Fi egos, how do you see yourself as Te seeking?
Or, how do you see your Fi friends as Te seeking?
One of my good friends is ESI.
He's Te seeking in that he's always attempting to figure out how things go together, how they work. For example, he LOVES figuring out and putting together cars, motorcycles, gadgets--anything that requires savoir-faire... He takes great pleasure in explaining these processes to me, even though I'm deficient w/ Te and don't comprehend it as fully as I'd like to.
He's Te + Ni seeking in that he loves figuring out 'lines of succession' in history... For example, he can name every English king, in order, from William the Conquerer until now (!) He can explain, in great detail, where each monarch came from and why... For example, why the Stewart line died out, and why it was later necessary to have a German monarch rule Britain, etc.
My ESI Dad has similar interests in cars and history.
I just like things to be precise, and I typically do pretty extensive research before I start a new project because I want it to succeed. But I don't have a lot of confidence in my own intellect. I usually expect people to know more about things than I do. I'm also really bad about overthinking things. Professionally, it's been an issue because I hesitate to make some technical decisions because I'm afraid I'm overlooking something and I'm going to screw it up. But usually there's nothing wrong with what I'm doing - I'm just hypersensitive to it and it's mostly in my head.
I'm more interested in the things you are about history--and likewise, now... And TBH, he does sometimes bore me with that stuff, (Te history as much as the mechanics of how--EXACTLY how, haha--my car's exhaust works,) but I understand his reasoning from a Socionics POV...
He likes to know how things fit together, i.e. how it worked and how we got to where we are. He looks at things like they're step-by-step manuals, you know? Or individual links in a chain.
This would be someone whom, if I didn't know Socionics, I'd have a tougher time relating to... But the benefits of Socionics are--I have a friend now I doubt I would've had sans Socionics
I don't believe that your dual seeking function is that much visible in your behaviour.
Never noticed anything obvious, and never read anything about it. Only on this forum, but that can be things that are made up instantly.
IMO dual seeking just means your brain gets tickled whenever you see someone who uses the function as his main function. For the rest, you don't counsciously search for it or whatever.
How he perceives it is differently than I would, (i.e. in my case, as Ti cataloging.) He seeks out intellectual know-how--in this case, b/c he wants to be a history teacher. (I've also seen him whip out that knowledge to impress an ENTj girl, lol... She looked at me like, "is this guy nuts?" They've been dating for awhile now though, so maybe she liked it..? lol)
I should have said that in the initial post... This ISFj is working toward being a history prof, thus that knowledge, for him, has a purpose.
Last edited by JuJu; 12-14-2009 at 07:05 PM.
Sweeeeet Jeeesus lol. What an awful streak of role models!(Martha Stuart fan girl and Dr. Phil phan girl because she perceives him and Oprah as speaking common sense.)
fatti non foste a viver come bruti ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza
So I always struggled at it in school and didn't enjoy it much thus.
Anyway, Te seeking for me... I'd say I'm endlessly interested in information, in general. I'm addicted to Wikipedia, and I enjoy reading (or watching documentaries) about topics of interest, like earth sciences and natural history. Other people have noted I'm a font of useless information, and I have a habit of going into way too much detail when I start on a history lecture I also enjoy asking for people's opinions on things (as you may have noticed if you read my posts), especially if it seems like said opinion would be interesting, and I'm definitely a fan of elaborate answers.
I'd say also, however, that like my problem with history, my recall for really specific facts (especially dates) is very poor. I'm not sure if this a symptom of the way I think or having weak Te.
To be clear, Te itself doesn't have anything to do with history.
Socionically speaking, (hehe,) in the case of my ISFj friend, I believe that he like history because it engages his DS function and his HA at once... Te (simplistically: the 'how' of processes) and Ni (simplistically: the context of time, imagination, etc)
I would say that in my case I like to randomly accumulate snippets of knowledge. I like to feel I know enough about any given subject to be able to discuss it to some degree, but ultimately like to keep myself aquainted with 'experts' in various fields. I believe that this is related to Te, but it also relates to my ego functions.
I did have an addiction to quiz machines and collecting random bits of general knowledge.
I try to be practical and I feel really proud when I do something practical.
e.g. change a light bulb or use a drill for something, or something like that.
Te is one of the functions I understand the least conceptually and am only really able to think of it in relation to other functions. My mind can't seem to isolate it.
