1. ## Ti and Te

I'm wondering about some possible differences I've noticed between Te and Ti:

-Te is more direct and outwardly focused
-Te will look for fallacies and be quick to point them out
-Ti will notice fallacies as well, but may be content to work with an imperfect system or theory
-Te may be more directly skeptical and hesitant to work with a flawed system
-Ti can half-accept a theory or system, making use of it while keeping in mind that the results may be inaccurate
-Te can half-accept a theory or system as well, but may prefer to refrain from using it until sufficient evidence is found to support it or until it is improved

My theory is that both functions notice fallacies and can be skeptical, but they often express this in different ways that can best be explained through example.

Here's an example:

A system or theory that contains some holes (like this one, probably) is presented.

Te - "I'm rather skeptical about this whole thing. For one, there's (insert logical fallacy here). Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting this theory. If I were you, I wouldn't rely on this."

Ti - "Here's the problem with this that I see: (insert logical fallacy here). Still, I suppose we could make use of it anyways as long as we keep in mind that it may not be accurate. It does seem like it could still be useful."

So, what do you make of this? It might be complete crap, but I want to test my idea anyways so I can learn more.

2. Hope we get some replies soon!
The way I see it, you've got those bottom Ti and Te quotes swapped around. From what I've read, Ti is more concerned with correctness, and Te with efficiency. That's why they say Ti is prone to building castles in the sky, versus the Te preference to use a system (even with its inaccuracies) simply because they think it could be useful anyway.

3. Originally Posted by Vizzy
Hope we get some replies soon!
The way I see it, you've got those bottom Ti and Te quotes swapped around. From what I've read, Ti is more concerned with correctness, and Te with efficiency. That's why they say Ti is prone to building castles in the sky, versus the Te preference to use a system (even with its inaccuracies) simply because they think it could be useful anyway.
That is what I have observed as well from Ti/Te doms/auxes.

4. Originally Posted by Vizzy
Hope we get some replies soon!
The way I see it, you've got those bottom Ti and Te quotes swapped around. From what I've read, Ti is more concerned with correctness, and Te with efficiency. That's why they say Ti is prone to building castles in the sky, versus the Te preference to use a system (even with its inaccuracies) simply because they think it could be useful anyway.
Originally Posted by Saturned
That is what I have observed as well from Ti/Te doms/auxes.
+1

My view of Ti vs Te is very biased, so I'd like to get a more informed view of Te.

To me it seeeeeems like true brilliance comes from Ti, where Ti has a deep understanding of the technical fundamentals of how things work, while Te is all about efficiency and organizing systems of people, as if Te is primarily administrative.

So to me it seems like most Ti brilliance is underutilized and underappreciated, while Te gets promoted to the top, runs the company, and runs the world, while Ti is stuck at the bottom of the totem pole, getting low pay for their genius, and making other people want to prove those Ti-ers aren't so smart after all, which isn't hard to do if it's something involving a lot of Te.

^ Of course that is an exaggerated parody of my most negative view of how the world works with Ti and Te, but I'd like to better understand the brilliance of Te, and get a better understanding of how not to waste the best of Ti in a Te world.

And I know it can't be right, because I know a number of Te-ers who seem brilliant.

So Te-ers, tell me more about your genius and Te at its best, and what your view of Ti is.

5. Originally Posted by RevlisZero
I'm wondering about some possible differences I've noticed between Te and Ti:

-Te is more direct and outwardly focused
-Te will look for fallacies and be quick to point them out
-Ti will notice fallacies as well, but may be content to work with an imperfect system or theory
-Te may be more directly skeptical and hesitant to work with a flawed system
-Ti can half-accept a theory or system, making use of it while keeping in mind that the results may be inaccurate
-Te can half-accept a theory or system as well, but may prefer to refrain from using it until sufficient evidence is found to support it or until it is improved
These really jumped out at me. I am constantly trying to improve certain things, especially at my menial job. Whenever I am exposed to something new, my first tendency is to rip it to shreds, exposing fallacies. Doesn't make me the most popular guy in the world, oh well.

6. @Saturned @redcheerio

Originally Posted by LaconicSesquipedalia
These really jumped out at me. I am constantly trying to improve certain things, especially at my menial job. Whenever I am exposed to something new, my first tendency is to rip it to shreds, exposing fallacies. Doesn't make me the most popular guy in the world, oh well.
Ti and Te both look for fallacies and problems as they're thinking functions.
A Ti-user will be just as likely to point out something that's not consistent...especially on online forums, and I can attest to that.

