Examples of all the functions in action?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I wrote two real-life stories where you actually can FEEL/place yourself right there in the moment (or so I hope I tried my best) regarding and respectively. I'm as lost about as you are so I can't help you there, but I might work on other functions later.

Let's face it. What you're asking for is a bit too vague/important for one person to get a handle on, but I hope this thread can help you really see things: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=20223

Remember, we only have a few functions we are very capable in so one person is going to give you incomplete/not fully correct or in the case of their polrs most likely flat-out wrong advice if they try to explain all the functions themselves! (Or they might not be technically wrong, but they will lack the physicality where you can't relate to it at all) I'm sure I could try just for kicks but you'd have to take it into perspective.

I would like to hear Expat's Te processes as well so I can finally really recognize how that is my polr.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I guess it can be difficult to separate the functions,

Not only difficult but counterproductive and dangerously misleading, most likely. They're too raw/meaningless/abstract for you to GET them like that because realistically, no function exists on its own island. There has to be some sort of physical, earthly sense that resonates with your being and you can only really experience this once you observe how the functions play off with each other. You were inherently born with all 8 functions and the capability to utilize (or at least sense them) all of them in some way (even your vulnerable one).

But okay, that doesn't mean general systems are pointless or innately hurtful it just means that prejudice/bigotry and unneeded stereotypes get formed from those, even when one doesn't intend to. Take . When you strip in its pure form it's about mindless power and bullying...that's how you can only end up viewing it. But the world isn't like that is born into the interconnectiveness and complexity of 7 other functions, but the stereotype that Se-valuers are mean bullies, that's how it gets formed. =(

We see how this socionics shit plays out in real life, now we have to try and communicate/express that as best as possible.

[leckysupport]

Rather, you take what you know works well and apply it the situation in the hopes of a payoff. Knowing "what works" usually involves the memorizations of myriad facts and procedures

I don't think it's really about knowing 'what works', but analyzing things from a stand point where you can figure out how to reach the most effective or optimal solution (in certain situations). Compared to Ti which just tries to get a clear picture for the sake of having a clear picture.

And I don't think Te concentrates on memorizing facts and procedures, but tries to work out what is relevant and what is not (according to what they are doing) and the applies this knowledge to world around them. And by applying I mean in the sense of making a case for a particular action to take place or making a case for how an action took place or making a case for alternatives actions to take place.

Also one Te state of mind would be feeling like you (and everyone) are a time maximizing instrument designed to complete a task or a set of tasks in the most proper, quickest and effective way possible. So not wasting a minute of your day, finish one task move on to next, planning tasks ahead... that sort of thing.

When blocked with (ESTj), it focuses on optimizing the efficiency of the immediate situation through well-known, dependable and highly predictable algorithms.

LIEs are very much into dependable and predictable algorithms too; you can't create a massive highly integrated optimal and efficient systems if half your mechanism don't work. And I don't believe LSEs depend mostly on well-known procedures, they manage to think of their own (being their dominate element and all).

Edit: Also I'm not a fan of the 'Te being about ever changing facts' thing, sounds like Ni has something to do with that.

[leckysupport]

Pardon my Ti-speak. From my perspective, the most effective or optimal solution is also about "what works"... rather than about having a complete interlinking/hierarchical understanding, which tells you why this is the optimal solution.

Te types need to know why something is more optimal or effective then something else or they wouldn't be able to effectively choose which action to take. IMO the phrase 'what works' doesn't really described anything useful.

But Ti is also more than just having a clear picture for it's sake. Through generating coherent systems, it delineates what is clearly possible and clearly impossible.

That's still about generating a clear picture.

Thanks. So Te is all the processing that occurs before any algorithms are directly applied? I still don't understand this problem solving aspect of Te.

Simple example of what Te does:

Te observes the world around them and collects information. Then it sorts all this information in what is relevent to do what by finding trusted sources, using a strict kind of logical thinking, comparing evidence etc.
Once it does that it forms a logical case for what actions should take place, then it carries out that action.

