[Te] TJs: Describe Te as You Understand It

[Tilt]

Can I just say, I usually love you guys? You guys have a tendency to balance out my Fe while I somehow tap into your Fi... it's the weirdest thing but it somehow works.

 

[á´…eparted]

Can I just say, I usually love you guys? You guys have a tendency to balance out my Fe while I somehow tap into your Fi... it's the weirdest thing but it somehow works.

Seriously, much love to the Te folks. I would not be here without you guys.

 

[Yama]

Te is love I love all of the TJs in my life.

I love how thorough and detailed all of the participants in this thread have been!

 

[Ursa]

I would add also that I experience Te very much as actively task-oriented: it wants to accomplish, direct resources and people, meet deadlines, etc. It never tells me to sit on my rear end and ponder and wonder and then never do. It demands action on what needs to be done once it has demarcated utility. Te in my experience is about active application every bit as much as it is about conceptualization.

Te is also in my accidentally blunt speech. Sometimes I will make a statement or a directive and then I will realize it came out really cold and blunt. It's Te's logic. It drops social graces and anything extraneous to the mechanics of what needs to be done and sometimes it comes out that way in my communication when I am in get-it-done mode. "We need to do X, Y, Z. You, go do X while I work on the rest! And do it carefully this time!"

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think the bolded is the big takeaway for me. I think if Ni-dom arrogance is that faith in their own precognition, then Te-dom arrogance is basically, it's not really decided until I've had my say lol.

It's certainly possible to recognize where things are heading, but I guess it's always less interesting to me than what my own plans are. Being able to call that pitch is like a sailor knowing whether or not the wind will be with them. It's only relevant to me because I'm gonna be out that way anyways.

I would not call it faith since it is all fact based. (at least in my case is)
You simply gather all the data and if you are sure that data is correct then you can also be sure that you know the result, everything in this world is on the cause/consequence basis. Therefore for me reality is alot like Youtube video, everything exist all the time and therefore you can scroll through the video back and forward in search for holes that can be exploited.


On the other hand I am not sure that I agree with "Te arrogance" part since I am quite likely to desire having the last word on the topic, after all that is the reason why I am doing all those analizing in the first place.
I may be INTJ but I am also Solution master towards enneagram tritype - arrogant, thick skinned and quite goal oriented type.

 

[nonsequitur]

"As I understand it"?

Hmmm. I never see functions as explainable individually. I know that typically, Te is described as an action-oriented, "get things done", plan everything and for every contingency "personification of systems, organisation and characterisation" type of function, but that seems more like an external descriptor of the function rather than the experience of it.

I do make lists. I am organised. I do have flowcharts, mind-maps, concept maps, schematics, calendars and like making plans and detailed schedules. But I would say that these are more tools to facilitate what I want to get done because I am usually juggling lots of stuff and it's impossible to keep track of all the details associated with disparate aspects of my life. I don't organise for the sake of organising, or systematise for the sake of it unless it's one of the things that I'm obsessive-compulsive about. It's just the quickest way to get things done, track progress and reduce anxiety (not sure how much my OCD factors in here).

Usually, I have a detailed plan based on everything that I imagine could possibly happen, and if things start to go wrong or the plan isn't working, I go back to the underlying assumptions when I formulated the plan and use that to adjust plans slightly. Usually, like moving the top of a pendulum, when I change the way I see the situation, everything that comes after (or the movement of the pendulum base) is immediately self-evident. The plans aren't really fixed, even though people who look at the schematics I draw or lists that I make often assume that they are.

People earlier in the thread spoke of Te as the driver to "get things done" or the actionable function. I see Te more as a means of externalising what is internal. With Ni as my dominant, it's not possible to verbalise the way that I turn a situation over in my head and the various perspectives and possibilities I simultaneously evaluate, integrate and discount. Often, when thinking about things, my concepts are in a very visual form, like turning a 3D figure around in my head while running if/then/else probabilities, and evaluating the probabilistically likely final outcome, almost as if running a monte carlo simulation. The only way to communicate what goes on inside is to categorise it, define things and weigh them externally.. which takes time, effort and energy.

Sometimes, when I try to classify and problem-solve using standard definitions and linear logic, I get stuck in a loop. It often requires actively disengaging logic and doing something completely different before my subconscious kicks in and I get the answer when I'm half-asleep or running or too tired to think. Then the answer illuminates the initial missed assumption and it's all too easy to explain how to get there.

