Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Te/Ti Writing Styles

  1. #1
    ESTj Tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    562
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Te/Ti Writing Styles

    To continue:
    While I wasn't making any digs at your type when I made that response to Steve, I do find your reaction interesting. There's certainly a lot of ways in which all of this is qualifiable (small samples of writing, non type related issues, etc) of course, but I've generally conceived the opposite of Steve when it comes to Ti "spreading out" and Te "proceeding along" or however he put it exactly. I'm not making any clear assertions that he's right or wrong in this, as I've never bothered or seemed particularly apt at delineating the two in any sort of concrete way. In fact, the overlap between them has confused me frequently, but I've been talking to someone who is Ti base for a while and it would at least seem to fit what Steve describes, since I frequently find myself at a loss for picking up the 'point' or 'direction' of certain exchanges in the conversation.

    However, the meat of what I was getting at was that my past conceptions of Ti and Te has primarily been that Ti seeks to clarify terms, establish definitions, and systematize. From that base, then inferences can be made and observations from the world subsumed into that order, so as to bring the world around them into a subjective understanding. I don't have time to flesh out any ruminations on Te right now since I have to go to work (and I feel kind of bad how this has all kind of blown up in a now completely unrelated way to the thread), but I also wanted to note that I've considered (they're far more preliminary and based on the above analysis) Aristotle to be ISTj and Hume ENTj. Anyway, I'll think this over a bit and maybe we can split this off into another thread.
    Anyway, I believe that Te deals more in a flowing manner (it is a dynamic element after all) while Ti seems to tend, more often, to get caught up in details rather than proving a point.

    Edit: Also, do you mean "objective understanding"? This would seem to make more sense.
    Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson

  2. #2
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK good the thread was made - but it should probably go in general discussion

  3. #3
    Darn Socks Director Abbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Southwest USA
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    6,723
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    is best for writing school essays. That's a fact. The best English teacher in the valley is also an ESTj.

    ESTj
    1w2 sp/so 1-2-6
    Brilliand's Younger Sister
    Squishy's Older Sister

    Johari Nohari

    Quote Originally Posted by Ritella View Post
    Over here, we'll put up with (almost) all of your crap. You just have to use the secret phrase: "I don't value it. It's related to <insert random element here>, which is not in my quadra."
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Abbie is so boring and rigid it's awesome instead of boring and rigid. She seems so practical and down-to-the-ground.

  4. #4
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom View Post
    To continue:


    Anyway, I believe that Te deals more in a flowing manner (it is a dynamic element after all) while Ti seems to tend, more often, to get caught up in details rather than proving a point.

    Edit: Also, do you mean "objective understanding"? This would seem to make more sense.
    Yes, Te is more flowing and has direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Munenori
    In fact, the overlap between them has confused me frequently, but I've been talking to someone who is Ti base for a while and it would at least seem to fit what Steve describes, since I frequently find myself at a loss for picking up the 'point' or 'direction' of certain exchanges in the conversation.
    Like you said you find yourself at a loss for picking up the "point" or "direction" with Ti. That's because with Ti, there is no "point" or "direction". It is Te that finds that locality and isolates things into "points" and external nodes, and it moves in a specific direction. It is linear in that regard. Te is like "Here is what I'm saying now. Ok now that we have this, we move to this point" in an abstract sense. It rolls along, in a causal way like dominoes. Fe actually acts the same way but operates on an internal basis.

    Ti on the other hand builds around a central "criteria" and non-local holistic gestalt structures. The exact "point" can't be stated in an isolated instance the way Te can, but instead at each situation that Ti describes, you can get a sense of the underlying rule or criteria that is influenced in it. It doesn't have "direction" because it expands, builds and refines itself as new info comes in. The new information is always fitted within the existing unifying criteria of the system, and if a fit cannot be made, the criteria of the system themselves are modified so that new more inclusive and precise criteria can apply and include all the information.

  5. #5
    ESTj Tom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    562
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for the move.
    Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson

  6. #6
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'd like to illustrate another example of Te vs Ti. The following are two samples of writing from two economists (who happen to have quite differing viewpoints) who are Te INTp (Ludwig Von Mises) and Ti ENTp (John Maynard Keynes) respectively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig Von Mises - Te INTp
    The Individual in Society*

    The words freedom and liberty signified for the most eminent representatives of mankind one of the most precious and desirable goods. Today it is fashionable to sneer at them. They are, trumpets the modern sage, “slippery” notions and “bourgeois” prejudices.