Sure, but more dependable procedures are given higher priority. Though I certainly don't doubt any types abilities to be creative. As for LIEs they take many more risks than LSEs, and are willing to lay more on the line in testing experimental procedures from what I've read, which is what I was hinting at.

LIEs definately take more risks, but I strongly believe that they stick with Te information and methods (not just procedures) which are dependable. They just use their dependable Te methods in uncertain territory more often than LSEs do.

All dynamic elements seem to be changing from the perspective of static elements. Compared to TiSe, the information TeSi works with could seem chaotic, unstructured and situationally dependent.

I think Te tries to analyse things from a place which is most relevent towards making a case for a action. So all information and theories which are likely to change every other day are descarded as irrelevent, because you really can't depend on them to 'do' Te. Ti on the other hand just want's a clear picture of everything, it doesn't want to be in a position to do anything, so it describes everything. Ti ends up with more theories than Te, so they seem more rigid because it's difficult to change your mind once you have formed a clear theory.

[Expat]

I don't think it's really about knowing 'what works', but analyzing things from a stand point where you can figure out how to reach the most effective or optimal solution (in certain situations). Compared to Ti which just tries to get a clear picture for the sake of having a clear picture.

Well, "the most effective or optimal solution" is also "what works".

And I don't think Te concentrates on memorizing facts and procedures, but tries to work out what is relevant and what is not (according to what they are doing) and the applies this knowledge to world around them. And by applying I mean in the sense of making a case for a particular action to take place or making a case for how an action took place or making a case for alternatives actions to take place.

I agree. The thing about "facts" is not about memorizing them for the sake of memorizing; it's that Te>Ti types are more likely to have disjointed (from a Ti PoV) ways of doing things, based on information collected here and there, without bothering too much how they fit together logically. This is most visible in IEEs and SEEs.

Also one Te state of mind would be feeling like you (and everyone) are a time maximizing instrument designed to complete a task or a set of tasks in the most proper, quickest and effective way possible. So not wasting a minute of your day, finish one task move on to next, planning tasks ahead... that sort of thing.

The bolded bit is not Te alone, but specifically Te+Si. "Finish one task move on to next" is a very LSE (and I suppose SLI) way of looking at it. Not necessarily LIE or ILI.

Edit: Also I'm not a fan of the 'Te being about ever changing facts' thing, sounds like Ni has something to do with that.

Perhaps, but then we should discuss it at some point.

Te types need to know why something is more optimal or effective then something else or they wouldn't be able to effectively choose which action to take. IMO the phrase 'what works' doesn't really described anything useful.

I agree with what you're saying, so I still don't understand your problem is the phrase "what works".

Te observes the world around them and collects information. Then it sorts all this information in what is relevent to do what by finding trusted sources, using a strict kind of logical thinking, comparing evidence etc.
Once it does that it forms a logical case for what actions should take place, then it carries out that action.

Yes.

I think Te tries to analyse things from a place which is most relevent towards making a case for a action. So all information and theories which are likely to change every other day are descarded as irrelevent, because you really can't depend on them to 'do' Te. Ti on the other hand just want's a clear picture of everything, it doesn't want to be in a position to do anything, so it describes everything. Ti ends up with more theories than Te, so they seem more rigid because it's difficult to change your mind once you have formed a clear theory.

I agree up to a point. For instance, in things like the financial market, "information is likely to change every other day", but it's not discarded, it is used while it is useful. However, I see now how that would be indeed more Te+Ni than Te+Si.

Also, it is useful to understand Te by looking at what it is not. The more you use Te, the less you use Fe and vice-versa, in any given situation. Fe is about an emotional atmosphere, something which people judge internally. Te has no connection to changing emotional states, and ideally Te, being the external dynamics of fields (rather than internal, as Fe), it's about information that can be viewed, in principle, by anyone independently of their internal ways.

In a way, Te is about "reading the lines", while Fe is about "reading between the lines". The more you focus on what is actually written on the lines, the less you try to read between them; and the more you think you have to read between the lines, the less you pay attention to what they are actually saying. Fe and Te are a zero-sum thing.

