Theory on Te

[Azeroffs]

In trying to come to a better understanding of what exactly Te is I thought of this idea. I don't know if it has been proposed elsewhere, but I'd like to discuss it here.

It has been mentioned and makes sense that states of mind and information elements of the same intro/extroversion and rationality/irrationality are contradictory and cannot be engaged at the same time.

(ex. one cannot engage in Si (focus on physical now) and Ni (focus on abstract sequence of events of the past and future), Fi (ethically based conclusions) and Ti (logically based conclusions), or Se (perception of reality as is) and Ne (perception of potential meaning of reality) at the same time)

I tried to apply this idea to Fe vs Te. Since Fe is generally associated with expression and manipulation of emotions I figure that Te must also be associated with expression and manipulation.

I came to the conclusion that Te is clear logical expression which is quite serious and business-like. It is also associated with manipulation through logical means. This means Te-egos would be inclined towards acting very business-like and logically convincing.

This would be especially apparent in LxEs despite ignored Ti. Theoretically this might mean that an LxE could enter an argument without a clear understanding of the topic and still pull it off. So Te is known as algorithmic logic because their understanding is carefully pieced together fact by fact giving that illusion.

I think this makes sense for Fe-egos, because they want someone who can understand them objectively (Ti-seeking) without having to express themselves logically (Te super-ego).

Fi-egos would seek Te because Te-egos would be able to help them express how the feel clearly and logically while ignoring the fact that the Fi's conclusions are illogical (undervalued Ti).

summary:
Te is about clear logical expression rather than logical understanding.

Fe observes and controls changing emotions and cannot be used while Te observes and controls logical explanations. Te does this by observing explicit change of objective facts(external dynamic objects).

Fe asks "Why are they saying these things?" -> they must feel like this
Te asks "What does what they say mean?" -> they mean this

Fe acts with expression of emotion which is implicitly conveying information.
Te acts with clear logical expression which is explicitly conveying information.

both cannot be engaged in at the same moment.


Ji is the message and Je is how it is expressed.

[Azeroffs]

I think the focus on explicit expression comes from wanting to create clear flow for external objects which also explains Te's association with efficiency.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

I think the main difference between Te and Ti is that Te wants to make sense of things while Ti wants to make sure what is being said makes sense.

A better illustration of this:
In a conversation Te strives to understand what is being said and will make any association it sees as logical while missing consistency.
Ti also tries to understand what is being said in a conversation but it is constantly checking and then rejecting or accepting bits and pieces of what is said to make sure of consistency.

This is why Te is compatible with Fi because Fi gives information based on how one feels about something. Te assimilates all the information while Ti would reject parts as illogical. Ti types might have a tendency to tell people that they shouldn't feel a certain way because it doesn't make sense. Te types may also tell someone they shouldn't feel a certain way, but they will likely give a reason for it rather than calling it illogical.

Fi: I hate Joe! (ethical conclusion)
Ti: Joe never did anything to deserve that... (doesn't see the logical connection and so conclusion is rejected. Fi type would get annoyed because their feeling is dismissed)
Te: Why? Joe just wanted to help.. (Wants to make associations and explains action. Fi type either sees that their conclusion was unnecessary or goes into further explanation.)

[Krig the Viking]

Ti wants to make sense of things and make sure what is being said makes sense. What Te wants is to do something practical about what is being said.

For example:

Fi: I hate Joe!
Ti: Why? Joe did nothing to you. Your statement is illogical. Please explain.
Te: Well, what do you want to do about it? You could avoid him, or talk to him about it, or... [etc.]

Te is external dynamics of objects. It's all about action and achieving the results you want. Ti is external statics of fields. It's all about stopping the action to sit down and analyze the logical connections between things.

Fe vs. Fi is similar. Fe is internal dynamics of objects, so it's all about taking emotional action and acheiving the inward results that you want. Fi is internal statics of fields. It's all about stopping the emotional thunderstorms to sit down and determine the ethical and feeling-based connections between things.