    Freedom and liberty are not to be found in nature. In nature there is no phenomenon to which these terms could be meaningfully applied. Whatever man does, he can never free himself from the restraints which nature imposes upon him. If he wants to succeed in acting, he must submit unconditionally to the laws of nature.

    Freedom and liberty always refer to interhuman relations. A man is free as far as he can live and get on without being at the mercy of arbitrary decisions on the part of other people. In the frame of society everybody depends upon his fellow citizens. Social man cannot become independent without forsaking all the advantages of social cooperation.

    The fundamental social phenomenon is the division of labor and its counterpart—human cooperation.

    Experience teaches man that cooperative action is more efficient and productive than isolated action of self-sufficient individuals. The natural conditions determining man’s life and effort are such that the division of labor increases output per unit of labor expended. These natural facts are: (1) the innate inequality of men with regard to their ability to perform various kinds of labor, and (2) the unequal distribution of the nature-given, nonhuman opportunities of production on the surface of the earth. One may as well consider these two facts as one and the same fact, namely, the manifoldness of nature which makes the universe a complex of infinite varieties.
    Innate Inequality

    The division of labor is the outcome of man’s conscious reaction to the multiplicity of natural conditions. On the other hand, it is itself a factor bringing about differentiation. It assigns to the various geographic areas specific functions in the complex of the processes of production. It makes some areas urban, others rural; it locates the various branches of manufacturing, mining, and agriculture in different places. Still more important, however, is the fact that it intensifies the innate inequality of men. Exercise and practice of specific tasks adjust individuals better to the requirements of their performance; men develop some of their inborn faculties and stunt the development of others. Vocational types emerge, people become specialists.

    The division of labor splits the various processes of production into minute tasks, many of which can be performed by mechanical devices. It is this fact that made the use of machinery possible and brought about the amazing improvements in technical methods of production. Mechanization is the fruit of the division of labor, its most beneficial achievement, not its motive and fountain spring. Power-driven specialized machinery could be employed only in a social environment under the division of labor. Every step forward on the road toward the use of more specialized, more refined, and more productive machines requires a further specialization of tasks.
    Within Society

    Seen from the point of view of the individual, society is the great means for the attainment of all his ends. The preservation of society is an essential condition of any plans an individual may want to realize by any action whatever. Even the refractory delinquent who fails to adjust his conduct to the requirements of life within the societal system of cooperation does not want to miss any of the advantages derived from the division of labor. He does not consciously aim at the destruction of society. He wants to lay his hands on a greater portion of the jointly produced wealth than the social order assigns to him. He would feel miserable if antisocial behavior were to become universal and its inevitable outcome, the return to primitive indigence, resulted.

    Liberty and freedom are the conditions of man within a contractual society. Social cooperation under a system of private ownership of the means of production means that within the range of the market the individual is not bound to obey and to serve an overlord. As far as he gives and serves other people, he does so of his own accord in order to be rewarded and served by the receivers. He exchanges goods and services, he does not do compulsory labor and does not pay tribute. He is certainly not independent. He depends on the other members of society. But this dependence is mutual. The buyer depends on the seller and the seller on the buyer.
    Self-Interest

    The main concern of many writers of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was to misrepresent and to distort this obvious state of affairs. The workers, they said, are at the mercy of their employers. Now, it is true that the employer has the right to fire the employee. But if he makes use of this right in order to indulge in his whims, he hurts his own interests. It is to his own disadvantage if he discharges a better man in order to hire a less efficient one. The market does not directly prevent anybody from arbitrarily inflicting harm on his fellow citizens; it only puts a penalty upon such conduct. The shopkeeper is free to be rude to his customers provided he is ready to bear the consequences. The consumers are free to boycott a purveyor provided they are ready to pay the costs. What impels every man to the utmost exertion in the service of his fellow men and curbs innate tendencies toward arbitrariness and malice is, in the market, not compulsion and coercion on the part of gendarmes, hangmen, and penal courts; it is self-interest. The member of a contractual society is free because he serves others only in serving himself. What restrains him is only the inevitable natural phenomenon of scarcity. For the rest he is free in the range of the market.