A simple example of Te vs Fe communication problems.

When I was still living at home with my parents, I might ask my ESE mother, "so what are we having for dinner tonight"? From a Te perspective, it's a straightforward question. There is no need to intepret it. It demands simple answers, like "we're having soylent green for dinner" or "I don't know yet." Yet, invariably, my mother would reply with "what, you want to eat so early?" And I would say, "no, I just asked what we're going to eat, I said nothing about eating right now". Her natural instinct was to reply to what she thought I meant with my question, not the question itself.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yet, invariably, my mother would reply with "what, you want to eat so early?"

She always replies like that though? My ESE mother can do the same thing but only if she's stressed and needs her weakness covered. I say it's a 50/50 thing with my mom more like though. I can understand the example but I think that's also more your own mother's quirk mixed in with socionics than a pure example of itself. She would have to see how that sounds unnecessarily defensive.

Your example of your mom sounds more like her revealing her polr (maybe mixed in with her too though) than it is of a example itself.

[Expat]

Well, "invariably" is of course exaggerated for effect (so a bit of Fe from me, as well). "Often enough so that I remember it as a typical trait" is the accurate way of putting it. It's not as if I asked that question every day, either.

It may be related to the Ni PoLR, but I still think that the basic Te/Fe contrast is valid.

ETA: this is meant as one example of using Fe over Te; it does not follow that every ESE or Fe ego type will do precisely the same as in this example.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

"Often enough so that I remember it as a typical trait" is the accurate way of putting it. It's not as if I asked that question every day, either.

Thanks. That clears it up! I kinda had thought so in a way but as you know, is my polr so I'm much better at checking logical theories using & receiving .

It may be related to the Ni PoLR, but I still think that the basic Te/Fe contrast is valid.

Well we're both right, I think, but how everything is interrelated really appeals to me and I just don't think you can rip them apart for the sake of making a good point no matter how technically right you are. Especially in communications like these where 'producing action & resources' seems irrelevant since we're just chatting.

I view all the functions more as a spider web all linked together with the functions you are proficient in more close to you, and the other functions distant but still accessible if you absolutely need them. I just feel you are cherry picking and even though you are right, no, I don't think it's okay. LOL.

This is why I suck at business/money/practical matters of course. I have a lot of trouble cutting those spider webs to reach out to just make a fucking decision already.

[Expat]

Thank you for the explanations. I still don't get it, though. I might make this more complicated than it is, trying to read between the lines (haha), but I really don't "feel" Te. Can anyone give a real life example of a typical situation were Te is used and how it is used...?

Once, I was having dinner in Toronto with a few people - only one guy was Canadian, the others were from Europe or the US. Somehow the conversation turned to Canadian politics and institutions. The Canadian guy explained that, unlike Australia, Canada did not have a governor-general as formal acting head of state (representing the British Queen). Now, that is simply erroneous, as a quick look in wikipedia will confirm: Canada does have a governor-general (the present one is Michaëlle Jean). So I just said, sorry, that is not correct, Canada does have a governor-general, just like Australia. The Canadian guy was taken aback and said that he was right. I said something to the effect that if he'd check it somewhere he'd find out that Canada does have a governor-general.

Now, that caused a sense of discomfort, and the Canadian guy was clearly annoyed. I'd guess that what was going through his mind was something like, "how can this foreigner think he knows more about the Canadian constitution than me?" or perhaps "is he trying to humiliate me, trying to make me look stupid?" Which was not my goal at all, by the way.

Obviously, the "polite" or "political" reaction, on my part, would have been to say nothing. That would have been a Fe consideration. But, at the moment, all I thought of was to correct an erroneous information that was "floating" there: I was putting Te right. In doing that, however, I certainly also affected the Fe atmosphere in other ways.

Some people, reading this, will think that I was being an ass. The thing is, my only goal was to correct erroneous information, I was oblivious to all other considerations. I don't do that all the time: I am sometimes aware that it's better to pay attention to Fe. But it's not my natural inclination.