In the opposite direction (how Te affects my dominant function) I think it's also important to note that the categorisation slant of Te also colours the information that Ni takes in and builds relationships between. Some people mentioned seeing objects in terms of their potential and not what they were made to do - that comes from the categorisation process, I think, and counter-intuitively helps with creativity and being flexible. If you need to get 2L of fluid from A to B and you only have a groundsheet, you won't be trapped if you see it as "I need something waterproof" as opposed to being limited by the idea of a hollow round cylindrical object like a bucket. That has often helped me to visualise and build systems to solve a specific problem where there weren't any solutions before.

 

[EJCC]

I would add also that I experience Te very much as actively task-oriented: it wants to accomplish, direct resources and people, meet deadlines, etc. It never tells me to sit on my rear end and ponder and wonder and then never do. It demands action on what needs to be done once it has demarcated utility. Te in my experience is about active application every bit as much as it is about conceptualization.

This might be my favorite part about being an ExTJ: that I am so rarely intimidated into inaction.

Te is also in my accidentally blunt speech. Sometimes I will make a statement or a directive and then I will realize it came out really cold and blunt. It's Te's logic. It drops social graces and anything extraneous to the mechanics of what needs to be done and sometimes it comes out that way in my communication when I am in get-it-done mode. "We need to do X, Y, Z. You, go do X while I work on the rest! And do it carefully this time!"

I'd be curious to hear what other Te-users do, to counterbalance this while remaining true to yourselves and your goals/values. Understanding, of course, how many Te-users don't care about that.

I realized recently that what I do is -- unlike most other things I do in life -- fairly subtle. I show people in unspoken, implied, Fi-friendly ways that I care. I show them through my sense of humor that they shouldn't take my bluntness personally. I don't feel the need to justify myself to others, but I do prefer to make sure that I am being as clear as I can be. And if directness is misunderstood, then it isn't really direct anymore, is it?

 

[Rambling]

Te is kinda cool and feeds my Ni.

 

[SD45T-2]

One of the first things that first came to mind was Thomas Sowell (INTJ 512 so/sp IMHO) talking about the allocation of scarce resources that have alternative uses.

Um... Avoidance of vulnerability? Deciding that only particular spheres deserve to know more, or could handle knowing more?

I'm not all that obsessed with privacy, but I do care a lot about making sure that, if I'm sharing particular information with people, they won't do anything stupid or hurtful with it. Which may be what you're talking about.

Maybe you're confused by it because it's our Te way of handling people -- making decisions based not on the individuals and their feelings, but cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment.

Absolutely this.

I really should start ranking the levels of clearance like the federal government does.

Totally.

 

[Amargith]

This might be my favorite part about being an ExTJ: that I am so rarely intimidated into inaction.

And you have no idea how jealous I (and Id wager many others) am of that. It's also fucking inspiring to watch, btw

 

[cascadeco]

What I find interesting about this thread is how different placement of Te impacts things.

I like how both Wind Up and EJCC in their bullet lists referenced 'What is the goal' as step 1, and then everything falling into place after that, and that being their m.o. throughout life.

For me, I can be damn good at execution once I identify a goal, but oh man, it can take forever for me to make a move or figure out what move I want to make.

I guess, once I decide, I'm super efficient and super action oriented. Great at execution. Is why I suppose in jobs that's not such an issue for me. But with my life as a whole, Te is definitely and evidently not high up for me. It's just quite clear that I use it over Ti.

 

[Virtual ghost]

This might be my favorite part about being an ExTJ: that I am so rarely intimidated into inaction.

"I do what I believe in." sounds nice on paper but action just for the sake of action or avoiding your real problems is not that great solution in my opinion. Especially if it is not clear if you actions make things better or worse, but that is the war I have with pretty much all extroverts or Sp last people. In simple every day life things like this doesn't matter that much but in more complex problems this can save you from many problems.

 

[Ursa]

"As I understand it"?

Hmmm. I never see functions as explainable individually. I know that typically, Te is described as an action-oriented, "get things done", plan everything and for every contingency "personification of systems, organisation and characterisation" type of function, but that seems more like an external descriptor of the function rather than the experience of it.

I always wonder how much we can really describe the essential nature of any function because they work in such close tandem with one another. That doesn't make functions subjective, true, but along those lines I took the parameters in the OP to account for: 1) where Te is in the subject's stack, 2) which main functions the subject's Te is interacting with and 3) how developed the subject's Te is relative to his or her other functions.

One interesting thing I noticed in this thread, and another user pointed this out as well, is that the farther down Te is in the subject's stack the less actionable it becomes.