  7. #7
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Maynard Keynes - Ti ENTp
    THE outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes. The bearing of the foregoing theory on the first of these is obvious. But there are also two important respects in which it is relevant to the second.

    Since the end of the nineteenth century significant progress towards the removal of very great disparities of wealth and income has been achieved through the instrument of direct taxation — income tax and surtax and death duties — especially in Great Britain. Many people would wish to see this process carried much further, but they are deterred by two considerations; partly by the fear of making skilful evasions too much worth while and also of diminishing unduly the motive towards risk-taking, but mainly, I think, by the belief that the growth of capital depends upon the strength of the motive towards individual saving and that for a large proportion of this growth we are dependent on the savings of the rich out of their superfluity. Our argument does not affect the first of these considerations. But it may considerably modify our attitude towards the second. For we have seen that, up to the point where full employment prevails, the growth of capital depends not at all on a low propensity to consume but is, on the contrary, held back by it; and only in conditions of full employment is a low propensity to consume conducive to the growth of capital. Moreover, experience suggests that in existing conditions saving by institutions and through sinking funds is more than adequate, and that measures for the redistribution of incomes in a way likely to raise the propensity to consume may prove positively favourable to the growth of capital.

    The existing confusion of the public mind on the matter is well illustrated by the very common belief that the death duties are responsible for a reduction in the capital wealth of the country. Assuming that the State applies the proceeds of these duties to its ordinary outgoings so that taxes on incomes and consumption are correspondingly reduced or avoided, it is, of course, true that a fiscal policy of heavy death duties has the effect of increasing the community’s propensity to consume. But inasmuch as an increase in the habitual propensity to consume will in general (i.e. except in conditions of full employment) serve to increase at the same time the inducement to invest, the inference commonly drawn is the exact opposite of the truth.

    Thus our argument leads towards the conclusion that in contemporary conditions the growth of wealth, so far from being dependent on the abstinence of the rich, as is commonly supposed, is more likely to be impeded by it. One of the chief social justifications of great inequality of wealth is, therefore, removed. I am not saying that there are no other reasons, unaffected by our theory, capable of justifying some measure of inequality in some circumstances. But it does dispose of the most important of the reasons why hitherto we have thought it prudent to move carefully. This particularly affects our attitude towards death duties: for there are certain justifications for inequality of incomes which do not apply equally to inequality of inheritances.

    For my own part, I believe that there is social and psychological justification for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth, but not for such large disparities as exist today. There are valuable human activities which require the motive of money-making and the environment of private wealth-ownership for their full fruition. Moreover, dangerous human proclivities can be canalised into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for money-making and private wealth, which, if they cannot be satisfied in this way, may find their outlet in cruelty, the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority, and other forms of self-aggrandisement. It is better that a man should tyrannise over his bank balance than over his fellow-citizens; and whilst the former is sometimes denounced as being but a means to the latter, sometimes at least it is an alternative. But it is not necessary for the stimulation of these activities and the satisfaction of these proclivities that the game should be played for such high stakes as at present. Much lower stakes will serve the purpose equally well, as soon as the players are accustomed to them. The task of transmuting human nature must not be confused with the task of managing it. Though in the ideal commonwealth men may have been taught or inspired or bred to take no interest in the stakes, it may still be wise and prudent statesmanship to allow the game to be played, subject to rules and limitations, so long as the average man, or even a significant section of the community, is in fact strongly addicted to the money-making passion.
    See if you can notice the difference in rhythm and how the ideas are presented. I believe the static/dynamic dichotomy is very visible with these two as well.

  8. #8
    xyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    7,709
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    is best for writing school essays. That's a fact. The best English teacher in the valley is also an ESTj.
    that splains y mah inglish iz sew gewd
    "Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."

    - Voltaire

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    214
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I disagree that Te is best for writing essays. I had an LSI friend who I admired because he was able to type up seven pages in an hour and still get top marks.

