Ti/Te users: Explain the differences.

[Athenian200]

I'm trying to further my understanding of the differences between Ti and Te. I know that they are both logical functions that make decisions oriented on the impersonal/objective factor. I think my abstract definitions, previously posted here, are potentially useful.

Ti -- Modifies/understands an external system via internal rules/principles.
Te -- Modifies/understands an external system via external rules/procedures.

What I'm interested in now, is how users of each function see their own use of it, and how they contrast themselves with a user of the oppositely directed version of the Thinking function. Depending on how many respond, we may also be able to explain/understand the differences between the dominant and auxiliary roles of each type of Thinking.

My theory about Thinking in general, whether it's introverted or extraverted, is that it tries to be primarily oriented to that which is outside the self-perception, the external system, or the objective factor, as much as possible. I think Ti is more focused on understanding/explaining the objective factor as completely/precisely as possible, and Te is more focused on applying the objective factor to situations as impersonally as possible.

So, please attempt to describe how your thinking function works for you.

 

[ptgatsby]

I think Ti is more focused on understanding/explaining the objective factor as completely/precisely as possible, and Te is more focused on applying the objective factor to situations as impersonally as possible.

That's a good way of putting it. The way I explain it, since I'm not a believer in functions is;

Ti - The organisation of data to account for every possibility/interpretation the data provides

Te - The organisation of data to derive the optimal possibility that the data provides

The conjuction of J and T means that the the world must be structured - it must follow a logical line. They are, as such, actors, creating the order they see from the data they provide. P and T are the observers - they don't need the order and so they simply interpret data.

Both are rational functions, interpreters of data. One wants to see clarity - to see everything, how it fits, how it works... the other wants to see order - to see that order, how things lead from one to the other. In the end, the Ti seeks information (ie: puts pressure on Ne/Se) while the Te seeks guidance (Ni/Si).

 

[Totenkindly]

What I find when I look around is that I am constantly trying to understand "what" something is, so that I can then relate it to my large picture/model of the world.

I have little interest in manipulating it and, in fact, manipulating it often muddies the water and makes it more unclear as to what the thing actually "is."

I still do try to accomplish tasks in the external world; but my instinctive approach is to develop a strategy rather than a detailed checklist. I develop a general plan based on how things interact that can then be applied to specific situations, in order to acquire the desired results or at least maximize the result and minimize effort and conserve resources.

I have trouble just "implementing" things especially by just applying brute force, it feels so disingenuous or inelegant, and I keep looking for some sort of "magic lever/button," where a minimal amount of force can be applied to resolve the situation. But life does not work like that.

Also, when I go into a problem, I tend to talk about the framework of the situation and all the pieces that are interacting. My effort is focused on the model and its functioning. Te seems to focus much more quickly on solutions, whereas I am often much more fascinated by "how it works" rather than "making it do what I want."

Because I'm not really sure what "I" want, so how can I bend the system to my will? (Instead, I need to know what "it" is before I know what "I" want... because my strategy is to make something work as smoothly and as "true to itself" as possible.) My goal generally is to make things more fully what they already are in their nature.

 

[nightning]

Ti for me is a tertiary function... but I think how I use it is quite similar to what Jennifer described. In terms of thinking and analyzing. Ti for me tries to make different things fit into a model (Ni). It provides explanation and support for "theories". Then it usually does a self-check for consistency. As in.... "If this is true... then what are the consequences? Do these possibilities make sense? Does it fit into everything else I know about on this topic?" Whenever it finds problems, it modifies the system until the internal model reflects the external world as closely as possible. I suppose all of this was created with the intent of application, using it as a predictive tool etc. However most of the time I just play for the sake of playing. =/

Te... I'm afraid my views on it will be bias. People that mostly use Te I find are too rigid. For example, INTJs, their need to systematically organize everything, to alway do something in one way gets annoying. The only rare occasion in which I use Te is in understanding data. Say somebody hands me a page full of results... what conclusions can I draw from it? I only go around using Te if the answer isn't immediately apparent. Organize the data, then find patterns in it (Ne related?) in order to try fitting the results with what I know previously, that internal model again.

Random implementation... unlike Jennifer I have no problems with it. (Could be related to the fact that I'm an NF therefore Ti/Te is not my primary nor auxiliary function) It's okay if it's not elegant... prototypes never are. It gets the job done this time around... and if I feel like not being so darn lazy, I'll get around to improving it.... eventually.

 

[wildcat]

I'm trying to further my understanding of the differences between Ti and Te. I know that they are both logical functions that make decisions oriented on the impersonal/objective factor. I think my abstract definitions, previously posted here, are potentially useful.

Ti -- Modifies/understands an external system via internal rules/principles.
Te -- Modifies/understands an external system via external rules/procedures.

What I'm interested in now, is how users of each function see their own use of it, and how they contrast themselves with a user of the oppositely directed version of the Thinking function. Depending on how many respond, we may also be able to explain/understand the differences between the dominant and auxiliary roles of each type of Thinking.