 

[Ursa]

"I do what I believe in." sounds nice on paper but action just for the sake of action or avoiding your real problems is not that great solution in my opinion. Especially if it is not clear if you actions make things better or worse, but that is the war I have with pretty much all extroverts or Sp last people. In simple every day life things like this doesn't matter that much but in more complex problems this can save you from many problems.

Who said anything about avoiding real problems? Shouldn't that be classified as inaction anyways?

Let's also not forget intentional non-action is a form of action.

 

[cascadeco]

One interesting thing I noticed in this thread, and another user pointed this out as well, is that the farther down Te is in the subject's stack the less actionable it becomes.

For me it's not that I don't desire to take action, as I'm a very 'doer' type of person, but rather it feels to me that I have a lot of other processes that 'clog' the system, so to speak, ie prevent action until I'm at a certain point. Whereas I am wondering if for Te-dom, the things that 'clog' process for me early on and keep me in stasis for a time, clog things after the fact, so to speak - so, like a belated or retroactive questioning, maybe? I'm not sure. There are strengths and weaknesses, different challenges and struggles, in either situation. I'm also not implying 'clogging' as a negative thing per se, I'm just not sure how to describe it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Te gets into conflict with Fe in that whereas Fe habitually categorises and organises people, and emotions, Te, bonded to Fi, does/will not. Te however attempts to do the same to problems and ideas in a way which to Fe is too "literal". Te does not take into account context, intent, and other factors Fe may be aware of, and rejects the reasoning of Ti as subjective.

Te (or Ni) often sees those things quite clearly. However in many situations Te understands that solving an arranging all those details in not worth the time and tomorrow we will probably have another set of problems to deal with. Therefore if the data is complete and shows cleary the situation in many cases it better to face the problems more directly than ask EVERYONE for detailed opinion. Hard said that for him Fe represents parliament while I have sacrastically replied to him "Exactly, the pretty good looking place that usually can't keep up with the problems since it has too many long social protocols". While what it debates in the end often doesn't reflect real situation in the field (Ti). (if nothing this is simply because the data is out of date, due to all those protocols)

 

[Virtual ghost]

Who said anything about avoiding real problems? Shouldn't that be classified as inaction anyways?

Let's also not forget intentional non-action is a form of action.

1. Not really, since there is action that you deliberately make in order that you don't have to think about what you really have to do. For Te-doms that is often some kind of introspection and something generally messy and personal.

2. True. However in this thread I see "action" as something that doesn't include this scenario that much. (but I could be wrong)

 

[EJCC]

"I do what I believe in." sounds nice on paper but action just for the sake of action or avoiding your real problems is not that great solution in my opinion. Especially if it is not clear if you actions make things better or worse, but that is the war I have with pretty much all extroverts or Sp last people. In simple every day life things like this doesn't matter that much but in more complex problems this can save you from many problems.

Remember that ExTJ style immediate action has advantages over IxTJ style action -- just as yours has advantages over ours.

 

[Ursa]

For me it's not that I don't desire to take action, as I'm a very 'doer' type of person, but rather it feels to me that I have a lot of other processes that 'clog' the system, so to speak, ie prevent action until I'm at a certain point. Whereas I am wondering if for Te-dom, the things that 'clog' process for me early on and keep me in stasis for a time, clog things after the fact, so to speak - so, like a belated or retroactive questioning, maybe? I'm not sure. There are strengths and weaknesses, different challenges and struggles, in either situation. I'm also not implying 'clogging' as a negative thing per se, I'm just not sure how to describe it.

No, that makes complete sense. My best friend is an ISFP and he frequently "processes" a lot before he takes a decisive step anywhere. Usually that entails sampling the external world until he is able to make up his mind on a path he wants to stick with. These past several years he traveled and worked at various jobs until he finally decided on a career path. It took him a lot longer to reach that decision point than it did me and other TJs I know.

 

[nonsequitur]

I always wonder how much we can really describe the essential nature of any function because they work in such close tandem with one another. That doesn't make functions subjective, true, but along those lines I took the parameters in the OP to account for: 1) where Te is in the subject's stack, 2) which main functions the subject's Te is interacting with and 3) how developed the subject's Te is relative to his or her other functions.

One interesting thing I noticed in this thread, and another user pointed this out as well, is that the farther down Te is in the subject's stack the less actionable it becomes.

That makes sense - that for an extrovert with Te dom whose primary instinct is to externalise, that their experience of Te would fit exactly the "external descriptor".

As it moves further down in the stack, the experience of Te is filtered through the lens of the dominant function, so even when it's described, it's in the context of expressing the primary.