What Te is - an analysis

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I figured out what Te really is, Te (extroverted, outside-of-you thinking) is the intellectual relationship between external thought organizations, ie to give specific examples 'what the bank thinks about the school, what ABC factory about the XYZ toystore.' When thought about this way, I can definitely see how this is my polr hands down, because it's something I'm so very weak in.

Te is not factually and objectively describing something in a dry, scientific way. Functions are just more complicated than that.

The relationship between these external organizations has an important history that people with Te understand on an innate, non-superficial level, and so business and investing is second-nature for them. But that is assuming they are personally interested in making a lot of money, which still- it doesn't contradict my main point.

[Azeroffs]

I figured out what Te really is, Te (extroverted, outside-of-you thinking) is the intellectual relationship between external thought organizations, ie to give specific examples 'what the bank thinks about the school, what ABC factory about the XYZ toystore.' When thought about this way, I can definitely see how this is my polr hands down, because it's something I'm so very weak in.

Te is not factually and objectively describing something in a dry, scientific way. Functions are just more complicated than that.

The relationship between these external organizations has an important history that people with Te understand on an innate, non-superficial level, and so business and investing is second-nature for them. But that is assuming they are personally interested in making a lot of money, which still- it doesn't contradict my main point.

lol this isn't Te. If anything, its Fi or maybe Ti. Te is purposeful action. Te is good at figuring out why someone would do something (maybe you were trying to refer to that?). Te-ers focus on doing everything for a reason. So they either eliminate unnecessary action (Te+Ni), or they make sure they do every necessary action(Te+Si).

[Logos]

lol this isn't Te. If anything, its Fi or maybe Ti. Te is purposeful action. Te is good at figuring out why someone would do something (maybe you were trying to refer to that?). Te-ers focus on doing everything for a reason. So they either eliminate unnecessary action (Te+Ni), or they make sure they do every necessary action(Te+Si).

This is not exclusively a Te-thing. From the Wikisocion:

"Just because" is not in an LII's vocabulary. If there is a reason for something, the LII will probably want to find it.

Finding ways to eliminate unnecessary action is also one of the ways in which LIIs attempt to reduce the need or demand to utilize .

[Azeroffs]

This is not exclusively a Te-thing. From the Wikisocion:
Finding ways to eliminate unnecessary action is also one of the ways in which LIIs attempt to reduce the need or demand to utilize .

This may be true, but it isn't focused on like it is for Te-ers. LII's action is more focused on discovery (Ne ego). Te-ers are looking for improvement.

Ti looks for reasons why something is. Te looks for reasons why something happened. Static vs Dynamic

[717495]

Ti looks for reasons why something is. Te looks for reasons why something happened. Static vs Dynamic

Not so much reasons, but processes. How instead of why. A, E, I, O, and U, and sometimes why, but mostly how.

[Azeroffs]

Not so much reasons, but processes. How instead of why.

The process is more within Pi if I'm understanding you correctly. The reason why I say Te focuses on reason for action is because of it's relationship with Fi. Fi contains motivations for action. Te: why did she do that? Fi: she hates that guy. Conversely, Fi: I hate that guy Te: you should do this.

Te types will wonder about processes, but it is more within Pi, and will be more prevalent in Te creatives.

I believe xLI will focus on processes and occasionally use it for known reasons. LxE will focus on reasons for doing something and will occasionally use known processes.

XLI: How can I do it and then should I do it?
LXE: Should I do it and then how should i do it?

[Krig the Viking]

I figured out what Te really is, Te (extroverted, outside-of-you thinking) is the intellectual relationship between external thought organizations, ie to give specific examples 'what the bank thinks about the school, what ABC factory about the XYZ toystore.' When thought about this way, I can definitely see how this is my polr hands down, because it's something I'm so very weak in.

Te is not factually and objectively describing something in a dry, scientific way. Functions are just more complicated than that.

The relationship between these external organizations has an important history that people with Te understand on an innate, non-superficial level, and so business and investing is second-nature for them. But that is assuming they are personally interested in making a lot of money, which still- it doesn't contradict my main point.