[Jonathan]

(ex. one cannot engage in Si (focus on physical now) and Ni (focus on abstract sequence of events of the past and future), Fi (ethically based conclusions) and Ti (logically based conclusions), or Se (perception of reality as is) and Ne (perception of potential meaning of reality) at the same time)

I tried to apply this idea to Fe vs Te. Since Fe is generally associated with expression and manipulation of emotions I figure that Te must also be associated with expression and manipulation.

I came to the conclusion that Te is clear logical expression which is quite serious and business-like. It is also associated with manipulation through logical means. This means Te-egos would be inclined towards acting very business-like and logically convincing.

I think you're doing some good analysis here but it doesn't come out exactly right the way I'm understanding it. It sounds as if you're saying that Te, being in the same "space" as Fe, must therefore be about projecting certain emotions or expression of some sort, and that this is specifically the emotion or expression of being business-like.

But to me, if that's what you're saying, it seems to be an Fe way of seeing Te. If a strong-Fe person wanted to be Te-like, that person may project a business-like emotion, but that's not what Te is. It's still a specific form of Fe.

The way we can see that is that if you were to criticize from a Te perspective, you'd probably criticize from the point of view of "I don't think that's going to work, because..." or "Yes, but you're not taking into account the fact that..."; you wouldn't say, "Well, that's perfectly true but your voice intonation did not really sound objective and business-like." In fact, that would be a comment more directed towards Fe.

I think (and I'm not sure I'm expressing this perfectly, but in general...) that the way Te and Fe conflict is that Te is focused the mechanics of how to decide about dynamic things (how things change) whereas Fe is focused more on the expressive or human side when deciding about dynamic things (e.g., leading through attitude).

So Te conflicts with Fe in that it is hard to focus on Fe if you're thinking about the mechanics, because in doing so, that aspect of things (extraverted rational dynamics) is taken up in such as way that unless one takes extra effort, it sounds dry and business-like, not because one is trying to sound business-like or trying to convince other people by showing how business-like one can sound (e.g., "I'm so business-like and imposing, so accept what I have to say even if it doesn't make sense"). But to certain types, that may be how it comes across (the Te type seems to be imposing to people with weak Te).

But furthermore, I don't accept the all-or-nothing mentality that often dominates Socionics, e.g., in this case, the idea that one can't engage in Xa and Ya at the same time where X and Y are both rat or irrat and a is i or e.

It is often assumed to be the case, but I think a better way of seeing it is that Xa and Ya point in opposite directions. So you can't go in both directions at once, but you can have a little bit of both in your awareness at once.

It's like Democrat and Republican...bigger government is opposite from smaller government, so they go in opposite directions. But that doesn't mean you can't have some sort of in-between. Socionists generally hate in-between, of course.

As to your last point, I think the dialogue with Joe is a good illustration, but "Te ... while missing consistency" suggests that Te implies weakness regarding consistency; I don't think that's the case. Rather, as in the case here, consistency is less important because it's contextual. The Te example here is not missing some consistency that exists; the person isn't being inconsistent exactly; he just isn't focusing on consistency.

[Azeroffs]

I think you're doing some good analysis here but it doesn't come out exactly right the way I'm understanding it. It sounds as if you're saying that Te, being in the same "space" as Fe, must therefore be about projecting certain emotions or expression of some sort, and that this is specifically the emotion or expression of being business-like.

But to me, if that's what you're saying, it seems to be an Fe way of seeing Te. If a strong-Fe person wanted to be Te-like, that person may project a business-like emotion, but that's not what Te is. It's still a specific form of Fe.

That's not exactly what I was trying to say.
Expressing yourself in a Te way sounds business-like rather than a business-like expression is Te.

If someone was actually trying to be business-like for the sake of it, then you probably be right as I would think that would be Fe.

My emphasis was on the fact that Te expression is very clear and logically follows step by step, which I would think sounds business-like.

The way we can see that is that if you were to criticize from a Te perspective, you'd probably criticize from the point of view of "I don't think that's going to work, because..." or "Yes, but you're not taking into account the fact that..."; you wouldn't say, "Well, that's perfectly true but your voice intonation did not really sound objective and business-like." In fact, that would be a comment more directed towards Fe.