[Logos]

In a way, Te is about "reading the lines", while Fe is about "reading between the lines". The more you focus on what is actually written on the lines, the less you try to read between them; and the more you think you have to read between the lines, the less you pay attention to what they are actually saying. Fe and Te are a zero-sum thing.

A simple example of Te vs Fe communication problems.

When I was still living at home with my parents, I might ask my ESE mother, "so what are we having for dinner tonight"? From a Te perspective, it's a straightforward question. There is no need to intepret it. It demands simple answers, like "we're having soylent green for dinner" or "I don't know yet." Yet, invariably, my mother would reply with "what, you want to eat so early?" And I would say, "no, I just asked what we're going to eat, I said nothing about eating right now". Her natural instinct was to reply to what she thought I meant with my question, not the question itself.

Both of which have the advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation.

[leckysupport]

Well, "the most effective or optimal solution" is also "what works".

Yeah, you're right. The main problem I have with the explanation is that it's very vague and it doesn't really explain exactly how Te works nor does it give a feel for how it works.

The bolded bit is not Te alone, but specifically Te+Si. "Finish one task move on to next" is a very LSE (and I suppose SLI) way of looking at it. Not necessarily LIE or ILI.

You are indeed right; I did described it the LSE way. I was trying to describe the way you appeared to act when I met you in London. You always seemed active and getting up to do something and just generally moving on from one task to another when needed, like that.

Perhaps, but then we should discuss it at some point.

This is my explanation of Te/Ti and changing:

I think Te tries to analyse things from a place which is most relevent towards making a case for a action. So all information and theories which are likely to change every other day are descarded as irrelevent, because you really can't depend on them to 'do' Te. Ti on the other hand just want's a clear picture of everything, it doesn't want to be in a position to do anything, so it describes everything. Ti ends up with more theories than Te, so they seem more rigid because it's difficult to change your mind once you have formed a clear theory.

I think the 'ever changing facts' explanation is just Ni uncertainty and 'nervousness' added into the mix.

I agree up to a point. For instance, in things like the financial market, "information is likely to change every other day", but it's not discarded, it is used while it is useful.

I agree, it was simple example showing how Te formed a theory. I don't believe the irrelevant information is completely discarded and forgotten about, just discarded in forming that specific Te based theory.

However, I see now how that would be indeed more Te+Ni than Te+Si.

I think it's pretty much the same for both Te+Ni and Te+Si.

In a way, Te is about "reading the lines", while Fe is about "reading between the lines". The more you focus on what is actually written on the lines, the less you try to read between them; and the more you think you have to read between the lines, the less you pay attention to what they are actually saying. Fe and Te are a zero-sum thing.

Wouldn't Fi read between the lines too? Being overly exact and clear is a logical thing IMO (reading the lines), being ethical is about vague and emotive connections or the complete opposite (reading between the lines).
I don't think Fe being external (real world) and Fi being internal (subjective) really explains it because Ti has issues with logically inconsistent external behavior and if Ti can have problems with real world behavior why can't Fi?

[mikemex]

MBTI explains Te vs Ti much better. Te is about understanding external logic. Like brass, which is a mixture of tin and copper. It doesn't matter where you are, it's always the same hardness, the same density. It's because nobody set up the logic behind chemical elements and how they are combined; they just are.

Ti, on the other hand, depends more on subjectivity. That's why Fe is about guessing what's all under Ti.

[Expat]

Both of which have the advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation.

Sure.

Wouldn't Fi read between the lines too? Being overly exact and clear is a logical thing IMO (reading the lines), being ethical is about vague and emotive connections or the complete opposite (reading between the lines).
I don't think Fe being external (real world) and Fi being internal (subjective) really explains it because Ti has issues with logically inconsistent external behavior and if Ti can have problems with real world behavior why can't Fi?