I'm hesitant to utlilize or work with a flawed system/test because if the principles are fishy, it'll probably produce flawed results, leading to misunderstandings and incorrect answers - all unnecessarily. This may be a simplification, but why bother branching something out when the root was questionable to begin with? I'd rather just stay at Step 1 and fully understand the root of the problem. I may never fully understand it, which may also mean I'll never get to the stage where something real is produced but I guess, as redcheerio said, that's one problem INTPs face. (And I speak for myself when I say I personally don't NEED to come to a conclusion anyway. If it weren't for external pressure...)
Te-users will (half-)accept a system and use it for the sake of reaching any conclusion/getting some empirical data. Point is, this sort of Te-ish tangible thinking (e.g. empirical data and something to show) is what our society seems to prefer.

Disclaimer: In my opinion.

7. I don't even think of things like that in terms of being detailed. I just prognosticate if it's going to work or not, and if it's appropriate, offer my suggestion, and sometimes also when it's not appropriate :P An Ni user probably would use something they know to be inherently flawed, because they will still glean what they need to from it utilizing that knowledge in their analysis of the results, instead of being bummed out that it wasn't a technical masterpiece.

I can attest to INTPs pointing out inconsistencies on the internets as well, to the point of being even more pedantic than the INTJ, who is more likely to be pragmatic. I've seen the INTP blow up from time to time, it's a beautiful/scary thing, really.

8. Originally Posted by Vizzy
Point is, this sort of Te-ish tangible thinking (e.g. empirical data and something to show) is what our society seems to prefer.
I agree, although I believe that large masses of people don't always know best I am reminded of this every time my curiosity gets the best of me, and an instructor/professor gives me a half-ass "you know this won't be on the exam, so I'm not going to bother giving you my best answer" reply to my after class questions. It's as if academia were merely a sensor career mill, and the iNtuitives are still helping the Sensors pass their class, just like in primary/secondary school :P

9. Originally Posted by redcheerio
To me it seeeeeems like true brilliance comes from Ti, where Ti has a deep understanding of the technical fundamentals of how things work, while Te is all about efficiency and organizing systems of people, as if Te is primarily administrative.
Kinda. But you're wrong about something: it's not necessarily connected to systems of people - it can definitely be a physical or philosophical system. However, Te will generally only skim the surface of its working, making sure that the flow of the reasoning correctly goes from A to B to C (from premise to logical end, basically), and then checking out how its predictions fit with observed reality. That's why it's paired with an introverted perceiving function, whose aim should be either providing a deep idiosyncratic insight which will act as premise (Ni), or understand the detailed working (detailed, not deep) of a system in order to reach perfect understanding (Si).

So to me it seems like most Ti brilliance is underutilized and underappreciated, while Te gets promoted to the top, runs the company, and runs the world, while Ti is stuck at the bottom of the totem pole, getting low pay for their genius, and making other people want to prove those Ti-ers aren't so smart after all, which isn't hard to do if it's something involving a lot of Te.
It's true for every introverted function. You can't expect other people to understand your own introverted function. You're basically meant to express any of its insight with your E one. I run into similar problems with Ni and Se, where Se seems to be relatively over-appreciated when compared with Ni.

It's as if academia were merely a sensor career mill, and the iNtuitives are still helping the Sensors pass their class, just like in primary/secondary school :P
Well, of course. Academia is a bureucratic institution, so - even when professors don't like it - the paramount requirement is being extremely detail oriented and do exactly what you are required to do. Creativity is left to tenured positions...or to real life, which is fortunately not as artificially structured as human society.

10. I dont agree with the things in op, or some of them are correct, but mostly more like somewhat true but wrong conclusions. and that Te Ti discussion thing, i dont see true at all.

Its more that Te will drop the whole subject and see it as false if he doesent see it as true on quick superficial analysis, but Ti looks deeper and tries to see reasons for why it seems wrong, as it may turn out that it just seems wrong because you are missing some essential info to see the teuth or the person communicating might be bad at explaining the concept and you just misunderstood him. Te sees that if it seems wrong on the surface, the reasons why its wrong doesent matter, since there is obviously something wrong as it doesent manifest itself on the real world correctly.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO