# Thread: The Ti problem solving process vs. the Te problem solving process.

1. So now ISTPs can't adjust the air conditioner, without being abstract about it.

Learn something new everyday.

There's a big problem when defining functions in isolation. I think functions are like mixing colors. Blue and Yellow make Green. But Blue and Red make Purple.

2. I do both of these. It depends on the subject matter. I always incorporate what I think and try to understand how it works. I can't solve anything unless I understand how it works. And if I'm told to do something I'll probably do it in a different way than what the person intended because it makes sense to me.

Funny, I have the total Ti approach to college papers. Te papers are no fun. I want to come up with an original opinion/theory and fully explain it with irrefutable logic. That's why philosophy is so much fun.

I do have a holistic approach, as KDude mentioned. I'll use whatever creative method gives insight, and I'm very visual. And lots of N activity.

I have noticed that Ti is more individual and Te is more collective, as in trusting outside sources. Ti is more independent this way; we want to possess "meta" type knowledge, which we can apply again and again to anything, without having to consult other people. We want to create a blueprint. Te is more group oriented, and uses people and resources in problem solving, while Ti just wants to use theory and materials. Ti has the ideas and Te does the implementation. Te is more results oriented. They don't consider the problem solved until something gets done in the real world. Ti is just like, well this is how you do it. Problem solved.

Good assessment though. I think you hit on the major distinctions. As both are thinking functions, I think they'll happily work together to solve problems. Thinking after all is composed of both inductive (Te) and deductive (Ti) logic.

3. Originally Posted by The Great One
3. I disagree with you though about your theory that Ti users don't care if they are wrong. I think that possibly STP's don't care if they are wrong but for myself as an ENTP I care very much if I am wrong. As a Ti user, I want to understand everything as vividly as and as intricately as possible, and when someone tells me that I am wrong, it's like going to hell for me. It's literally realizing that my understanding could be inaccurately and I live to understand how things work, so this rocks my world. Plus, it makes me look like a moron and ENTP's hate to look like idiots. That's one of the worst things that someone can do to me.
I agree, but it depends on how important the theory is, and how interconnected it is to the Ti framework. The bigger a part of it it is, the more sensitive; no one likes thinking that their whole worldview based on logic is completely wrong. However, a detail or two or a misapplication is not a big deal, and an unrelated hare brained idea which turns out to be incorrect or doesn't work is totally fine. Part of the Ti process is finding out what is correct by refining things and eliminating what isn't true, so eliminating what isn't true in our thought system is just part of the process. And no matter how much it hurts our pride, if we find out we are totally wrong and look like an idiot, we will face it and correct the error. (Most of us, anyway. The INTP's who ignore their Ne might just continue to think they are the smartest person in the world and it's everyone else who is wrong.)
Originally Posted by skylights
Yeah, true. You're right, my brother is way more in the moment, too. It still seems like my brother is more of a "universal logic" person. Tell me if you disagree, but I guess the way I understood it was that Ti sees a huge coherent background system of logic throughout the universe, like the laws of physics, and it uses that to problem-solve. STPs engage it more in the moment to troubleshoot and craft, while NTPs use it more to engineer and theorize. And TPs refine their understanding/utilization of that background system of logic underlying everything as they mature.

I could be wrong / Ne-biased, of course.
Definitely true for me, so I guess it's the S/N difference. ISTP's I think have a more concrete system of facts and mechanics which they fit together using logic and turn into principles and theories. Does this sound like you, @KDude? It seems to be the way my ISTP friend operates. He's really smart and figures things out intellectually, but he's not particularly abstract. I don't think he would understand my system of laws of the universe.

4. Originally Posted by DJ Arendee
You've never met an ENFP or ESFP!

Touché. I'm not touching that can of worms.

5. Originally Posted by greenfairy
Definitely true for me, so I guess it's the S/N difference. ISTP's I think have a more concrete system of facts and mechanics which they fit together using logic and turn into principles and theories. Does this sound like you, @KDude? It seems to be the way my ISTP friend operates. He's really smart and figures things out intellectually, but he's not particularly abstract. I don't think he would understand my system of laws of the universe.
I got to thinking it could just be academic level too, so ISTPs will vary. I umm.. dropped out of highschool myself. I still enjoy learning on my own, but I never learned "formal logic" beyond the basics. I kind of associate that kind of logic with Descartes - Or "Kraftwerk".

6. Originally Posted by KDude
I got to thinking it could just be academic level too, so ISTPs will vary. I umm.. dropped out of highschool myself. I still enjoy learning on my own, but I never learned "formal logic" beyond the basics. I kind of associate that kind of logic with Descartes - Or "Kraftwerk".
Eh, an introductory course isn't that complex (at least I didn't think so). There are some things which you have to get the hang of, like necessary and sufficient conditions, and negation of a disjunction, but it's pretty much common sense logic which most people already understand if they think enough about it. Granted there are whole chapters devoted to fallacies and rhetoric, and a whole bunch of problems which one can get wrong or fail to solve, but most (intelligent) people use logic correctly a sufficient portion of the time unconsciously. And Ti dominants would have a greater natural propensity for it since their conscious understanding of things is based on it so much.

7. Originally Posted by greenfairy
Eh, an introductory course isn't that complex (at least I didn't think so). There are some things which you have to get the hang of, like necessary and sufficient conditions, and negation of a disjunction, but it's pretty much common sense logic which most people already understand if they think enough about it. Granted there are whole chapters devoted to fallacies and rhetoric, and a whole bunch of problems which one can get wrong or fail to solve, but most (intelligent) people use logic correctly a sufficient portion of the time unconsciously. And Ti dominants would have a greater natural propensity for it since their conscious understanding of things is based on it so much.
It's boring though. Just like music theory is boring, even though I've been playing guitars for over 20 years. Go figure.