Any time you use the word "relationships" you're talking about an Introverted element. In this case, it sounds like you're describing Ti.

Te is external dynamics of objects. It's concerned with observing and controlling the way things move and work in the physical world. Whereas Ti might come up with an efficient system to do something and then stick to that system, Te is more fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants, take each situation on its own, and adapt to changing circumstances as time flows by.

A TiNe on a road trip might map out his route beforehand, taking all foreseeable factors into account, and then stick to that pre-planned route. A TeNi might have a plan (Id Ti), but they would tend to keep their long-term goal in mind (Ni) and adapt their route to whatever changing circumstances might arise.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

No. How are relationships innately an introverted element? That doesn't make sense.

Also, functions in socionics don't really refer to classical extroversion and introversion.

I don't really see any good arguements counterattacking my theory.

Te is how things work in the real world? In what specific sense? The 'real world' is everything, kind of a lame arguement imo. More specifically, Te is the complex relational ideation between externalized constructed thought-objects, ie 'institutions, organizations and even philosophies.' Not necessarily the institutions themselves, but how they play off one another.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Te is external dynamics of objects.

THAT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING. NI IS YOUR MAMA'S FACE AFTER I THROAT FUCK HER.

But seriously, that is just word salad. 'External dynamics of objects' doesn't really say anything. What is the object? What is the external dynamic? What is an 'external dynamic' in and of itself?

You might as well say 'Sindy licks the spots off puppy dogs while michael pokes her with a tire iron pickle.'

[crazedrat]

you're seeing Te from the point of view of Ni/Fe. Te doesn't relate two organizations, it relates two objects. Whether or not these objects are explored and defined is irrelevant. The extrapolation of the objects is handled by other functions. You haven't figured out what raw Te is. At this rate you probably never will. But keep in mind that raw Te doesn't really exist, it's only an abstract thought. You can't possibly separate the elements from one another and still see their manifestation in the world. A Te dominant would look at the relationship between these organizations you're thinking of, but understand any relationship as organic and evolving. The organizations themselves would change their definitions. Him viewing the organization at all is his awareness of other functions; one of them probably being Fe. The dominant Te sees the connection prior to any further awareness about the thing.

[FDG]

This is not exclusively a Te-thing. From the Wikisocion:
Finding ways to eliminate unnecessary action is also one of the ways in which LIIs attempt to reduce the need or demand to utilize .

Yeah, actually, both NT-result types are focussed on trying to achieve something with less "work", so both of you are correct.

@BnD post: I don't know, it's hard for me to see Te from the outside since it's my base function, but I can't see anything wrong with your interpretation, at the very least. However, the focus on institutions is a bit too narrow, I think the definition can be applied to any organized element, be it an instiution, or a dam. I've seen on one Russian website Te characterized as long if-then chains, not necessarily interrelated in any "systemic" way (that would be the job of the introverted perceiving function). If you think about the definition "algorithmic logic" you can understand it in the simple context of algorithms, that is, as wikipedia says, "a list of well-defined instructions for completing a task".

You can notice how Fi types absolutely love to have algorithms taught at them. Even the very smart ones tend to be quite insecure when approaching a completely new task (lack of Ne); Te provides a well-defined, not excessively open-ended, way of completing a given "task" (as opposed to a system of thought you can adhere to, which is provided by Ti).

[Waddlesworth]

Thinking=What something is
Extraverted attitude is conforming with established norms.

Te is a combination of the two above-mentioned things.

This implies that Te is keeping on the 'cutting edge', following new tech developments such as practical use and knowledge of computer equipment, mathematics, science, etcetera.

Not complicated unless you want to make it so.

[Brilliand]

Thinking=What something is

Isn't Sensing this as well?

[FDG]

Isn't Sensing this as well?

I suppose that it's a commonsense description of the category "well-defined".