    The delineation between as without direction and as with direction is meaningless. What you've not considered is that neither needs direction, but both can have it. Also that direction has nothing to do with logic and comes from valuing or devaluing Se.
    Surtout, pas trop de zèle.

  10. #10
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZTCrawcrustle View Post
    The delineation between as without direction and as with direction is meaningless. What you've not considered is that neither needs direction, but both can have it. Also that direction has nothing to do with logic and comes from valuing or devaluing Se.
    The point was made from the context of Munenori's view. To Te valuers, Ti can seem directionless and they may feel like "ok what are you trying to tell me?". To Ti valuers, Ti just is what it is, it illustrates what it needs to illustrate.

    To Ti valuers Te can seem like it oversimplifies and also seems disconnected, as if no central theme can be established. To Te valuers, Te is fine the way it is, there isn't the need for some sort of external frame of reference.

  11. #11
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sometimes I feel Te writing needlessly goes on about details and only comes to a focus point after a good deal of examples.

    Not necessarily bad, but alot of the economists whose works Ive read such as Rothbard (Te-ENTJ) and Milton Friedman (ISTp) can be hard to get through.

    Also I have found Te has a tendency, especially in academic works, to go into the people and events associated with the ideologies. Like about reformations in parties or the changing opinions of a famous author. This is very hard to get through for me and I end up skimming.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  12. #12
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    Sometimes I feel Te writing needlessly goes on about details and only comes to a focus point after a good deal of examples.
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
    Not necessarily bad, but alot of the economists whose works Ive read such as Rothbard (Te-ENTJ) and Milton Friedman (ISTp) can be hard to get through.

    Also I have found Te has a tendency, especially in academic works, to go into the people and events associated with the ideologies. Like about reformations in parties or the changing opinions of a famous author. This is very hard to get through for me and I end up skimming.
    I know what you mean in the sense that you're describing it, and it feels as if your concentration is being pulled in too many different directions, stretched, where you can't hold it together. I've definitely experienced that and have reacted the same way. I skim over that stuff and look for the actual examples from which I can construct my own understanding.

  13. #13
    Creepy-

    Default

    Interesting thread... these are good examples, imo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    The point was made from the context of Munenori's view. To Te valuers, Ti can seem directionless and they may feel like "ok what are you trying to tell me?". To Ti valuers, Ti just is what it is, it illustrates what it needs to illustrate.

    To Ti valuers Te can seem like it oversimplifies and also seems disconnected, as if no central theme can be established. To Te valuers, Te is fine the way it is, there isn't the need for some sort of external frame of reference.
    Exactly. The bolded part in particular is something I notice when talking w Ti types.

  14. #14
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by songofsappho View Post
    Interesting thread... these are good examples, imo.



    Exactly. The bolded part in particular is something I notice when talking w Ti types.
    Interesting, cool.

  15. #15
    MysticSonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,993
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion View Post
    Sometimes I feel Te writing needlessly goes on about details and only comes to a focus point after a good deal of examples.

    Not necessarily bad, but alot of the economists whose works Ive read such as Rothbard (Te-ENTJ) and Milton Friedman (ISTp) can be hard to get through.

    Also I have found Te has a tendency, especially in academic works, to go into the people and events associated with the ideologies. Like about reformations in parties or the changing opinions of a famous author. This is very hard to get through for me and I end up skimming.
    I wonder to what degree these perceptions of Te are confused with Ni. For instance, in the above example, it seems to me that the tendency to analyze and go into depth about the history behind certain ideas and movements seems like something that might be more likely for a Te-Ni ego type to do than Te-Si ego type. I think before we really go into depth about describing Ti vs. Te it would be important to critically analyze whether or not what we're describing is not a combination of two functions and thus inaccurately describes the singular function as a whole, ie describing TiNe while really attempting to describe simply Ti. This tendency to describe functions in pairings rather than singular functions whilst attempting to describe just the singular function, while admittedly hard not to do, creates a great deal of misconceptions within the community. In fact, I think most of the confusion stems from a lack of Sensing members on the forum to represent certain aspects of an otherwise incomplete functional description.
    "To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"

    "Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."