8. Originally Posted by KDude
Yeah, I don't know. You're turning ISTPs into systemizers, like your INTP dad. ISTPs are troubleshooters. There are cases where I want to think ahead more and rig a more fool proof system, but in my experience, it's mostly been with computer repair. Especially someone else's computer that constantly gets fucked up (due to their misuse and/or surfing porn). So I try to set up little safeguards and things they should do if they're going to be a problem. It takes some experience to know what they're doing wrong, so I don't just "set up" some big system right off the bat. And with air conditioners specifically, I'm Se. I know when it's cold and the heat needs to be adjusted at the moment. I don't predict that stuff.
INTPs are trouble-shooters par excellence. We just arrive at an understanding of the logic of the situation differently (perhaps). The main difference being that ISTPs are more rooted in the body, and in time. It's daft to suggest that an INTP wouldn't alter the temperature interactively, relying on a "theory" of what the temperature should be. We do both. The "best" solution for us is likely to be context-independent, timeless, because that exposes the core, unchanging features of the problem, and to grasp those is to understand the system deeply, so that, in the moment, improvisation is possible around that unchanging core. But we don't systematise robotically. In fact, the kind of person who rigidly systematises everything is more likely to be TJ. All TPs like a certain amount of freedom to revise and react to changing circumstances. To us, most everything is provisional.

Originally Posted by DJ Arendee
Te uses objective facts and Ti uses subjective facts that the Ti user doesn't consider grounded until they're put into practice and yield predictable results.
Not true. "Putting something into practice" is a feature of extroverted [whatever].
This is why STP's can be incredibly stubborn in their beliefs and have "theories" as to why something happens the way it does, but they look outlandish to Te users. The STP will come up with a theory, "I believe if I punch jerry in the face he'll cry because he's been thinking a lot about his dead mother lately." So an Se-Ti user punches jerry in the face, jerry cries. "See look, Jerry is thinking about his mother constantly I proved it!" This is one of the flaws with Ti in that if they're not careful it can attribute the wrong information to the actual solution, and the Ti user can become very confident in his reasoning which ultimately doesn't make any sense to anyone else.
This might be something you do. It's not typical. It's actually an example of weak Ti.

So for you, a Ti user, I would imagine you have an experimental approach, most likely trial and error so long as everything makes sense in your mind. Your create the theory in your mind, and then you implement it to see if its practical in real life. This is why TJ's are often very afraid of looking wrong while TP's could care less. If a TJ is wrong, it basically means all of their sources are wrong and their life is in shambles... Sucks. Ti users will often just drop the theory and come up with something new and not take it personally.
First of all, the "trial and error" and "form a hypothesis/test it" approaches are not one and the same. This split is more characteristic of S/N. S = "just do it", N wants a reason.
TJs are afraid of looking wrong because they are afraid of being wrong. Like all Js, they are more attached to the dichotomies of right/wrong, correct/incorrect. Black and white thinking. TPs are more comfortable with ambiguity, but we don't just drop theories, we try to synthesise them. Ti pares back extraneous detail but also loves synthesis. Te is more rigidly reductionistic.

Te is drawn to arbitrary order: sequential order (do step1, then step 2, then step 3, repeat); and hierarchical order - it trusts authority (as long as it sees that authority as legitimate). It likes rules and procedures. Its fastidiousness and rigidity, seem to me, to be based on an inability to trust one's ability to act extemporaneously. A mistrust of novelty and unpredictability. This is because it does not have the deep understanding that Ti relies upon. Deep understanding allows one to wing it, not blindly, but with confidence, guided by a sense that I can only describe as aesthetic, a feel for the underlying principles, the gestalt, which may or may not find concrete expression, depending on the intellectual attainment and self-awareness of the individual.

A good example I've used before as far as problem-solving goes, is that Te will consult a look-up table to perform a calculation. It will always consult this table (standard procedure + authority + repeatability), coming to rely upon it as a bible of sorts. Ti will immediately look to strip away everything unnecessary. It will notice the pattern, construct a formula, and use that instead. Of course, the latter approach might take a bit longer initially, because it goes much deeper into the problem, but when faced with a situation/ set of numbers not found in its bible, Te will struggle; Ti will not.

In the example of assembling furniture, the Ti user is less likely to consult instructions (especially written instructions) because a) he doesn't automatically assume that the instructions will be correct or helpful b) his thought-process isn't sequential, like the Te user, it processes the situation holistically, it understands potential, it visualises the end result and works backward to achieve that, almost by instinct. Trying to use instructions will actually often interfere with this native intelligence, especially since instructions are usually compiled by Te, for Te.

This is something TJs often cannot understand. They think that everything can be systematised and procedurized and thereby made more efficient and predictable and easy, when in fact, only mindless tasks can. I was once asked (by an ESTJ manager) to document my problem-solving process (so that other people could use it). He saw that I got the best results and wanted to systematise my process. Of course, I could do no such thing. One is either sensitive to the aesthetic potential of a situation, or one is not. I can simply "see" when something is wrong, when the logic is faulty, the impression is as real and immediate as that of other sense data. It is like looking at pink and orange side by side. Things that are wrong offend my aesthetic sensibility. They leap out at me. How does one explain that to the colour-blind? I can laboriously delineate what the problem is so that others can fix it, but I am at a loss to teach them how to "see" what is so obvious and immediate to me. It is only thus because Ti looks deeply into things, until it understands structure and potential, what a system can do, and what it cannot. There is no substitute or shortcut for that.

9. 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.

10. Originally Posted by Kalach
What this all lacks in beauty it makes up for in lack of beauty
What a (characteristically) ugly fragment...

#### 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