I feel the same about Te and Ni out of all the functions ironically.
I don't see how Te is the accumalation of facts. Isn't that essentially what all the elements do? Maybe it's more specifically practical information. Information that can be 'used.' But, even that is vague in comparison to other elements since all information can be used in one way or another.
Te, as I see it, is more related to practical processes. 'How to' information. Not general facts as so many people see it. This seems to match up with external object dynamics as actions. Maybe more understandably so as 'logical actions' or algorithms.
So I've been complaining about my EII sister in another thread. She likes to be the expert on stuff. Like she likes to be the person you go to if you need information. Maybe I was like that before being with my dual? I don't remember.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I've observed that Te generally leads to--for lack of better words--a constructive attitude. 'Can do.' The idea that "I can [via Te] figure this out." Whatever "this" is.
Sometimes Te works step-by-step; sometimes it works backward to solve problems.
Someone awhile back told me that he thought Te was, "knowing a way to do things." Of course, no one knows the way to do everything. I speculate that Te can--at least--help people [Te valuers] have an idea as to how to learn a way to do things.
Te valuers, please interject... I'd like to hear how you perceive it. (You know it more intimately than I do.)
Diana--where did that post go..? That was gold.
I've noticed those exact same characteristics with my ENFp, Te seeking step-brother... He, for example, carried around a pharmacology textbook--and he appealed to it in EXACTLY the same way as you described your roommate doing.
He also agonizes over the structure of what he writes.
I think you may be onto something, in any case.
The problem is that 'information' is too general. All the elements are information.I also do not appreciate long drawn-out answers, and want to beat my head against the wall (and have in frustration) when someone just will NOT get to the point. In contrast, many Te-seekers seem enamored with great quantities of information, and elaborate responses. Why? Is it actually related to Te-seeking? It seems it might be.
I've thought that Te is the expression itself of information in an objective/factual way.
This would certainly make sense as compared to Fe.
Expression is a type of action. Logical/explicit action is what Te is focused on, and so logical/explicit expression is part of Te?
Large quantities of information might be valued more by Te-ers because it allows for more logical expression?
I can at least say this is definitely true for me.I've observed that Te generally leads to--for lack of better words--a constructive attitude. 'Can do.' The idea that "I can [via Te] figure this out." Whatever "this" is.
I've thought this, but I'm not so sure.Sometimes Te works step-by-step; sometimes it works backward to solve problems.
Maybe, though I feel like anyone can learn a way to do things, but I have thought this as well.Someone awhile back told me that he thought Te was, "knowing a way to do things." Of course, no one knows the way to do everything. I speculate that Te can--at least--help people [Te valuers] have an idea as to how to learn a way to do things.
The Suggestive Function is deep in the subconscious, so it's hard to pick-up on how you use it. Prior to understanding Socionics, I never noticed it at all, just that I'm receptive when it's being used
It's easier, at least for me, to pick-up on how other people use their SF
For me, Te is an intense curiosity and attraction to productivity and knowledge.
I'm not particularly good at knowing what to do to accomplish/figure out things so I rely on people, specifically people whom I feel have a talent for what I need, to help me with such matters.
Asking/seeking help for Te has never really been a problem, I don't feel inferior for lacking it but I appreciate it when people provide it.
It's a lot like how Coolanzon described; an attraction to knowledge of interesting things. My bookmarks are filled with sites that dispense random knowledge and "Did you know?" info. When a particular subject interests me I tend to seek out as much information on it that I can, almost obsessively (ex: Socionics )
Forum status: retired
There are two misconceptions about Te-DS I would like to correct.
First, Te-DS types do not need others to help them reach a conclusion or have an answer given without they themselves putting any effort. Te-DS types can and do reach their own conclusions, when it comes to matter of "cold" and "practical" subjects, but may ask other sources to confirm that their conclusions are indeed correct. Without this feature, the Te-DS types tend closer to Ti, which is how Fi-egos would develop their role function Ti.
Secondly, moreso than relying only on authority to confirm their conclusions, they rely on sources they trust. Expat once discussed something similar, stating that Fi aids Te by informing Te with whom to trust (ie. Te's filter), and vice versa. I don't think this is entirely correct because it assumes Te and Fi are intriniscally biased. In actuality, Te and Fi are just as open to information as Ti and Fe, but the former prefers to use what is "established" as reference (ie. "Does this person's conclusion match/contradict what is agreed as fact?"), while the latter creates its own, sort to speak (ie. "Does this person's logical construct match/contradict mine?").