  16. #16
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MysticSonic View Post
    I wonder to what degree these perceptions of Te are confused with Ni. For instance, in the above example, it seems to me that the tendency to analyze and go into depth about the history behind certain ideas and movements seems like something that might be more likely for a Te-Ni ego type to do than Te-Si ego type. I think before we really go into depth about describing Ti vs. Te it would be important to critically analyze whether or not what we're describing is not a combination of two functions and thus inaccurately describes the singular function as a whole, ie describing TiNe while really attempting to describe simply Ti. This tendency to describe functions in pairings rather than singular functions whilst attempting to describe just the singular function, while admittedly hard not to do, creates a great deal of misconceptions within the community. In fact, I think most of the confusion stems from a lack of Sensing members on the forum to represent certain aspects of an otherwise incomplete functional description.
    True. Valid point. Though what I related to with Archon's description I've experienced with Delta STs too. With Delta STs though at least I can pick up the Si context and understand what they're seeing in order to form my own understanding of it. But with gamma it's harder for me to hold onto a central concept because there's no Ne/Si to try and secure myself in.

    And I think someone like Tom can relate to seeing Ti as has been described. But obviously it's easier for him to forge an understanding with Alphas than Betas.

  17. #17
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom
    t Te deals more in a flowing manner (it is a dynamic element after all) while Ti seems to tend, more often, to get caught up in details rather than proving a point.
    Tbh I think Te is more likely to get caught up in details than Ti. A lot of times with Te-valuers, it feels like they need to walk through each step of something to make sense of it; whereas Ti tends to subsume certain things more quickly. I can see how Ti would seem overly-detailed to Te-valuers, though; in that, it may continue to refine a certain point (semantics, etc.), in an attempt to clarify the "framework," which Te would see as superfluous to the already established external process. But generally, object functions will always feel more detailed to their field counterparts. A good, albeit exaggerated example of this, is Ashton's descriptions of Ne from an Ni standpoint over at socionix. The core idea here, is that object functions diverge and expand, while field functions converge and distill. Just the nature of things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Yes, Te is more flowing and has direction.



    Like you said you find yourself at a loss for picking up the "point" or "direction" with Ti. That's because with Ti, there is no "point" or "direction". It is Te that finds that locality and isolates things into "points" and external nodes, and it moves in a specific direction. It is linear in that regard. Te is like "Here is what I'm saying now. Ok now that we have this, we move to this point" in an abstract sense. It rolls along, in a causal way like dominoes. Fe actually acts the same way but operates on an internal basis.

    Ti on the other hand builds around a central "criteria" and non-local holistic gestalt structures. The exact "point" can't be stated in an isolated instance the way Te can, but instead at each situation that Ti describes, you can get a sense of the underlying rule or criteria that is influenced in it. It doesn't have "direction" because it expands, builds and refines itself as new info comes in. The new information is always fitted within the existing unifying criteria of the system, and if a fit cannot be made, the criteria of the system themselves are modified so that new more inclusive and precise criteria can apply and include all the information.
    Keep it real That seems to be how Te works -- cause—>effect (explicitly). So, it will need to accrue a long enough sequence in order to see how the effects can be subsumed under a more general cause. That is what Ti does -- effects—>cause (explicitly). Observing things and establishing a sense of the unity between logical relationships. So, yeah, Ti will never have any real "direction," because every time you look at a given relationship, it's always in reference to the rest of them; from a Ti agenda perspective, I can say that the need to 'connect' everything in this manner can get redundant and tiring. Especially with Te polr, paying little heed to causal processes occurring ostensibly, it can be as if every piece of information needs to line up with everything else.

    And yeah, criteria is a good word. Parameters, etc. If it doesn't fit the criteria, something must be wrong (if a central cause can't be found, we're missing out on some effects). So, it's back to the drawing board, to describe more effects and see how they tie back into a certain cause. Te doesn't care about this, as it is forward-moving and ostensible -- "it's right there" tends to be a common sentiment among them, more so the gammas, since it is paired with Se (localized, explicit magnitudes of objects).

    Anyway, it seems that all field functions work backwards, and objects functions forwards, in a way. Fi aligns intentions and relations, making for an implicit sense of the connection between two things/people; Ti establishes parameters; Ni finds a central pattern; and Si secures the base/environment. They all set limits and boundaries on what the object functions can do. Te observes it's gradational processes; Fe tracks causal intentionality; Ne expands on abstractions; and Se breaks up the environment.