My theory about Thinking in general, whether it's introverted or extraverted, is that it tries to be primarily oriented to that which is outside the self-perception, the external system, or the objective factor, as much as possible. I think Ti is more focused on understanding/explaining the objective factor as completely/precisely as possible, and Te is more focused on applying the objective factor to situations as impersonally as possible.

So, please attempt to describe how your thinking function works for you.

The difference evident is in art and architecture.

Te

rectangular
angular
concrete
plain
sober
regular
usual
useful
stingy
mercenary
sordid

Ti

embellished
ornate
bedecked
garnished
florid
rich
useless
tricky
pompous
vain
fantastic
exciting
animated
lifting
graceful
urbane

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I think I'm using Ti to manage my internal database about subjects, their groupings, relevances, merits and their contexts. This is ment for the purpose that I may find a new, novel combination of information which can be put to good use.

So when I find something promising, I try to find a good match with the set of "good ideas" with the set of "things that I can do". I realize that any actualization of my ideas will have to rely on Te, so I use also Te in my analysis to decide whether I can actually go through the idea given the constrains (time, money, etc). Most often I just have an intuitive feeling (Ne) about the idea, that this or that does or doesn't seem like something that could/should be done. When it's a close call, I have to use Te to plan more carefully.

So I use Te to project how my plan will work out in real world, and also to actually do the work. Imagining how a program would work can be done with Ne/Ti and a bit of S and Te, but making it work needs much more Te and S. I also consider using Te as a liability, or an expense. I think I use Ne and Ti at my best speed, and I'm rarely disappointed with their speed. On the opposite, Te is slower, so I consider it a limited resource, which I have to utilize better. So I rather spend time thinking on how to improve a project rather than doing the actual Te tasks.

Recently I scored from best to worst functions: Ti, Fi, Ne, Ni, Se, Te, Se, Fe.

 

[Natrushka]

People that mostly use Te I find are too rigid. For example, INTJs, their need to systematically organize everything, to alway do something in one way gets annoying.

This isn't a big INTJ thing, IMO. I see this more in my STJ husband. I'll use whatever way works best.

 

[Natrushka]

Re the OP: I'm really not sure when I'm using Te vs Ti. I use them both. A lot.

 

[Mycroft]

I have to admit that I'm really confused about the difference as well. Everything Jennifer said in her post resonates strongly with me. I definitely have a little model of the universe I carry around in my mind and constantly update in an ongoing effort to make it as accurate a model as possible. I'm also forever on the lookout for "levers" I can pull to receive the maximum payback for minimum effort.

Something I find myself thinking frequently is, "All right, now that you've been able to step back and realize what this thing really is, let's try to step back one step further."

I rarely find myself applying the A to B to C logic that is supposed to be incidental to my type. I reserve that sort of thinking primarily for developing and updating my overall "game plan".

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Introversion-Define the world in accordance to the way it relates to the subject. Take the subject for granted

Extroversion-Define the subject in accordance to the way it relates to the world. Take the world for granted.

Thinking-Decisions made based on impersonal criteria, usually logic.

Introverted Thinking-Defines the world based on internally inquiry. Nothing is taken for granted and everything is to be questioned. The system is crafted from within.

Extroverted Thinking-Takes the world for granted and applies proffered ideas to solve external problems.

You could think of Te as a practical problem solver and Ti as a theoretical problem solver. Thus the Te is the practical advice giver and Ti a complex problem solver.



Same analogy is sound for Fi/Fe comparison.

Fe is concerned with applying passions to help people/take care of practical problems, Fi theorizes about what the perfect world would be like and how in the realm of pure feeling (analogously to pure reason) hypotethetical problems could be solved.

Same is true for Ni and Ne.

Ni is the realm of pure imagination and Ne is the realm of applied ideas. Si treats facts and memories as an end in itself and Se is only concerned with facts and memories that are easily evoked by external stimuli.

Introverted functions are about the property of the subject. E.G, your thoughts, feelings, intuitions, memories. Extroverted functions are mostly concerned with properties of the world and what you can do to manipulate those properties around. Ne manipulates external ideas around, Te external rationalizations, Fe external sentiments, Se memories pertaining to clear-cut external activities--usually group activities (this is why ESPs tend to be the most fraternal, their memories are mostly focused on what happened in group activities. Unlike Sis, the more individualistic sensors who are focused more on memories that were important to them), and Se also manipulates concrete impulses of how to indulge in sensual pleasures and manipulates concrete facts in an analogous fashion to how Ne maneuvers around external ideas.

 

[ygolo]

I have to admit that I'm really confused about the difference as well. Everything Jennifer said in her post resonates strongly with me. I definitely have a little model of the universe I carry around in my mind and constantly update in an ongoing effort to make it as accurate a model as possible. I'm also forever on the lookout for "levers" I can pull to receive the maximum payback for minimum effort.