I don't think it is Fi that reads between the lines of external information as it is being communicated; I see that as Fe. If Fi ego types do that, it's because they are also strong in Fe. The Fi ego types have as dual low-Fe types, even Fe PoLR types, which means that they prefer to receive Te rather than Fe information, though.

But I am associating "reading between the lines" with dynamic processes, you do that to new information as it is received. Fi is about static connections that are not readily visible to outsiders. So, maybe, you have to read between the lines of those connections in order to see them.

[Expat]

You are indeed right; I did described it the LSE way. I was trying to describe the way you appeared to act when I met you in London. You always seemed active and getting up to do something and just generally moving on from one task to another when needed, like that.

You want to throw some bones to those poor misguided souls who type me as LSE, do you?

What is not apparent to outsiders is that I'm not really that into concentrating on the task at hand; I was always already thinking of the next task.

[Expat]

I just realized that I may have been misleading. My "Canadian" example could be interpreted as to mean that Fe is necessarily about not causing discomfort on others. That's actually Fe+Si. Fe+Ni (which would actually be Fe+Se) can also be about blunt remarks and disrupting the emotional atmosphere. That's actually a source of great confusion here, also because Jung was thinking only of Fe+Si when he defined Extraverted Feeling.

The difference, which can be difficult to detect when observing real people interacting, is that the use of Te is neutral and only concerned with the accuracy of the information itself. In my Canadian example, let us assume that it had been the other way around and I would have made the erroneous remark (thinking it was true), and the Canadian guy had corrected me, adding, "you can check that easily". In my case, thinking of Te only (and therefore concerned only with the accuracy of the information), I would have said, "ok thanks I will check". Fe+Se is more concerned with shaping the external dynamics in one specific direction, so the "mere" factual accuracy would not suffice to satisfy it. Which is why, incidentally, Te types will "concede" in an argument if they are convinced that their information had been erroneous, while Fe types may be inclined to "defend their ideas".

[Rubicon]

I just realized that I may have been misleading. My "Canadian" example could be interpreted as to mean that Fe is necessarily about not causing discomfort on others. That's actually Fe+Si. Fe+Ni (which would actually be Fe+Se) can also be about blunt remarks and disrupting the emotional atmosphere. That's actually a source of great confusion here, also because Jung was thinking only of Fe+Si when he defined Extraverted Feeling.

The difference, which can be difficult to detect when observing real people interacting, is that the use of Te is neutral and only concerned with the accuracy of the information itself. In my Canadian example, let us assume that it had been the other way around and I would have made the erroneous remark (thinking it was true), and the Canadian guy had corrected me, adding, "you can check that easily". In my case, thinking of Te only (and therefore concerned only with the accuracy of the information), I would have said, "ok thanks I will check". Fe+Se is more concerned with shaping the external dynamics in one specific direction, so the "mere" factual accuracy would not suffice to satisfy it. Which is why, incidentally, Te types will "concede" in an argument if they are convinced that their information had been erroneous, while Fe types may be inclined to "defend their ideas".

What do you mean by saying that Fe+Ni is actually Fe+Se?

[Expat]

What do you mean by saying that Fe+Ni is actually Fe+Se?

Well, Fe is blocked either with Si or Ni.

However, Ni "goes together" with Se. So, for the purposes of describing what exactly is going on, I find Fe+Se more useful than Fe+Ni (although, in the end, it's the same thing).

[leckysupport]

But I am associating "reading between the lines" with dynamic processes, you do that to new information as it is received. Fi is about static connections that are not readily visible to outsiders. So, maybe, you have to read between the lines of those connections in order to see them.

To me "reading between the lines" is more a Logic vs. ethics (rather than Te vs. Fe), logical elements take everything as straight forward and ethical elements are emotive and vague.
I don't really see what being dynamic has to do with 'reading between the lines', what does new information have to do with the process?

your stuff is quite often gold, you know. (:

Thanks : )

[Logos]

Well, Fe is blocked either with Si or Ni.