    Yay for feedback loops.
    Last edited by strrrng; 01-16-2009 at 07:46 PM.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  18. #18
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    See if you can notice the difference in rhythm and how the ideas are presented. I believe the static/dynamic dichotomy is very visible with these two as well.
    bleh. I read the first one and liked it, but for whatever reason I couldn't continue with the second one after getting a paragraph or so in. It just felt really vapid or something. Whatever, though.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  19. #19
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Delta Te seekers I have known, when they get information in a Ti format, have said that they find Ti type information unfufilling, difficult to take seriously, stuff like that, because it seems they are more inclined to be looking for factual and practical examples, and respond to it more (and Ti doesn't provide them that.)

    This may be obvious, but I see it every so often and it shows to me how this ole thing can work in meat and slaughter land.

  20. #20
    Sauron, The Great Enemy ArchonAlarion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    POOPLAIR
    TIM
    Alpha NT 5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    4,399
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Strrrng that quote wasn't from me btw

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ArchonAlarion
    t Te deals more in a flowing manner (it is a dynamic element after all) while Ti seems to tend, more often, to get caught up in details rather than proving a point.

    I think that was Tom.
    OPERATION POOPLAIR

    Now conscripting, for more information come here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...48#post1003048

  21. #21
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    bleh. I read the first one and liked it, but for whatever reason I couldn't continue with the second one after getting a paragraph or so in. It just felt really vapid or something. Whatever, though.
    Well I liked the first one better too lol, but in terms of the viewpoints and what Mises was saying. I found the content really good, fresh, and forward thinking. But regarding this thread I noticed the style difference in the way it's written.

    Also, it was cool seeing Mises's Te Se line up so neatly. You can really feel the symmetry in it, how he kind of just neatly touches on the necessary points and when he's done, it's complete. The same as how I and other Ti ENTps do it with the Ti Si, how I just neatly group the external information together into symmetrical fields. But yeah Mises's thing stood out in particular for me as an example of that kind of democratic symmetry we were talking about.

  22. #22
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Director Abbie View Post
    is best for writing school essays. That's a fact. The best English teacher in the valley is also an ESTj.
    Ummm, no. It depends entirely on the subject and the specific nature of the essay.

    In all seriousness, if you want to apply Socionics to real life, you just can't be this categorical.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  23. #23
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve View Post
    Well I liked the first one better too lol, but in terms of the viewpoints and what Mises was saying. I found the content really good, fresh, and forward thinking. But regarding this thread I noticed the style difference in the way it's written.

    Also, it was cool seeing Mises's Te Se line up so neatly. You can really feel the symmetry in it, how he kind of just neatly touches on the necessary points and when he's done, it's complete. The same as how I and other Ti ENTps do it with the Ti Si, how I just neatly group the external information together into symmetrical fields. But yeah Mises's thing stood out in particular for me as an example of that kind of democratic symmetry we were talking about.
    Steve, your sixth function is showing. Badly.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  24. #24
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly View Post
    Steve, your sixth function is showing. Badly.
    That was sort of an inside thing directed at strrrng. He knows what I'm referring to since we've discussed it before.

  25. #25
    Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,457
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    Tbh I think Te is more likely to get caught up in details than Ti. A lot of times with Te-valuers, it feels like they need to walk through each step of something to make sense of it; whereas Ti tends to subsume certain things more quickly. I can see how Ti would seem overly-detailed to Te-valuers, though; in that, it may continue to refine a certain point (semantics, etc.), in an attempt to clarify the "framework," which Te would see as superfluous to the already established external process. But generally, object functions will always feel more detailed to their field counterparts. A good, albeit exaggerated example of this, is Ashton's descriptions of Ne from an Ni standpoint over at socionix. The core idea here, is that object functions diverge and expand, while field functions converge and distill. Just the nature of things.