[electric sheep]

you're seeing Te from the point of view of Ni/Fe. Te doesn't relate two organizations, it relates two objects. Whether or not these objects are explored and defined is irrelevant. The extrapolation of the objects is handled by other functions. You haven't figured out what raw Te is. At this rate you probably never will. But keep in mind that raw Te doesn't really exist, it's only an abstract thought. You can't possibly separate the elements from one another and still see their manifestation in the world. A Te dominant would look at the relationship between these organizations you're thinking of, but understand any relationship as organic and evolving. The organizations themselves would change their definitions. Him viewing the organization at all is his awareness of other functions; one of them probably being Fe. The dominant Te sees the connection prior to any further awareness about the thing.

I think his point is that a bank doesn't see the people in the school, it only sees the school as an object that either makes a profit or does not. Judging by the profitability of the school (or whatever) will determine if it is worth funding.

Krig, I think uses the planned route model for a road trip, a map between two things that don't move. may be more like being in a car chase. The objective is always shifting and changing directions. There is no static goal (we will know when we get there) only a malleable objective--always chasing something while the way to get there is always changing.

[Waddlesworth]

Isn't Sensing this as well?

Sensing is irrational so it cannot tell you what it is.

Intuition=whence it came and where it is going
Sensing=that it is there
Thinking=what it is
Feeling=whether it is agreeable or not.

Those convenient definitions are from Jung.

The I/E definition I used is a paraphrasing of Jung's concept of general attitude types which he describes as the "direction of libido" and so on, and so forth and etcetera...

[Krig the Viking]

Krig, I think uses the planned route model for a road trip, a map between two things that don't move. may be more like being in a car chase. The objective is always shifting and changing directions. There is no static goal (we will know when we get there) only a malleable objective--always chasing something while the way to get there is always changing.

Well, with Te I think the objective is provided by Fi, which is why Te types need Fi types. Conversely, Ti provides the objective and purpose for Fe, but it's hard to come up with a road trip analogy for Fe.

[munenori2]

idk, maybe it's best to think of the rational function pairings as directional and what's the word, imagine interlocking your fingers together, that thing. Not contemplative, not comparative. Complementary. Ugh, brain.

Te is directionally based, goal oriented thinking. It's normative in an Fi fashion. What should be done here? What is the straight line to get there? Te doesn't beat around the bush and makes no apologies. It doesn't see much of a need. This is what we do. This is how we get there. It tracks object movement and the characteristics they seem to exhibit in the current situation, but always with some reference point to achieving or accomplishing some endgame. Questions more the soundness of data or theories. Does it correspond with personal experience or more pervasive, enduring trends?

Ti is about condensing around a kernel of truth, slowly expanding and building upon premises which strike them as valid. It provides a normative worldview upon which Fe finds firm ground to operate. Is this coherent? What is entailed by what I'm seeing right now? Ti can be unforgiving in that it draws careful, direct conclusions. This is, because of that. We can exclude x as y makes it untenable. Characteristics clue in for behavior. Questions the validity of arguments. Can I get from this to that and so on without any logical dissonance?

[munenori2]

Well, with Te I think the objective is provided by Fi, which is why Te types need Fi types. Conversely, Ti provides the objective and purpose for Fe, but it's hard to come up with a road trip analogy for Fe.

lol I didn't read your post beforehand, but we're def on the same page.

[krieger]

Most people know and understand that Te is a more pragmatic function than Ti. But what a lot of people miss is that Accepting T functions are also more pragmatic than Creating T functions.

The appearance of pragmatism is caused by the coincidence of something "strong, concrete and defined" with Dynamic. In Te's case, External coincides with Dynamic. In the Accepting functions' case Limiting coincides with Dynamic. Both make for a connotation of pragmatism.

[Logos]

Well, with Te I think the objective is provided by Fi, which is why Te types need Fi types. Conversely, Ti provides the objective and purpose for Fe, but it's hard to come up with a road trip analogy for Fe.

I am somewhat reluctant to associate Ti with the concept of purpose, not unless you can elaborate by what you mean when you say purpose.

[discojoe]

Which logical IE would be used in knowing when an essay is properly structured? I'm really bad at knowing if my argument is coherent, so I always have Joy proof read my essays and tell me if it's written properly. It's like, I can write a good one, I just don't know when I've written a good one. The prose, I have no trouble with, just the coherency.