I can agree with this. Being in a Te state of mind doesn't necessarily mean you're going to sound business-like.

I think (and I'm not sure I'm expressing this perfectly, but in general...) that the way Te and Fe conflict is that Te is focused the mechanics of how to decide about dynamic things (how things change) whereas Fe is focused more on the expressive or human side when deciding about dynamic things (e.g., leading through attitude).

Both focus on how things change (dynamic objects) but Te looks at explicit or exterior change while Fe looks at implicit internal change of objects.

So Te conflicts with Fe in that it is hard to focus on Fe if you're thinking about the mechanics, because in doing so, that aspect of things (extraverted rational dynamics) is taken up in such as way that unless one takes extra effort, it sounds dry and business-like, not because one is trying to sound business-like or trying to convince other people by showing how business-like one can sound (e.g., "I'm so business-like and imposing, so accept what I have to say even if it doesn't make sense"). But to certain types, that may be how it comes across (the Te type seems to be imposing to people with weak Te).

Agreed, trying to sound business-like is more in the realm of Fe. If you're trying to sound business-like, your'e trying to convey information implicitly.

As to your last point, I think the dialogue with Joe is a good illustration, but "Te ... while missing consistency" suggests that Te implies weakness regarding consistency; I don't think that's the case. Rather, as in the case here, consistency is less important because it's contextual. The Te example here is not missing some consistency that exists; the person isn't being inconsistent exactly; he just isn't focusing on consistency.

Consistency is in the realm of Ti. Te types have a strong understanding of Ti, but like you said it is less important, and that is because it is undervalued.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

@Azeroffs: you have such a clear mind that I tend to believe that you're Ti . There is nothing I disagree in what you said in this thread, except that I think associating Fe with emotions is only a particular case, but at the same time a good way to be concrete.

I think we tend to notice ignorance more in the people using our unvalued IEs.

Yeah idk.. I've been told by other Ti-ers that I must be ethical because of my clear disregard for logical consistency. I just take a lot of time piecing everything together, especially in posts.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[krieger]

Ji is the message and Je is how it is expressed.

Exactly. I've been saying this for years.

Another way to put it:
Ji concerns interpretations of expressions, Je concerns the expressions themselves.

[Logos]

Exactly. I've been saying this for years.

Another way to put it:
Ji concerns interpretations of expressions, Je concerns the expressions themselves.

It seems like a fairly clear explanation.

[Azeroffs]

Some thing to consider before associating "efficiency" exclusively with Te:
Lean manufacturing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(some other sources for the same thing: The Toyota Way - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 5S (methodology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

As External, both Ti and Te have a purpose of final product.
But as you know, Ti is interested only to obtain the product with the minimum of effort or resources. This is caused by Introversion and Staticality. The resources and work are only valuable to the extent of obtaining the result, the rest is waste.
Te, on the other hand, pays attention on the resources, workflow bottleneck, trying to maximize the income and use everything to its fullest.

So we can say both Ti and Te methodologies are directed towards efficiency, by minimizing resource and time consumption (Ti) and maximizing profit (Te).

There's rarely such concept as "overproduction" for Te as long as long as everything can be used or exchanged, but it's not the Ti way of efficiency as long as for Ti there's not such thing than "more" than was intended, but has absolute requirements.

Idk how true that is. I think Te is more concerned about reaching the most product with as little work as possible. True efficiency is about the ratio and not a number.

I'm lazy as hell. I want the most out of as little work as possible, and I'm not going to do anything I see as unnecessary. I think laziness is a trait that can be generally applied to most Te-ers, even LSE. LSE just sees the need to take every step because they don't always perceive how things sometimes happen without doing anything, but they see every step as a requirement to reach their goal.

Ti is related to doing things correctly. Often times the correct way of doing things is the efficient way, but Ti is more likely to do extra work in order to do something right. This is different from Te in that Te is more likely to cut corners and take risks.

