What exactly is the difference? What are they? I've yet to get a good grasp of how each function operates, and I've been meaning to post this for a while but I get distracted.
Te and Ti
What exactly is the difference? What are they? I've yet to get a good grasp of how each function operates, and I've been meaning to post this for a while but I get distracted.
Meh.
Removed at User Request
A couple of ways of viewing the differences between Ti and Te is to think of them in terms of:Originally Posted by Serious Name
static T vs dynamic T
or
T context vs T content
Ti is static (relatively stable and consistent) as well as dealing with context (connections, the relationships between objects, ideas, symbols, etc). Ti is often referred to as "logical connections".
It refers to explicit yet abstract connections. It itself doesn't look for the inner meaning of connections. But it does explicitly state how those things are connected. These aren't connections we can actually use our senses to see, it refers to abstract connections. However, it can be used to code for us what connections we are seeing (or supposed to be looking for).
Te is dynamic (changes, moves, and interacts) as well as dealing with content (the things, objects, ideas, topic, 'nouns'). This latter part is partly why Te is often referred to as "facts". (Funnily enough though, it's a dynamic function, does this mean that the facts change depending upon the situation or viewer??)
It refers to explicit yet abstract content. It itself doesn't look for the inner meaning of the content. But it does explicitly state what the content/object/idea/details are. These aren't content we can actually touch and manipulate, per se, because it refers to abstract content. However, it can be used to code for us what content, objects, ideas, details we are seeing (or supposed to be looking for).
In the process of coding (putting into language) the content, we get the idea that we are referring to "facts". This is Te.
In the process of coding (putting into language) the context, we get the idea that we are referring to "logic". This is Ti.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Ti is about breaking structures apart to understand the inner workings and then reordering them. It's also about following a structure or law.
Te is about steadiness, efficiency, and productivity. Always getting the facts and figures and basing decisions on them.
Typical quality vs quantity based difference. It's just about the same idea for all introverted vs extroverted functions. Ti digs deeper to the source, Te looks to trust the accumulation of facts early on.
this is a really good description, imo.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I don't believe the facts change often, for them to change it would mean they are disproved and are therefore not facts. But I think situations change, problems based on the situations change and the facts relavence to solving a problem change too. So that is where I believe the dynamicness comes from.
The logic of Te actually says that facts helpvaluers get a grip of the changes, either by knowing them ahead of time or by learning them for the first time. There is no way facts could have static use, even being static themselves.
Remember that Ti and Te work hand in hand. That's why if one has strength in logic, they'll have both strong static and dynamic, objective and subjective versions of logic. Same goes with ethics, sensing and intution. They work hand in hand objectively. The two ego functions rather work hand in hand by preference of the primary function and are independent of each other, where as both logics are dependent of each other.
Removed at User Request
mine too
before i saw this, i was going to comment on it, and say it's good as well. i wonder what their type is.
"If you can find out little melodies for yourself on the piano it is all very well. But if they come of themselves when you are not at the piano, then you have still greater reason to rejoice; for then the inner sense of music is astir in you. The fingers must make what the head wills, not vice versa."- Robert Schumann
mine too
before i saw this, i was going to comment on it, and say it's good as well. i wonder what their type is. (the explainer)
"If you can find out little melodies for yourself on the piano it is all very well. But if they come of themselves when you are not at the piano, then you have still greater reason to rejoice; for then the inner sense of music is astir in you. The fingers must make what the head wills, not vice versa."- Robert Schumann
Correct me if I'm wrong (and trust me, I'm still fuzzy so this can be way off), but what I gather so far is that Te is more concerned with "the outcome" and Ti is more concerned about "the process". By this I mean that a Te valuer cares more about the final product, be it something observable or just an idea. "The meaning may be important, but the results are more important". The Te valuer can then manipulate the results of these products to culminate something greater than the individual parts gathered (or is that more Ti?).
Ti cares less about the final product but more about the process itself. It cares less about what happens at the end, but focuses more on why it is happening. By observing this, a set of rules can be established from which a Ti valuer can assume what might happen or explain why something happens based on the existing rule set.
Basically, Te says what happens when Ti says why it happens?
Meh.
didn't realize you'd posted one too.mine too
I think she types herself as ENFp if I remember correctly.before i saw this, i was going to comment on it, and say it's good as well. i wonder what their type is.
Removed at User Request
Let me try something...
Behaviour characteristics in types:
Te vs Ti =
Effecient vs Thoroughness
Activity vs Analysing
Business vs Science
"Find some new, better way of doing things."
"Having a set way of doing things? That's just ridiculous."
"We need to make a program that isolates quantum events and selects pleasant-sounding intervals. Then record it to CDs and sell it as The Music of the Universe. The only problem? There's nobody else as evilly capitalistic as me..."
"What I find really funny is that, once the scheme is in play, we could probably announce how we did it, and some idiot will inevitably still insist that it really is The Music of the Universe. Lol."