There is obviously a check and balance issue for both Te and Ti, which is all too clearly known in the academic community and similar information-forwarding institutions.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
I think I read Expat's thread where he was talking about Fe/Ti Te/Fi information filters, and I'm not convinced.
The way they were represented is as two singular elements Te-Fi and Fe-Ti where they work as information grabber/filter. Te/Fi as being selective of sources and Fe/Ti as being selective of information. Te takes all kinds f objective information and Fi filters out untrustworthy sources. Fe reads between the lines filtering out certain bits of information and Ti structures that information.
This makes sense, but I wonder where it came from. What does that have to do with all the other manifestations of the elements? I regress. 'Filtering information' is too vague as all the elements deal with information. This whole idea contradicts the idea that each element is a certain type of information, and so it is removed from socionics.
Te, I think, helps Fi by giving a clear and concise way of expressing and acting on their feelings. Fi helps Te by informing them of the 'human variable' in their objective evaluations of reality.
I'm not sure about Fe/Ti. I think it may be that Ti helps Fe by ensuring that their expression is consistent and makes sense. Fe helps Ti by ensuring that interactions are running smoothly without problem.
It's probably more accurate to say that Te relieves Fi types from Ti, Fi relieves Te types from Fe, and so on. This, to me, is an easy way of understanding why interactions work the way they do. We are mentally aware of our super-ego and wish we didn't have to focus on it and so value information that relieves us of it. It's not as much that we like elements of our super-Id, but that we like not having to focus on our super-ego. In other words, the super-id is mostly a means toward ignoring our super-ego.
this thread right?
I think the OP was trying to show how Te-Fi's can view Ti-Fe's approach to logic, and vise versa, as bias
"To Fe-Ti, it looks like Fi-Te will only listen to specific sources or individuals, so "biased" towards them, or "narrow-minded" or "naive".
To Fi-Te, it looks like Fe-Ti will only listen to what confirms what they already think"
So I would gather, to Ti-Fe's, the Te-Fi form of filtering information is biased as we tend to rely more on, as you stated, ""established" as reference (ie. "Does this person's conclusion match/contradict what is agreed as fact?")" type information.
But at the say time the Ti-Fe approach is biased since they rely too heavily on their own judgment, so it seems to us that they're rejecting more reliable information
So I guess it's more a matter of perspective...
Forum status: retired
This post is formatted in a peculiar way. Diana, you said in the previous post that you like answers that are straight to the point (by the way, is actually more Te and Ti) so I will leave my direct answers in the first part of the post. The second part consists of some properties of Te and Ti.
Think of it in terms of information elements and Model A. For a Te-dual seeker, Fi is a conscious area of confidence and Ti is a conscious area of insecurity. Essentially, ExI types are aware that understanding a logical construction of a system (Ti) is not a natural talent. For an individual of this type who actual seeks to improve this weakness, they would need an outside source to guide them.
If I may use myself as an example, when I learn something new in mathematics, my first instinct is to try to understand what exactly I am doing and why. I study the derivations, the axioms, the methodology and proofs in hopes of doing so. When it's time to solve a problem, I use the knowledge I have acquired and apply my own understanding of the subject to reach a solution. But, due to my overall lack of confidence in my own Ti, a confirmation of the correctness of my solution is heavily appreciated (it sometimes feels rather incomplete without it). Therefore, I check the answers, I get my test score, etc. These, relative to my weak Ti, are the Te I need. To me, a positive result indicates that my way of understanding is correct, or more generally, works.
At this point, you do pick the ones you trust (and keep in mind that the person they end up trusting can be themselves).Originally Posted by Diana
To me, this sounds like an excellent explanation. But please, not all EII/ESI need someone to cling on to! This individual seems to completely depend on others for everything.Originally Posted by Diana
I isolated this question because it has some interesting properties and I knew it was going to come up. Te is often associated with mainstream/majority views and opinions and actually is not such too bad of a conclusion (though incomplete). But, when you are applying functions into a social scale, you have to look more deeply at the details.Originally Posted by Diana
Let's start with some person who decides to explain some phenomenon and uses his Ti to create a systematic theory, called Theory X. For now it's just a theory, but, just like any human being, a Ti-person wants to be correct. Ti-person performs various experiments that validate this theory and, when others test Theory X, conclude that Theory X is correct.
