[Te] Questions about auxiliary Te

[Aleph]

Hello, I am new on this forum, I already introduced myself anyway
I have a few questions. Introverts do not show their dominant fonction which remains introverted. Instead it's their auxiliary the first fonction they show to the outside world.
-How does auxiliary Te shows itself, in INTJs and ISTJs. What are the differences, considering their different dominant functions?
-What is the difference between Te-aux and tertiary Ti in an INFJ in a loop (aux fonction weakened and tertiary too strong) ?
-How does Te-aux interact with inferior Se?
I'm asking this because that I read Te is perfectionistic and Se gives an eye on details, but since INJs have inferior Se they tend to overlook details, which is not perfectionistic at all.

Sorry if this sounds messy and thanks for answering!

 

[VagrantFarce]

I'll give it a go:

-How does auxiliary Te shows itself, in INTJs and ISTJs.

I've seen it described that ITJs are happy to be second-wheel to something, so long as whoever is in charge in actually capable of being in charge - this frees them up to indulge in their introverted perception, and fill a sort of advisory role. Once the train de-rails however, out come the knives. In this regard, there's less of a need to take charge, but the focus of attention is still on steering the ship.

What are the differences, considering their different dominant functions?

INJs are long-term thinkers - their thinking lurches forward in time, and as such attempts to be strategic and insightful. They want to recognise the patterns and rhythms of life that enable them to predict what might come next, so that they can prepare for it.
ISJs are the opposite - their "thinking" is in the here and now, catering to the small details that need to be dealt with. You can't possibly lurch forward without a stable and reliable foundation to spring from.

Where INJs are ultimately interested in plotting about where the ship is going, ISJs are ultimately interested in making sure the ship can get there in one piece.

-What is the difference between Te-aux and tertiary Ti in an INFJ in a loop (aux fonction weakened and tertiary too strong) ?

Te is a workhorse - you identify what needs to be done, figure out how to do it, and then get on with it. It's linear and blunt.
Ti is more of an internal barometer, much like Fi - you understand the essential properties of how something is working, and it enables you to react spontaneously. It's non-linear and indirect. But it doesn't work very well without Extroverted Perception, in the case of IFJs.

-How does Te-aux interact with inferior Se?
I'm asking this because that I read Te is perfectionistic and Se gives an eye on details, but since INJs have inferior Se they tend to overlook details, which is not perfectionistic at all.

Yes, but why do INTJs miss the small details? Because their thinking is primarily so abstract. In this sense you can describe them as being perfectionists of thought, or perhaps perfectionists of approach. Their realm is strategy, not direct action - of course they might miss the small details, when they're barely paying attention to what's in front of their face.

 

[Andy]

Hello, I am new on this forum, I already introduced myself anyway
I have a few questions. Introverts do not show their dominant fonction which remains introverted. Instead it's their auxiliary the first fonction they show to the outside world.
-How does auxiliary Te shows itself, in INTJs and ISTJs. What are the differences, considering their different dominant functions?
-What is the difference between Te-aux and tertiary Ti in an INFJ in a loop (aux fonction weakened and tertiary too strong) ?
-How does Te-aux interact with inferior Se?
I'm asking this because that I read Te is perfectionistic and Se gives an eye on details, but since INJs have inferior Se they tend to overlook details, which is not perfectionistic at all.

Sorry if this sounds messy and thanks for answering!

Te is the urge to act upon technical/logistical needs or opportunities. It is Te that stops ITJs from becoming completely removed from the world by driving them to deal with problems it presents and plan for their future needs and desires. Without Te, ITJs would be caught up in the Pi ruminations, forever seeking to understand but without the drive to do anything with the knowledge they acquire.

ISTJs have a prime function concerned with reliability and certainty. This tends to make them cautious, both in terms of what they do and what they believe. That doesn't necessarily make them soft - once an ISTJ has decided that something is necessary, they can be quite ruthless about it. I suspect there were a lot of ISTJ samuri.

Ni is more concerned with possibility and the potential of things. This tends to make INTJs less cautious, though they tend not to be idle risk takers. However, if they think the potential rewards are big enough, they are more willing to gamble than their ISTJ peers.

Se is the explorative, spontaneous urge. In the inferior position, it is rather surpressed, but tends to creep out when INTJs do find an excuse to do something unnecessary while doing something pratical. An example might be learning to do plastering yourselve rather than employing someone else, despite the fact you could easily afford to do so. Or walking through the park on the way to work, rather than taking a quicker but less pleasurable route.

 

[Doomkid]

Te in auxiliary is reductionist, "nothing but"

 

[Aleph]

Te in auxiliary is reductionist, "nothing but"

Like "nothing but what I think is valuable?"

 

[Doomkid]

Like "nothing but what I think is valuable?"

yeah I don't know, I thought like "this is nothing but garbage" xD. I found this jung quote about Te when it's not dominant, see if it helps:

"...But whenever a function other than thinking possesses priority in consciousness to any marked degree, in so far as thinking is conscious at all and not directly dependent upon the dominant function, it assumes a negative character. In so far as it is subordinated to the dominant function, it may actually wear a positive aspect, but a narrower scrutiny will easily prove that it simply mimics the dominant function, supporting it with arguments that unmistakably contradict the laws of logic proper to thinking."

 

[Aleph]

Ow that's hard to understand for a non native English speaker. I have to think it over. And over. And over again