people....

Ti is T applied internally. Te is T applied externally. They are one and the same.

See the differences between E and I for your definitions if you still want them.

Poor you. People are stubborn and believe what they want to believe.

 

[Cypocalypse]

Ti = strategy
Te = tactics

 

[wildcat]

what's the difference between Ti and Te?

dont give me a description of each one.. i want to know what Extroverted/Introverted Functions mean..

so- discuss..

The agent.

 

[Xander]

Poor you. People are stubborn and believe what they want to believe.

:steam:

Bloomin F "logic"...

:steam:

(Depressingly true too...)

 

[alicia91]

Thanks Xander.

Not precisely no. Personally I quite like to sit around and just discuss a theory. Even one that has no bearing on what I'm about to do like I dunno the various drawbacks of Freuds approach. My father would tire of such things quickly but would be enervated by the idea of tackling an organisation's processes.

I would discuss the theory with you, see where you are going with it and try to figure out what your 'point' is in telling me this. Though I could continue to discuss something without applying it if it was something like 'art history' or design, pros and cons of emissions testing, etc. I think I'm more like your father. What type is he?

Leading people? I've not much idea about that...

I like to put together a committe to get something done. "I'm in charge, Bob you are doing ......, Jane, would you prefer to do X or Y? Great, now lets get this done asap. Let's meet again on the 24th."

I believe getting involved like that is what's missing in my life at the moment.

 

[nottaprettygal]

Merged the two Ti/Te threads going at the exact same time.

 

[Eric B]

Ti creates subjective conclusions. It doesn't analyze the object.

It's by happenstance that reality matches the creations of Ti upon testing. It's not the favorite function of the best analysts or logicians, because its creations are only coincidentally in sync with reality.

The whole "analyzing, categorizing, etc" definition is largely from Berens, and that does sometimes become a distraction from the root meaning of the function. You also hear "subjective models and frameworks", as well as "underlying frameworks" of external objects.
What I think that is, is that because Ti works with a subjective conclusion or model, the analyzing is the result of trying to fit the object to that subjective model. Often when trying to remember something with multiple parts; I will look for parallels, or other logical groups to gather them into fewer, more easily memorable packets of data. The "ordering" or arranging is being done internally, in this case, and it sometimes can then be directed outward if I then make a table of it, or suggest the groupings to people. That would be Te backing up Ti, and I believe it is a common mistake of people seeing this process then label professing Ti types as Te users.

I also love four-way mirror symmetries, which would include personality matrices. That's what drew me into the subject. In the ancient temperament model, it was expressed (E/I) vs. responsive (people/task) behavior, yielding four basic types, with adjacent types sharing something in common. Add in moderate scales, you can have five or more. When discovering MBTI, I saw that they were divided, however unofficially, into the Keirseyan groupings, with a matrix of two factors that seemed totally unrelated to the ancient ones. (S/N and Cooperative/Pragmatic). I then analyzed the whole thing to find out how both systems correspond, and I came up with something that seems to at least roughly work, and Neuroticism fit in as an added bonus. (Though some thought the process of matching the two systems was Te; what I was doing in the end was identifying a common framework).

Because Ti delights in stuff like symmetries, users of it will be naturally drawn to stuff like personality matrices with a focus on the details and parts of it.

 

[Jack Flak]

If what you say regarding the history of Ti is true, and I've no reason to doubt it, then it seems you claim that even the definition of Ti which you use is inconsistent. So it lacks a definition, which is precisely the problem.

Most theorists since Myers have, for some reason, refused to challenge the titles, instead altering definitions so that Ti, in popular use, is no longer Ti as it was conceived. It's a mixture of Ti, Te, and Ni as Jung defined them, as far as I can tell. The system is beyond repair.

MBTT function orders, when applied, whether using modern or classical definitions, do so poor a job of defining psyches that I've never seen anyone use the system to any advantage whatsoever. Disadvantage though? Hundreds of times.

All that is often explained in the context of function use can be (and has been) better illustrated by analyzing individuals of type, and noting commonality. There is no need to take it a step further into abstraction and uselessness by forcing traits into functions which are at best accurately applied only in part.

 

[garbage]

Most theorists since Myers have, for some reason, refused to challenge the titles, instead altering definitions so that Ti, in popular use, is no longer Ti as it was conceived. It's a mixture of Ti, Te, and Ni as Jung defined them, as far as I can tell. The system is beyond repair.

MBTT function orders, when applied, whether using modern or classical definitions, do so poor a job of defining psyches that I've never seen anyone use the system to any advantage whatsoever. Disadvantage though? Hundreds of times.

And then you have Socionics. One's ignoring function, which is the opposite "domain" of their dominant function, can be used rather well by the individual, but they simply choose not to use it over their dominant.

I actually do see what they're trying to get at. For example, my dad's also ENTJ and much more extroverted than I am. He seems to have less of a grasp of what would be referred to as "Ti concepts" than I and even jokingly derides them when I use them. But I still don't think that that should imply much separation between Ti and Te, just that he's more prone to use Thinking in the extraverted sense. They try to explain this by making the function ordering more complex rather than simplifying the functions themselves and probably arriving at the same conclusion.

It seems like they try to combine the introverted and extroverted versions of the same function while still trying to keep them separate. It just makes things even more convoluted, which is why we even have questions like that which has been posed in the thread title. It would probably be more useful to just define Thinking on the whole and then perhaps talk about how it would be applied internally and externally. Rather than a strict "black-and-white" separation of the two functions, that allows an introversion/extraversion gradient.

(Yeah, I think I'm arriving at the same conclusion that you did, Jack.)

 

[Jack Flak]

(Yeah, I think I'm arriving at the same conclusion that you did, Jack.)

LOL I noticed.