[krieger]

I'm lazy as hell. I want the most out of as little work as possible, and I'm not going to do anything I see as unnecessary. I think laziness is a trait that can be generally applied to most Te-ers, even LSE. LSE just sees the need to take every step because they don't always perceive how things sometimes happen without doing anything, but they see every step as a requirement to reach their goal.

Ti is related to doing things correctly. Often times the correct way of doing things is the efficient way, but Ti is more likely to do extra work in order to do something right. This is different from Te in that Te is more likely to cut corners.

Not really. I'm the same as you in this regard. Always cutting corners...

[Logos]

Not really. I'm the same as you in this regard. Always cutting corners...

Likewise.

[Azeroffs]

Maybe it's better describe as Ti doing things according to predetermined rules, which isn't necessarily exclusive of cutting corners. Keep in mind, it's a rule you accept and not necessarily generally accepted rules(Ti/Fe subjectivism). While Te believes there is an objective way of doing things and so I can safely assume all Te-ers believe in absolute efficiency.

[krieger]

INTps are often described as "pedantic". I know they aren't nearly always like that though. More likely the people that are doing their best to get something done right are just people of any type that realize their work is extremely important for some reason, or they are being rewarded for doing things the correct way. The need to balance pragmatism (cutting corners and pushing things towards a result) and perfectionism seems to me to be universal to human life.

If I had to associate anything in socionics with pragmatism and perfectionism, it would be the Accepting and Creating function axes respectively. This doesn't say anything about types, because every type has both of those. (I have in fact already made this association in several places before writing this post)

[Azeroffs]

I still hold that Te types have more efficiency-based tendencies than Ti types. After all, dynamics will tend to want to do things rationally, while statics will want things to exist in a rational way.

[Logos]

I still hold that Te types have more efficiency-based tendencies than Ti types. After all, dynamics will tend to want to do things rationally, while statics will want things to exist in a rational way.

I do not think that there are objections to Te-types tending towards efficiency. The objections came at ascribing Ti to "doing things according to predetermined rules" and not cutting corners. And would you not agree that desiring to do thing rationally would necessarily entail making others follow similar methods of doing things?

[Azeroffs]

I do not think that there are objections to Te-types tending towards efficiency. The objections came at ascribing Ti to "doing things according to predetermined rules" and not cutting corners. And would you not agree that desiring to do thing rationally would necessarily entail making others follow similar methods of doing things?

Originally I was trying to explain that Ti types will not necessarily want efficiency. What other alternative is there? When it comes to dealing with non-F related things, you either do something efficiently or by some other subjective standard. Ti is the "some other subjective standard" not necessarily discluding efficiency.

I think Te types would want others to do things the way they do because of a belief in a objectively best way of acting, Fe types are more likely to think it's more to-each-their-own.

[717495]

Ji is the message and Je is how it is expressed.

Although one must note with values that Ti is the message and Fe is expressing, or Fi is the message and Te is expressing, so Ji isn't necessarily just interpreting, but directing.

[Azeroffs]

Although one must note with values that Ti is the message and Fe is expressing, or Fi is the message and Te is expressing.

It's preferred, but not always true.

[717495]

It's preferred, but not always true.

What in this theory is always true? The point goes back to what labcoat is saying, that Ji concerns interpretations of expressions and Je concerns the expressions themselves, but only compatible between alike mechanisms.

[Brilliand]

Hmm... can't be the message for a expression? I think this happens easily in club groups...

[717495]

Hmm... can't be the message for a expression? I think this happens easily in club groups...

Right. That's towards what I mean. The difference of which I speak is in what labcoat is saying, and what Azeroffs is. Labcoat speaks of certain limits in my opinion.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

What in this theory is always true? The point goes back to what labcoat is saying, that Ji concerns interpretations of expressions and Je concerns the expressions themselves, but only compatible between alike mechanisms.

ah, ok. Yeah, I see the edit.