[electric sheep]

Which logical IE would be used in knowing when an essay is properly structured? I'm really bad at knowing if my argument is coherent, so I always have Joy proof read my essays and tell me if it's written properly. It's like, I can writea good one, I just don't know when I've written a good one. The prose, I have no trouble with, just the coherency.

I think it's actually because it emphasizes structure over content. It makes sure all the t's are crossed, i's dotted, (words are spelled correctly) and that the ideas expressed follow a logical progression and a logical conclusion is reached.

[krieger]

I am somewhat reluctant to associate Ti with the concept of purpose, not unless you can elaborate by what you mean when you say purpose.

I like it, myself. I see no problem with calling the Ti/Fe axis the axis of incentive (Fe) paired with purpose (Ti).

[discojoe]

I think it's actually because it emphasizes structure over content. It makes sure all the t's are crossed, i's dotted, (words are spelled correctly) and that the ideas expressed follow a logical progression and a logical conclusion is reached.

That makes sense. When I get focused on the structure of an essay, I have to "switch off" and go into analytical mode, and it keeps me from writing creatively. The role function requires that you turn off the base function in order to use it, so it makes sense that essays would give me trouble if they're demanding a balancing act between two opposing information elements.

OK, done hijacking.

[Blaze]

good stuff in this thread.

as a creative Ti person, Te is kind of like a game to me, a game that i didn't experiment with that much. until someone asked me to do investigations at a job i had some years ago. the task was to investigate allegations of abuse. so i went to the training on it and learned how to do investigations, which involved acting like a detective in gathering facts and then getting people to ante up with what really happened.

so, it was about detailing a chain of facts, things that happened, unfolding over time and writing a report, with recommendations. so, for example, it would be a fact that there was a policy about recording interventions made with the client. it would be a fact that someone documented that an intervention was provided. it would be a fact that when i interviewed a person, that they said X. it would be a fact that another person said Y. so you would write up these facts, including facts about what you did as an investigator, and then you'd reach conclusions and make recommendations.

the detective who gave the training called this process "slicing the bologna" to get at the truth of what happened.

i probably did about 10 of these and got paid extra for it and they were kind of fun. looking back on it, it seems like a pretty Te type of task, a fun distraction from how i would normally do things or think about things.

[ArchonAlarion]

Which logical IE would be used in knowing when an essay is properly structured? I'm really bad at knowing if my argument is coherent, so I always have Joy proof read my essays and tell me if it's written properly. It's like, I can write a good one, I just don't know when I've written a good one. The prose, I have no trouble with, just the coherency.

My ESE mom does that for me!

[squark]

Which logical IE would be used in knowing when an essay is properly structured? I'm really bad at knowing if my argument is coherent, so I always have Joy proof read my essays and tell me if it's written properly. It's like, I can write a good one, I just don't know when I've written a good one. The prose, I have no trouble with, just the coherency.

Possibly Ti. When writing essays I don't even have to think about the structure, because it's so much a part of how my brain works. I've never had a complaint of any kind about poor structure or lack of coherence. It all fits together without effort for me. I have had complaints about leaving other possibilities out/not considering them though. Too much of a one-track mind.

[Erk]

I am sorry, but what about the Feeling types who are able to write really well? Honestly, your inability to write properly has nothing to do with an information element, and everything to do with education and intelligence.

[electric sheep]

I am sorry, but what about the Feeling types who are able to write really well? Honestly, your inability to write properly has nothing to do with an information element, and everything to do with education and intelligence.

Well it depends what they're writing (we were talking about essays), but since no one can get away with writing a logically abhorrent essay, everyone who writes must use to write well. Feeling type or not.

[Krig the Viking]

I am somewhat reluctant to associate Ti with the concept of purpose, not unless you can elaborate by what you mean when you say purpose.

As I understand it, Ti provides purpose in the form of a logically coherent system of values. Where Fi creates a system of ethics based on interpersonal relationships and good vs. bad, Ti creates a system of morality based on factual hierarchies and true vs. false. Whereas Fi says "this action is right because of these internal personal reasons", Ti says "this action is right because of these external logical reasons".