-My LII friend
In that case I'm Ti>Te. I could be mistyped so I'm not saying you're wrong.
Meh.
Nice and concise Jarno.
I'm definitely more interested in most efficient way of doing things, and I typically find thoroughness to be overly cumbersome.
In work related issues i'm more of a do-er than an analyser. What's important to me is to get it done, rather than create and keep systems which don't always apply (I know an LSI who to me can't seem to see past the system rather than the achieving).
Business vs science. I'd say i'm more interested in what it can achieve rather than the study of a science just for the sake of it.
So if i'm anything to go by, I relate to the Te ones over the Ti ones.
This is quite good, although I think it's more valid for ENTp vs ENTj than for, say, ENTp vs INTp (the latter being a process type too, which smooths the difference). Gulenko places ENTps inside the linear-logical thinking style group, while ENTjs are in the synergistic set; this is fully compatible (actually, mostly equivalent) to what you have written above.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Ti has to do with relations between facts in a set of facts; Te has to do with the facts inherent potential to form relations. Both are present in science, business, and all these other crappy examples I see here.
Sounds like me on a good day.
Shoot.
Mind if I move over to Gamma then?
I see it like ephemeros was describing,
-> focus on each element as indivisible units
is directed toward efficiency.
is directed towards productivity.
is directed toward the relationship between indivisible elements.
is directed toward...? Not sure about this one.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I think it means that it observes the external and changeable properties (dynamic states) of things. Te focuses on gathering 'facts' and learning how things work and function, observing their external activity independently. Ti focuses on recognizing the consistency and systematically organizing the facts it gathers, creating understandings (concepts) and rules about why things occur and how they relate to each other. Te is dynamic because it constantly updates information about external reality it observes (facts, processes, events, temporary states...), whereas Ti focuses on the logical structure of things and the way they connect and correlate to each other.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Hmm, yes, there is an aspect of "purity" that I associate with
Then call me Ti.
I think he's wrong. Those words alone could not describe anything, especially when you mix in temperament and other socionic properties in their connotation. Plus all of them are about equally applicable to both Te and Ti by their common dictionary definitions.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Is this true?Philosophy Section of Wikisocion
* When
* When
not necessarily due to the vagueness and the way Te is described there is pretty static.
The end is nigh
I'm not so sure it has static means though. Testing hypothesis can be pretty dynamic, and accurately describing facts as well as developing an emperical foundation seems more like an ongoing preparation for the upcoming dynamics.
I think being dynamic is in the means behind whatever they're really referring to with Te.
Testing hypotheses is Ti though.
At least, I associate it with LIIs more than ILEs.
Te doesn't care about the Hidden Internal Why of things, nor does it care about anything other than the continuous stream of outspits (if I've got it right, since it seems to be a process function?)
Troof
I agree.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
.
How would you describe some noticeable differences for Te and Ti in action?
This is what the general attitude toward Te seems to be. The problem is I'm supposed to be heavy on the Te but I DO care about the Hidden Internal Why of things. Usually if I know that Hidden Internal Why, I don't have to memorize a ton of facts, so long as the Hidden Internal Why can lead me to them when applied.
Meh.
Dude, read some articles...
You can start with wikisocion.org and head to socionics.us or Rick's blog, or anywhere (like e.g. Articles - the16types.info Socionics Forums) really.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Memorizing facts is not a product of Te.
The end is nigh
Every quadra and every type has their own 'hidden internal why' of things.
However, they each differ on what specifically constitutes 'hidden internal why'.
For Alpha, the content, objects, ideas, people, etc are the 'hidden internal', which are connected by explicit structures. This is how they get their "why" answered.
For Gamma, it's the context, the connections and relationships between objects, ideas, people, etc, which are 'hidden internal'. This is how they get their "why" answered.
For Delta, it's the internal statics...those 'hidden internal' content and contexts that are relatively stable and/or consistent which answers their "why".
And for Beta, it's the internal dynamics....those 'hidden internal' content and contexts that change which answers their "why".
And Te isn't about memorizing a ton of facts.
Especially if those facts are treated as static things.
Winterpark's description of Te was pretty damned good. (though I still like to tease Te types who think they are dealing with "facts" as in "absolute truths")
The biggest problem with the quote above, is that this thread was an attempt to separate Te from Ti, to give an idea of the differences between them.
But then the OP turned around and applied it to an overall type. Te isn't a type. It's an element...or function..whatever the heck you want to call it. But it's not a type in and of itself. It's a piece of information that we process. But we don't only process that one piece. We include other information in our processing. Te isn't a goal either. It's information. What we, as individuals, do with that information is personal, and not necessarily type related.
So yes, regardless of what your type is, you are fully capable of seeking out the 'hidden internal why', but how you go about it (or how you know you found it) will likely be type specific.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