However, Ni "goes together" with Se. So, for the purposes of describing what exactly is going on, I find Fe+Se more useful than Fe+Ni (although, in the end, it's the same thing).

What are your thoughts then in regards to a similar look at such pairing descriptions in this thread? It would seem to agree with you in that regard.

[Expat]

What are your thoughts then in regards to a similar look at such pairing descriptions in this thread? It would seem to agree with you in that regard.

I had seen it, and I generally agree with it. I had also previously referred to the Ni+Ti combination as what leads to the most "visionary" ideas.

[Expat]

I actually do things like you describe a lot, at least I used to when I was younger and less capable of keeping my mouth shut. I always read a lot, and just happen(ed) to know a lot of facts about all kinds of (un)interesting things, and when people state things that are not correct, I feel I "have" to "fix the imbalance" by stating the truth. (It even bothers me a lot to just shut up and not get the correct information out, shutting up makes me feel a great disturbance in the Force as they would say in Star Wars ) You say that is my Te speaking? In business relations I try to shut up, not to offend people (clients in particular), but I find it terribly annoying... I feel like it's a waste of time, and that such "polite" conversations won't develop anything (knowledge nor relation). (I guess this last phrase has to do with Ne?)

Well, the thing is, this "great disturbance in the Force" thingy can be used to describe both Te and Fe. In the case of disliking polite conversations and wanting to get to business, this could easily be Se over Si, too.

In some business conversations, when things are just too polite, and I get bored with talking about wine, rich people and cars, I sometimes try to direct conversation to development of business i.e. Most people will get interested and ask more about what I think about the future of their business.

So far this is more Se/Ni over Si/Ne.

However, sometimes people get totally silent, as if I have offended them by asking how they want to improve a certain problem they have (that everyone knows they have...). My intention is of course to give them my (definitely professional) point of view for free and thus get a more interesting conversation. They seem to understand it as if I offend them by stating they have a problem (that they obviously have), and conversation stops before going back to boring wine, rich people and cars blah-blah-blah. I feel these kind of conversational mistakes of mine are similar to the mistake you described. They both show lack of Fe (and/or typical Fe-valuing in the other person), but I guess my statements this time (development) are initiated by Ne, while in the first case (truth/fact-stating) it was caused by Te?? Is this correct?

I think yours are more connected to Se-Ni rather than Ne.

In the example I mentioned, it was "pure Te" because there was no other motivation, nothing else going on, besides the correction of an erroneous statement; the correction itself was the goal (since the error itself, of course, was totally unimportant). In your example, it seems to me that it's rather that you have a perception that something has to be achieved, at the expense of "coziness", which is Se>Si.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[strrrng]

Simple example of what Te does:

Te observes the world around them and collects information. Then it sorts all this information in what is relevent to do what by finding trusted sources, using a strict kind of logical thinking, comparing evidence etc.
Once it does that it forms a logical case for what actions should take place, then it carries out that action.

Why does Te have to be about relevancy or optimization? This isn't the crux of it; it is a manifestation. What it really does is track directly observable causal processes and notice the patterns within them, thus creating a sort of chain-like understanding of data; it is bottom-up, no need for inherent structure.

Expat, your example from Canada is generally valid, but I think anyone would correct that, if they knew the information was wrong (maybe not some alpha SF lol...cuz yea...Fe+Si). I think the degree to which they would pursue would determine functional preference. But even that could be misleading, because I would probably push it far, due to wanting to control the Fe atmosphere with Se. But whatever...

[Logos]

I had seen it, and I generally agree with it. I had also previously referred to the Ni+Ti combination as what leads to the most "visionary" ideas.

Good to know. Although it also comes in part from my own observations of behavior, I was still somewhat worried that I was off-base with these ideas and was becoming another INTj theoretical nut job.

So far this is more Se/Ni over Si/Ne.

Perhaps, but I know that I grow tired when my time is clearly being wasted in such small talk. It is not that I do not like talking about those things, but when I am caught in such meetings, then I am left unable to pursue my own interests or leisure activities.