Ji creates a system to guide Je efforts to effect change in the world.

[discojoe]

I am sorry, but what about the Feeling types who are able to write really well? Honestly, your inability to write properly has nothing to do with an information element, and everything to do with education and intelligence.

You're almost unbelievably stupid.

[FDG]

I don't think it's about ability, it's about confidence.

[discojoe]

I don't think it's about ability, it's about confidence.

Yes. I'm not confident in my ability to apply the analysis to my papers. Even if they're perfectly composed, I feel insecure about them.

EDIT: Sorry for hijacking topic. I won't post anymore.

[Logos]

As I understand it, Ti provides purpose in the form of a logically coherent system of values. Where Fi creates a system of ethics based on interpersonal relationships and good vs. bad, Ti creates a system of morality based on factual hierarchies and true vs. false. Whereas Fi says "this action is right because of these internal personal reasons", Ti says "this action is right because of these external logical reasons".

Ji creates a system to guide Je efforts to effect change in the world.

It may then simply be a case of semantics, as well as my own sort of aversion to the word purpose (e.g. A Purpose Driven Life). I do not like to read any sort of conscious end goal or purpose into the externality of events.

To provide a snippet of another context of purpose (that for some reason I remembered when you brought purpose up): a debate in ancient Greek philosophy between the Atomists and the Socratics.

Plato (c. 427—c. 347 BC) objected to the mechanistic purposelessness of the atomism of Democritus. He argued that atoms just crashing into other atoms could never produce the beauty and form of the world. In the Timaeus, Plato insisted that the cosmos was not eternal but was created, although its creator framed it after an eternal, unchanging model.

The nature of Plato's objection regarding the lack of purpose in Atomism, is essentially the sort of purpose that makes me reluctant to associate the establishment of purpose with Ti. Purpose, to me, implies a directed and conscious end, which may or may not be present in a given external context. The universe lacks any inherent purpose.

But this is why I also think that we are talking about a different range of meanings when we are talking about purpose.

Yes. I'm not confident in my ability to apply the analysis to my papers. Even if they're perfectly composed, I feel insecure about them.

Another important aspect to writing papers is Ni, or how one establishes the flow and unfolding of the paper. This is why I think that many NFs are able to excel in English and write well (apart from level of education), since they also have developed Ni. Strong Ni can probably compensate for weak Ti in a number of ways. But since education mainly seeks to develop logic-related functions, I think that many ethical types have fairly well developed logical understandings, or much more so than logical types have well developed ethical understanding.

[Krig the Viking]

It may then simply be a case of semantics, as well as my own sort of aversion to the word purpose (e.g. A Purpose Driven Life). I do not like to read any sort of conscious end goal or purpose into the externality of events.

To provide a snippet of another context of purpose (that for some reason I remembered when you brought purpose up): a debate in ancient Greek philosophy between the Atomists and the Socratics.
The nature of Plato's objection regarding the lack of purpose in Atomism, is essentially the sort of purpose that makes me reluctant to associate the establishment of purpose with Ti. Purpose, to me, implies a directed and conscious end, which may or may not be present in a given external context. The universe lacks any inherent purpose.

Plato (c. 427—c. 347 BC) objected to the mechanistic purposelessness of the atomism of Democritus. He argued that atoms just crashing into other atoms could never produce the beauty and form of the world. In the Timaeus, Plato insisted that the cosmos was not eternal but was created, although its creator framed it after an eternal, unchanging model.

But this is why I also think that we are talking about a different range of meanings when we are talking about purpose.

Right, I don't necessarily mean a single, overall "Purpose" with a capital "P" (though I wouldn't entirely exclude that, either). Perhaps "guidance" or "focus" or "direction" would be a better word for what Ji types provide Je types. Te wants to make changes in the logical, external elements of objects in the world, and Fi provides guidance as to which changes would be ethical and which would not. Fe wants to make changes in the emotional, internal elements of objects in the world, and Ti provides guidance as to which changes would be logical and which would not.