I base these comments on my reading of Dynamics of Personality Type : Understanding and Applying Jung's Cognitive Processes (Understanding yourself and others series)

I think everyone has their own model of the universe made with an eye for leverage. But I think that is their Ti function. For a symbolic I_TJ, the Ti function would serve as either a source of discovery or a critical parent (so the theory goes). Their model of their universe would give them insights, and/ or admonish ill-concieved notions, goals or impressions.

While for a symbolic I_TP, Ti would serve a leading or dominating function. It would be in charge. Their leverage-aimed-model-of-the-universe determines their course of action, and sets goals (but healthy use requires it being informed by other functions, particularily the Auxiliary Se or Ne).

There are various other roles Ti could play (support/overprotection in E_TPs, Relief/Unsettling in I_FJs, aspirational/projective in E_FJs, backup/opposing in E_TJs, comedic/deceiving in E_FPs, Transformative/Devilish in I_FPs)

The same is true for all functions. Which way do you think you use Ti?

Something I find myself thinking frequently is, "All right, now that you've been able to step back and realize what this thing really is, let's try to step back one step further."

I rarely find myself applying the A to B to C logic that is supposed to be incidental to my type. I reserve that sort of thinking primarily for developing and updating my overall "game plan".

How formal is your stepping back process? How similar is it to moving things in the real world?

Are you sure you are not an INTP?

 

[Mycroft]

How formal is your stepping back process? How similar is it to moving things in the real world?

I'm not sure I understand the second question... My "stepping back process" feels like... I was born with the Photo of Reality at 1600% magnification and as I grow I'm slowly pulling back the magnification so I can see just what the hell it is I'm looking at.

Are you sure you are not an INTP?

Nah, I'm about as J as they get. (With all of the pros and cons that come with it...)

 

[ygolo]

I'm not sure I understand the second question... My "stepping back process" feels like... I was born with the Photo of Reality at 1600% magnification and as I grow I'm slowly pulling back the magnification so I can see just what the hell it is I'm looking at.

I kind of think of Te as the sorting of things in the real world. If your internal process of "thinking" is a virtual version of that I would call it Te as well, aided by Ni or Si for the representation. Certainly all the other processes are happening in peoples heads too.

I think of Ti as a search for universal principles and leverage points. Say you are watching sports and you see the way a basketball player almost always keeps the ball on the far side of the body from the defender when going for a lay-up or slam dunk. This is the external manifestation of Ti (through Se or Ne).

When trying to do math: the paper, mental, or computational manipulation of symbols is Te, while the analyzing (What proof strategy do I use? What can I substitute with approximations? What's the accuracy of this model?) is Ti.

When making decisions:Knowing and deciding what you want and the actually vocalizing or acting upon a decision is Te, while the analyzing the situation to find the "lever" you want to pull is Ti.

Those who have Ti or Te as the lead will have th other as back-up or opposition. Of course, these statements are from the perspective of a Ti with Te as back-up.

I was wondering if you spent more time analyzing or organizing (for lack of a better word).

 

[Mycroft]

I was wondering if you spent more time analyzing or organizing (for lack of a better word).

That I consider the two largely one and the same probably speaks volumes...

 

[TaylorS]

Ti is about extrapolating universal principles from factual sense data information while Te is about applying factual sense data to external goals.

For Fi and Fe just replace "factual sense data" with subjectively perceived sentiments.

 

[Maverick]

Ti: Concerned with the internal consistency of a system and the logical rules of its functionning. Works inside the MBTI framework and seeks to understand Ti/Te, by finding proper definitions for it. Tries to uncover the mechanisms behind these cognitive functions. Ti needs minimal facts and constructs knowledge through logical reasoning.

Te: Concerned with the external antecedents of a system, and the logical rules to predict its consequences. Questions the validity of the MBTI framework and existence of Ti/Te since there is no hard evidence for them. Te is concerned with facts and understanding the relationship between them. Te seeks to arrive at universal logical laws that will allow control and prediction of phenomena.

A radical Ti attitude in psychology would be philosophy of the mind and a radical Te attitude would be behaviorism. The current trend of cognitive-behavioral is basically a fusion of a Ti and Te way of understanding behavior.

 

[Natrushka]

Same is true for Ni and Ne.

Ni is the realm of pure imagination and Ne is the realm of applied ideas. Si treats facts and memories as an end in itself and Se is only concerned with facts and memories that are easily evoked by external stimuli.

This is the first time I've understood exactly why there are certain things I remember so vividly and other things? Meh.

 

[lkpo14]

What's the difference between Ti and Te

what's the difference between Ti and Te?

dont give me a description of each one.. i want to know what Extroverted/Introverted Functions mean..

so- discuss..

 

[Jack Flak]

Why can't you figure it out.

 

[SillySapienne]

Te- concise and to the point

Ti- highly descriptive and at times meandering from the point; thorough, though, very, very thorough