Question about Te

[Ms. Kensington]

Does this sound like Te to you:

"Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options. This makes it easier for me to make a decision."

Maybe TeNi?

[Joy]

Nah. The "some people" referred to are probably Ne. I wouldn't say that what the author said seems to fit one particular type. And Te isn't about limiting options, it's about what works.

[Ms. Kensington]

It's hard for me to see Te without the context of a dynamic environment, like in a manager's office where unexpected things happen and the manager has to rearrange resources to complete a more, or as, efficient task.

This reminds me of when Slava said Te is like fitting together blocks in a box. He didn't say this but like if someone punches the box then they have to rearrange the blocks in a different way to fit them in the best way. But it still seems like I'm putting a static spin on it

[Not A Communist Shill]

I would give all the possibilities a weighting, but not completely dismiss any of them - in my mind, I might the low weighted possibilities to the extremes of my 'vision', with all the better ones in the centre.

Wouldn't a Te type say 'That idea's bullshit', or 'That could work', as though on gut feeling, and not really considering each possibility in great detail?

I think ISxjs are the sort of type that would dismiss an idea completely, but they may do so after considering how that kind of idea had worked in the past - they might seem as though decided on gut instinct what works and what doesn't, but that maybe because you can't see their internal reasoning?

[Ms. Kensington]

Also this person was talking about how they like to be in complex situations where they have to figure out how things fit together in the context of problem solving. It was given as an example of rearranging things in the most productive manner and for being willing to abandon old plans for new more efficient configurations.

In this way I can see how Te is dynamic because you can do it only when there are changing factors? Is this on the right track?

[Stormy]

Does this sound like Te to you:

"Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options. This makes it easier for me to make a decision."

Sounds like Extroversion versus Introversion (perceiving individual bodies versus perceiving gross fields).

[Not A Communist Shill]

For extroverted dynamic type, they see objects in the external environment changing of their own accord over time - they like to make sense of this change. For extroverted static types, they influence objects in their environment, and so obviously understand why they change.

[Exodus]

Does this sound like Te to you:

"Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options. This makes it easier for me to make a decision."

Maybe TeNi?

More likely TiNe. You're making a wide generalization (Ne), and turning it into a binary choice (Ti).

[Jarno]

If this means that a person sees through al the lesser important variables and gets to the core of the situation, then it could be Te.

maybe?

[Exodus]

Well since Te is dynamic, it's tuned into the stimulus; it can't switch off. So Te would start with all the variables at once and condense them down, but Ti would just vary a few at a time, switching as needed.

[Ms. Kensington]

Does this sound like Te to you:

"Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options. This makes it easier for me to make a decision."

Maybe TeNi?

More likely TiNe. You're making a wide generalization (Ne), and turning it into a binary choice (Ti).

This is the quote that threw me off. Because the rest of the examples were more like what you were saying in the next post

"So Te would start with all the variables at once and condense them down, but Ti would just vary a few at a time, switching as needed."

[Exodus]

Does this sound like Te to you:

"Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options. This makes it easier for me to make a decision."

Maybe TeNi?

More likely TiNe. You're making a wide generalization (Ne), and turning it into a binary choice (Ti).

This is the quote that threw me off. Because the rest of the examples were more like what you were saying in the next post

"So Te would start with all the variables at once and condense them down, but Ti would just vary a few at a time, switching as needed."

Hmm, "generalization" wasn't really the right word. In this case Ne gives a sense of sudden clarity, a kind of lightbulb going off that says "yeah, let's go with this."

[force my hand]

Does this sound like Te to you:

"Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options. This makes it easier for me to make a decision."

Maybe TeNi?

I mistakenly read that as, "Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options: that which makes it easy for me, and that which doesn't."

I don't know what kind of function that could be related to, but I agree 100%.

[Stormy]

For extroverted dynamic type, they see objects in the external environment changing of their own accord over time - they like to make sense of this change. For extroverted static types, they influence objects in their environment, and so obviously understand why they change.

How would you characterise Introverted Dynamic Types and Introverted Dynamic Types?

[Gilly]

Does this sound like Te to you:

"Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options. This makes it easier for me to make a decision."

Maybe TeNi?

More likely TiNe. You're making a wide generalization (Ne), and turning it into a binary choice (Ti).

I would say unvalued Ne with Ti.

[Exodus]

Does this sound like Te to you:

"Some people see a situation and see 20 variables and try to balance all 20, but I see only 2 options. This makes it easier for me to make a decision."

Maybe TeNi?

More likely TiNe. You're making a wide generalization (Ne), and turning it into a binary choice (Ti).

I would say unvalued Ne with Ti.

Hmm, yes, that makes sense.