[Azeroffs]

Yes, Ti (as all statics) want the things to be in a certain way, as fast as possible, instantly if possible. In real life we can see that they (Ti people) can also accomplish them, so this disrespect towards the process is my argument in assigning them one type of efficiency.

Ti deals strictly with reaching the goal, not with what will do next, how to re-use/adapt existing pipelines for other, different cases, etc. For long-time, continuous work they might be wasting energy, but for the first purpose imo they always find the fastest method.

Edit: for the last sentence, ILEs are a little exception among the Logical Statics, because they're the only primarily Internal Ti type .

ohhhh ok, we need to work on our communication
I just didn't get it at first.

I think it can be described like this:

Te efficiency for the sake of efficiency.
Ti doing things efficiently for goals.

Then again, when I put it that way, no type is going to do things inefficiently for the sake of it. Every IE wants what it wants and is gong to do it in the most efficient way possible. So, it is redundant to say that Ti wants efficiency. Ti-ers will be better at efficiency because of strong Te, but efficiency is not related to Ti what so ever.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

Indeed, I was talking about types and human activity. Talking in aspects of reality, Te would be the only one connected to production, so I'd not find a term of comparison - as "efficiency" needs comparison.

For avoiding confusion, I prefer to leave this term aside and use "progress" or "production" to describe the nature of Te.

Yeah, I like that.

[Logos]

Indeed, I was talking about types and human activity. Talking in aspects of reality, Te would be the only one connected to production, so I'd not find a term of comparison - as "efficiency" needs comparison.

For avoiding confusion, I prefer to leave this term aside and use "progress" or "production" to describe the nature of Te.

I would prefer "production" over "progress" between the two of them, since "production" has a more neutral connotation.

[717495]

The main thing I think is that Te egos aren't going to have an argument in terms of logic if it isn't going to have some sort of effect. So if a Ti ego is arguing over something that the Te ego knows isn't going to effect anything, never the less it being wrong, then the Te ego isn't going to care. This is a little biased towards experience of NT interactions. I just know that alpha NT types like to discuss theoretical aspects that might have potential to develop into something, but they less so look at it terms of it going somewhere specifically, so they wouldn't be bothered to not make statements about it even if they are unneeded. I know this sounds a little out there, and you don't have to defend your opinion of yourself, but this is what I've seen a lot of times from experience. Mind you, I'm talking specifically about the mechanism of logic. I can say plenty of unneeded things.

And the very fact that I'm speaking about logic now doesn't mean that it will be effective, it's that I think it will be effective. There is no disability of effectiveness in Ti egos, but there is less of a thought about having an effect like I am thinking about right now.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

It depends on what I'm doing. If I feel passionate about something, I could do it all day, everyday, almost obsessively. When it comes to things i view as largely worthless, I do it really half ass. I'm just starting college, and I expect that when I actually start my career I'll be able to apply that passion. Most people think I'm lazy and I wouldn't really consider them wrong, but I think this is because I haven't really had a chance to do anything that I have felt is really worth while. School is the only worth while thing I have experienced in my life but I still feel that a lot of the details of it are pointless. I take on a lot of units at time, so in the big picture I'm getting a lot done as fast as possible, but when it comes to studying I feel like its a waste of time and so in the moment it looks like I'm not doing as much work as I should be.

I'm open to the idea that I may be another type, but nothing seems to fit.

[crazedrat]

your understanding of Te is too simple. He is LIE. One thing is for sure, he isn't the complete opposite SEI.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Azeroffs]

I just don't think laziness is enough to make or break a typing. Find out what your LIE friend was like when he was young.

[Krig the Viking]

I think octopuslove is right. None of the LXEs I know would ever be described as "lazy", and I'm pretty sure that all of them would take being called "lazy" as an insult. I work with an LSE, and I can barely convince her to take her breaks and lunch hours, because as long as there's work to be done, she can't seem to stop doing it. An LIE I know once had three jobs simultaneously, at least two of which were full time, and he actually claimed to be enjoying it!

ILIs and SLIs, on the other hand, are another story alltogether.

[crazedrat]

you people are taking socionics and applying it to places it can never be properly applied.