So now, Theory X began as just a logical construction attempting to explain some phenomenon (Ti), to a theory that will eventually become an established fact (Te).
Let's make the situation a bit more complicated:
Let's say Theory X, in the process of becoming an established fact, actually contradicts another more popular established fact, Theory Y. And, in this hypothetical situation, the degree of truth of X and Y are equal.
Next we apply it to a social situation:
There are scientists who gather at a science club where Theory X and Y are hot topics, but this science club general favours Theory X. We now pay attention to two individuals talking and the conversation proceeds as follows:
Person K: So which theory do you concur with?
Person V: Well, from my understanding, which is no doubt sound in every which way, I would say Theory Y is correct.
Person K: How strange of you! Theory X completely invalidates Y and we have the experiments and articles to prove it!
Person V: Well, as a scientist, I am an independent thinker. And as an independent thinker, I think Theory Y is correct. You are obviously just going with the mainstream and popular opinon.
Person K: Well, as a scientist, I am a progressive thinker. And as a progressive thinker, I think Theory X is correct. You are obviously stuck in your own world.
...to be continued below.
Note: Person K likes X.
Note: Person V likes Y.
So who is Te and Ti in situation?
For the person who claims:
(i-a) K=Te, this person considers only:
- K's appeal to outside sources (experiments and articles)
- K's self-discription of "progressive thinker" (dyanmic + thinking)
- Does not consider that Theory X is less accepted because it is irrevelant.
(i-b) V=Ti, this person considers only:
- V's appeal to his own thinking (his understanding of the phenomenon)
- V's self-description of "independent thinker" (static + thinking)
- Does not consider that Theory Y is mainstream because it is irrevelant
(ii-a) K=Ti, this person considers only:
- K's conclusions relative to other schools of thought (Acceptance of X < Y) - Note: susceptible to bias
(ii-b) V=Te, this person considers only:
- V's conclusions relative to other schools of thought (Acceptance of Y > X) - Note: susceptible to bias
Obviously, determining type using i-a and i-b as parameters gives the most objective answer. I see a lot of people, when typing, using ii-a and ii-b as well and it is all too common of a mistake. Additionally, Te types, who are naturally confident in their thinking, may also not appeal to another source and Ti types who want to prove their thinking would cite an external source.
What I am trying to say is Te != mainstream, popular thinking.
Additionally, a common criticism seen is one that states a person is just bullshiting, if I may be blunt. This is a criticism of Ti. So if we ask the question, "If the person does not consider outside sources, are they just being obscure and unnecessarily deviant?" Apply this question to a situation the same way as we did for the Te equivalent and we can see that Ti != unique, obscure thinking.
It does not surprise me that people on this forum mistakes Te for mainstream, popular thinking because it is a common perception Ti has for Te, and this forum is currently heavily Ti-oriented. Not so long ago, Ti was considered inferior and obscure since the forum generally favoured Te.
I will finish this post with what I see as a problem in this forum:
Person V: Ah, well you're thinking is much too dependent on others. You would doubt yourself if your truth contradicts the truth of others; you are what is wrong with society.
Person K: You're thinking has no outside check and balance. You use yourself as reference and consider your truth as the universal truth; you are what wrong with society.
Person V: Hardly, you change your conclusions the instant the arrow swings to another direction.
Person K: And you stay in the same place even when the arrows swings to the correct direction.
Person V: You know, Theory Y used to be popular here in this science club and now X is. This proves my point.
Person K: Well, Theory Y is still more accepted than Theory X in general.
Person V: Oh my, then if we consider that, then I am indeed a person who appeals to the mass!
Person K: Oh dear, then consequently, I am the person who has no check and balance!
Person V: ...
Person K: ...
Person V: Well, my thinking is superior to yours.
Person K: I beg to differ.
The cycle continues. If only K and V realized that both types of thinking is essential to reach the truth.
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
You all are insane.
