You know, Ne is always something of the dark horse of the ESTJ functional stack. Gives such an unexpected tang to ya'lls cognitive processes that I think people neglect at their own peril.
It really does tend to surprise people! I love watching the reactions when people see my silly side for the first time...
First, I think Te is capable reverse engineering exercises like the one that you're describing. We just think about it a little differently. I think you put it very aptly that Ti "sees the whole in the parts". My impression of Ti is that its focus is on how components, working together, produce an outcome. That's what I meant by the emphasis on internal coherence. Te is less focused on process, and more focused on that outcome. It's not so much that we need it stated explicitly, as we take it as a starting point and move forward from there.
^ Yep.
A really good example of that is your typical INTP/ESTJ brainstorming session.
ESTJ: Which of the two options should we choose? X or Y?
INTP: *Goes off on very detailed descriptions of options X and Y*
ESTJ: So, you're saying option Y is better.
INTP: Well... in a sense... *adds even more data*
ESTJ: Yep, sounds like option Y is better. Let's do it.
INTP: ... *fumes over all the data that the ESTJ ignored*
Ehhh...I try not to make threads like this about me. Really, it's the whole bit about me never fully comprehending the cognitive functions. One day, I'll think I totally have it, but the next I realize I don't.
The bolded is probably another issue I have due to not being at all like an intuitive. Thing is, I dislike the descriptions.
Well, damn. Usually I tell people to try and look through the BS details of type descriptions to the "important parts" and the "general gist", but I guess that won't work here.
Have you looked at "Was That Really Me" by Naomi Quenk? It's really, really well written, with a ton of real-life examples, and also explains the functions very clearly. I related to literally every sentence of the Te-dom section.
mmm, no, from a by-stander i totally understood FDG's post (and found it funny!) and found the other poster to be pretty dumb and unnecessarily offensive.
I just meant that I didn't think it was dumb. Offensive, yes, but I was being devil's advocate about the miscommunication aspect of it.