[Expat]

That's what I explained in my first example as well. I don't have any other motivation for telling the truth than to correct an error. If I keep my mouth shut, it's because I don't want to offend anyone. I never managed to do that when I was younger, and I often ended up crying because I felt so hurt that the others thought I was trying to offend them or show myself better than anyone. I just needed to correct a erroneous statement, to stabilize the "force" again. I still think this might be Te, as I don't see the difference between our motivations??

If the error was related to something that can be verified, as being observably correct, than it's also Te.

I don't think so at all, but you probably misunderstood me the same way the business clients do. You think I'm being too serious, trying to talk business when all I want to do is to find a discussion that is not completely uninteresting for one of us. I look the way I feel (My face is an open book...), and I kind of find it important to not look bored when I'm with clients. That's my motivation for changing the topic of conversation. This was my second example. I still think it's Ne.

Could be.

In my second example I wanted to "achieve" a better conversation. In the first I wanted to "achieve" a balance of "the force". I don't think that's the kind of "achievements" you talk about when you say I value Se>Si. However I feel I have a really hard time explaining myself clearly about a topic so unclear to me, and I guess that means you have a hard time understanding what I try to explain. Weak Te (?), I guess....... And my English is not really well developed for this kind of discussion neither, and that complicates things even more....

I do get a glimpse of Te, though, so thank you! I don't "feel" it yet, but I'm getting closer.

Well, if your sole objective was to move the conversation to areas more interesting to yourself, rather than to move it to "business", then it could mean lots of things.

[Ms. Kensington]

i thought the dinner example was a good one. I think Si Fe can use shortcuts that disregard Te. For example, while cleaning out the garage a package falls, ISFp says, that didn't fall. Her meaning was, "don't worry about it, it's ok that it fell". But the focus was totally not on the factual accuracy of her statement. After giving her a look, she said "yes, it did fall". She's just completely blindsided to it. But it's also not a matter of comprehension, it's a matter of focus, what you notice and do first.

[Ms. Kensington]

I could see my ESE mother communicate like the ISFp in your example. I get the meaning of it, though.

Could a Te-leading person have problems understanding - or find it hard to appreciate/respect - that way of communication?

i'm not Te leading, but because I don't have Te polr i think i pay a little more attention to that. And I have seen ESFps for example be completely winded by that kind of response.. they are looking for and expecting answers that focus on Te.

[Rubicon]

Well, Fe is blocked either with Si or Ni.

However, Ni "goes together" with Se. So, for the purposes of describing what exactly is going on, I find Fe+Se more useful than Fe+Ni (although, in the end, it's the same thing).

So is this always the case? Is a function always used in conjunction with the function it seeks?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Some people, reading this, will think that I was being an ass.

No, it just seemed you were being reasonably confident and you corrected an error. My God we all have to do that in life or how would anybody function?

When I really know something and somebody says something wrong, I too will correct them about it. However, I have to find the issue important for myself as well. Perhaps that's the difference? is more automated, more 'it is what it is, just correcting things that aren't factual.' Even if I know the person is wrong and I know the right answer, if I don't feel strongly about the issue, I'm not naturally inclined to say anything. I realize this is a degree of selfishness on my part.

Did you really have a strong interest in Canadian politics? Did it 'drive your soul' so to speak? That's the only way I'd correct that guy, something within me would just 'take over' and I would call him out on it. He has to be wrong, I have to be right, but I also have to care.

[leckysupport]

This isn't the crux of it; it is a manifestation.

Yeah, that's where I was going with case making and relevency, I abandoned the effort for a central description long ago when I couldn't link everything together and then forgot about it. Looking at your description now I should be able to link the common important traits with the central description.

What it really does is track directly observable causal processes and notice the patterns within them, thus creating a sort of chain-like understanding of data; it is bottom-up, no need for inherent structure.

I would want to say 'clear directly observable'. I think Fe also tracks directly observable (unless when you say observable you mean clear) causal processes, the difference being Fe makes vague and confusing connections whilst Te make clear and straight forward connections.