    Keep it real That seems to be how Te works -- cause—>effect (explicitly). So, it will need to accrue a long enough sequence in order to see how the effects can be subsumed under a more general cause. That is what Ti does -- effects—>cause (explicitly). Observing things and establishing a sense of the unity between logical relationships. So, yeah, Ti will never have any real "direction," because every time you look at a given relationship, it's always in reference to the rest of them; from a Ti agenda perspective, I can say that the need to 'connect' everything in this manner can get redundant and tiring. Especially with Te polr, paying little heed to causal processes occurring ostensibly, it can be as if every piece of information needs to line up with everything else.

    And yeah, criteria is a good word. Parameters, etc. If it doesn't fit the criteria, something must be wrong (if a central cause can't be found, we're missing out on some effects). So, it's back to the drawing board, to describe more effects and see how they tie back into a certain cause. Te doesn't care about this, as it is forward-moving and ostensible -- "it's right there" tends to be a common sentiment among them, more so the gammas, since it is paired with Se (localized, explicit magnitudes of objects).

    Anyway, it seems that all field functions work backwards, and objects functions forwards, in a way. Fi aligns intentions and relations, making for an implicit sense of the connection between two things/people; Ti establishes parameters; Ni finds a central pattern; and Si secures the base/environment. They all set limits and boundaries on what the object functions can do. Te observes it's gradational processes; Fe tracks causal intentionality; Ne expands on abstractions; and Se breaks up the environment.

    Yay for feedback loops.
    Agreed.

    And Yes I <3 feedback loops

  26. #26
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Te types like to relay information indiscriminately.

    Ti types like to tell you to do something because it's the rules. They don't explain why, they just tell you to respect it.

    Imagine the difference between an LIE businessperson and an SLE businessperson. There is a method which the LIE and the SLE can use to achieve their goal. The LIE will cut corners, even if it's illegal, so they can effectively achieve their method. The SLE won't do this. They have more respect for the law.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  27. #27
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    Te types like to relay information indiscriminately.

    Ti types like to tell you to do something because it's the rules. They don't explain why, they just tell you to respect it.

    Imagine the difference between an LIE businessperson and an SLE businessperson. There is a method which the LIE and the SLE can use to achieve their goal. The LIE will cut corners, even if it's illegal, so they can effectively achieve their method. The SLE won't do this. They have more respect for the law.
    Or... the LIE goes by the 'correct' process because that's all they can see (ostensible cause and effect), while the SLE creates their own system to implement, as a means to circumvent the rules.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  28. #28
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    The LIE will cut corners, even if it's illegal, so they can effectively achieve their method. The SLE won't do this. They have more respect for the law.
    This must be one of the most incorrect sentencies ever.

    (btw, "correct" process is, of course, more a domain of process types - neither SLE or LIE will likely engage in this type of talk)
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  29. #29
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    Or... the LIE goes by the 'correct' process because that's all they can see (ostensible cause and effect), while the SLE creates their own system to implement, as a means to circumvent the rules.
    If by "correct" process you're referring to the process which the LIE finds to be the most effective, efficient and productive method, I concur. If not, please further elaborate on your standpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    This must be one of the most incorrect sentencies ever.
    Pray, do tell.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

  30. #30
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  31. #31
    strrrng's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    Ni-IEI 4w3 sx/so
    Posts
    8,781
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    If by "correct" process you're referring to the process which the LIE finds to be the most effective, efficient and productive method, I concur. If not, please further elaborate on your standpoint.
    You were saying that the LIE would break the law to utilize the most efficient process, while the SLE would stay within the law out of respect. I was just pointing out that that division was arbitrary, as an SLE could just as easily contrive his own system as a means to circumvent the law, and an LIE could use the already-established processes as a means to stay within the law. I don't think the degree of libertinage in a person is function-related; the functions will just shape the contours of the expression of said thing.
    4w3-5w6-8w7

  32. #32
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by strrrng View Post
    You were saying that the LIE would break the law to utilize the most efficient process, while the SLE would stay within the law out of respect. I was just pointing out that that division was arbitrary, as an SLE could just as easily contrive his own system as a means to circumvent the law, and an LIE could use the already-established processes as a means to stay within the law. I don't think the degree of libertinage in a person is function-related; the functions will just shape the contours of the expression of said thing.
    Okay, fair point, I retract that statement.
    Ideas don't determine who's right. Power determines who's right. And I have the power. So I'm right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •