Ti vs. Te <split>

[lastrailway]

It's obviously an over-simplification, sure, functions are much more complex than that and, sure, they overlap each other in several points.

It's all about the path each one follows when processing a though. Tis are more prone to take the raw data and process them and build of them and Tes are more prone to take the raw data and try to fit them in something they've already constructed. Tis care about consistency in the steps of the construction, regardless the result and Tes care more about consistency between the perceived idea they already have and the way the data can be analysed.

By the way, you should notice that I didn't refer to BlueWind in particular, but to Te-dominant thinkers. Though I rather believe that BW's way of thinking is more characterised by Te.

As for the educational aspect, while you maybe have a point there, I'd say that surely all the philosophy or mathematics students are not likely to process the information with the same way.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

As for the educational aspect, while you maybe have a point there, I'd say that surely all the philosophy or mathematics students are not likely to process the information with the same way.

Yes exactly. A person who is trained in this way will develop certain conventions regardless of their type. It has nothing to do with how they actually processed the information before presenting it.

 

[Haphazard]

View Post
An observation: BW reminds me of athenian200, they are both excessively dry in their writing. Both claim to be Ti users and both have also been put into the Te camp...but...where is the Ne and the Ni?

You guys are making too much of this whole, "stating the conclusion first" thing. In certain academic settings it is convention to state your conclusion first, and then explain how you arrived at that conclusion. I know this is standard in mathematics, and I believe it's common in philosophy too (which we all know BW studies a lot). The phenomenon of stating the conclusion first has more to do with education than type.

If I may hypothesize for a moment.

The reason why Athenian and BlueWing seem to have similar writing styles is because of learned (a.k.a. FAKE) Te. Instead of seeming like a normal TJ, as the dry organization seems natural from them, they come across as exceedingly dry and, dare I say it, robotic. So, while both of them do appear to use Te, neither of them appear as natural Te users.

However, I believe BlueWing's fake Te is more grown out of education and admiration for philosopher's and their works (who had to structure their writings as Te), while Athenian's Te is more an attempt to be respected.

 

[redacted]

It's obviously an over-simplification, sure, functions are much more complex than that and, sure, they overlap each other in several points.

i don't even see how it's an over-simplification.

 

[lastrailway]

Yes exactly. A person who is trained in this way will develop certain conventions regardless of their type. It has nothing to do with how they actually processed the information before presenting it.

Eh, I said I don't find it very likely. I guess you misread.

If I may hypothesize for a moment.

The reason why Athenian and BlueWing seem to have similar writing styles is because of learned (a.k.a. FAKE) Te. Instead of seeming like a normal TJ, as the dry organization seems natural from them, they come across as exceedingly dry and, dare I say it, robotic. So, while both of them do appear to use Te, neither of them appear as natural Te users.

However, I believe BlueWing's fake Te is more grown out of education and admiration for philosopher's and their works (who had to structure their writings as Te), while Athenian's Te is more an attempt to be respected.

I could buy into this, actually, though I'm not very familiar with Athenian so I can't say. About BlueWind, I can't say either, haven't got around to read a lot of his posts.

 

[MacGuffin]

About BlueWind, I can't say either, haven't got around to read a lot of his posts.

I have.

2+ years now.

 

[lastrailway]

i don't even see how it's an over-simplification.

Eh... You mean you don't follow what I wrote in my previous post, or that you disagree?

I have.

2+ years now.

Meaning that you agree with Haphazard?

 

[redacted]

I have.

2+ years now.

meh. talk to him on AIM for an hour or two and you'll change your mind.

he doesn't "think everything through" in any kind of an Ni way. he just forces it to sound like that when he writes.

and he's all about precision at the cost of relevancy, totally Ti.

 

[redacted]

Eh... You mean you don't follow what I wrote in my previous post, or that you disagree?

i mean that my one sentence definition in that last post completely defines Ti and Te. there is nothing more complicated than that.

Ti = deductive reasoning based on internal state (aka current thought process, goals, etc.)
Te = deductive reasoning based on external state (aka current conversation, things in front of you, etc.)

so you can see why Te would be relevant and Ti would be thorough.

 

[Nocapszy]

and he's all about precision at the cost of relevancy, totally Ti.

Come on Evan you're smarter than this.
Dude... introversion does not sacrifice relevance.
The relevance is to SELF. Everything is relevant to something.

You might be able to get away with saying it sacrifices visible relevance, but if we're going to go that route, then even Ne has bouts with relevance.


Thinking is direct, extraverted or not.

 

[redacted]

when i say relevance i mean external relevance.

 

[lastrailway]

i mean that my one sentence definition in that last post completely defines Ti and Te. there is nothing more complicated than that.

Ti = deductive reasoning based on internal state (aka current thought process, goals, etc.)
Te = deductive reasoning based on external state (aka current conversation, things in front of you, etc.)

so you can see why Te would be relevant and Ti would be thorough.

Well, that is also an over-simplification and I am amazed with the relevant/thorough conclusion.

 

[redacted]

how is it oversimplified? why are you amazed?

 

[lastrailway]

how is it oversimplified?

You're basically literally translating the letters:
T+I = thinking + introverted = deductive reasoning based on internal state
T+E = thinking + extroverted = deductive reasoning based on external state

why are you amazed?

Cause it doesn't follow.

 

[redacted]

You're basically literally translating the letters:
T+I = thinking + introverted = deductive reasoning based on internal state
T+E = thinking + extroverted = deductive reasoning based on external state

yes.

Cause it doesn't follow.

which logical step is wrong?

(where is BW?)

 

[lastrailway]

which logical step is wrong?

(where is BW?)

The step where took a complex process, you defined it (not wrongly, I admit) in an overly-simplified way, based only on the name of this process, and then used one of the words of your simplified description to form a conclusion.

 

[redacted]

so you disagree with my premise.

how do you define Te and Ti?

 

[lastrailway]

so you disagree with my premise.

how do you define Te and Ti?

I don't disagree, in the sense that your definition compared to the definitions of Te and Ti, there's not direct contradiction.
But it is so schematic that leaves out a great deal of the original definition (see links).

And, just to make sure I've being clear, I'm not typing BW or anyone else, I'm simply discussing over the function processes.

 

[redacted]

I don't disagree, in the sense that your definition compared to the definitions of Te and Ti, there's not direct contradiction.
But it is so schematic that leaves out a great deal of the original definition (see links).

And, just to make sure I've being clear, I'm not typing BW or anyone else, I'm simply discussing over the function processes.

ah. well i think those definitions are overcomplicated. (you can derive them from the definitions i use)



i see we're getting nowhere.

 

[Uytuun]

You don't like me, do you?

Thou shalt not take the NT observation personally.

Alright, alright: .

How would you explain your particular writing style?

People are usually fairly good with both the introverted and extroverted version of their dominant function, I've noticed -- they just don't lean on the one not in their type code nearly as much.

Agreed, but would you also say that Ni cannot provide sudden realisations that make you go beyond the conclusion you had first arrived at?