And yeah I don't have a can do attitude. I just do or I don't do. I can't ever be motivated by cheap encouragement and 'can do' attitudes. It's just not in me. I just pretty much do what I feel like. And anytime I do something practical I totally fag out and I just float up in space, like I bubble up with light 'fagdom' and I just......drift out. Into nothingness. Cause there's nothing grounded about me. I'm just pure daydream. I don't even know what 2+2 is. I just tried to use a can opener. My hand went right through it and a little fairy poofed next to me and said 'You are too precious and effete and infp romantic to do that, you need to just lie down and think about your feelings for 24/7.'
le sigh. Don't let it go to your heaaaaad.
n0ki: If it weren't for faggy civilization, people like me and bnd would be totally dead by now.
To Azeroffs and Marie84, I had a bit of a problem with Expat's thread as well. When I have more time, I may state my opinion on that matter.
You got me there. Since it seems you consider yourself LSI (may I ask why?), there will definitely be a more critical slant against Te. I think it's a good thing though; a different perspective is good for improving the self.Originally Posted by Diana
Ceci n'est pas une eii.
I was just being funny. But to be honest, this thread is rather very confusing to me.I have no idea how "cheap encouragements" came up and I think you are falsely associating to it to Te. Also, I don't see, in any way, how this thread was an unfair criticism towards non Te-valuing types.
I think that's better thought of as 'types are all 'direct' in their own unique ways and in different realms of reality.' Because everybody wants information to be presented in a way that they will understand and absorb with the least fuss possible, so the real external reality can be conquered and so neurosis do not develop.This post is formatted in a peculiar way. Diana, you said in the previous post that you like answers that are straight to the point (by the way, is actually more Te and Ti)
n0ki: If it weren't for faggy civilization, people like me and bnd would be totally dead by now.
That was really nice to read, Diana.
Comparable things happened to me, in that--for a long time--I was trying to make different Sociotypes 'fit' me. (In my case, first ENFp and then INFp.)
...It's not as though your intentions, when calling yourself ISFj, were to mislead. On the contrary. You were being truthful at the time, as you genuinely believed it.
It was only after you took into account the reality of your relationships--various relationships, over a period of time--that you arrived at where you are now.
I agree with you 100% -- it's very difficult to get an accurate sense of someone's personality via internet posts... (Even over a long period of time.) Or to put across an accurate picture of oneself.
It's like you said--"limited information."
Also, it's like you said--a lot of people here act based on the idea of who they are in their own minds, which is influenced by the type they've chosen.
For example, when ppl here see me putting across a (usually lame) attempt at Te--invariably I get, "you are Te valuing." Or more recently, someone wrote to me and said: if you were really Se valuing, you would fight people online "punch-for-punch."
Unfortunately, these are the stereotypes we're dealing with here.
BTW, You shouldn't feel embarrassed, Diana... You seem like you just realized some things and you don't want to act as though you didn't--just to seem "consistent" or "right." It's courageous. Not at all stupid. (And honestly, a lot of people here could probably benefit from doing the same thing.)
Yes, I can agree to that. I still do think Te is overall more "to the point" (length wise) than Ti. But it does not make Te superior in anyway. For instance,I think that's better thought of as 'types are all 'direct' in their own unique ways and in different realms of reality.' Because everybody wants information to be presented in a way that they will understand and absorb with the least fuss possible, so the real external reality can be conquered and so neurosis do not develop.
Ti would say: The phenomenon where an adult belonging to any particular species retains a phenotype which previously belonged to its younger self.
Te would say: Paedomorphesis.
Admittedly, even I would find a Te response completely useless if I didn't know what the term meant. It all depends on the situation.
Diana, I am not opposed to the LSI typing at all. The only typing that really threw me off was EII (as we, the forum, got to know you better). I could see ESI fit because, in this forum, everybody who contributes significantly to a Socionics discussion uses Ti. So, just like you said, I thought that you used Fi in real life (not knowing you away from virtual life) but in the forum, flexed your Ti (I do this, personally).Originally Posted by Diana
One instance, when the Fi "picture" really came into question, was the thread in Socionics.ws where Slackermom was describing how her relationship with her husband worked. In general, the Fi-valuing types found it endearing, while the Ti-valuing (particularly the EIE's) found it appalling. The only exception to this rule was you; since you, then thinking you were a Fi type, agreed with the Ti-seeking types. I thought it was a clear distinction between Ti and Fi.
Other examples that corrupt the ESI picture you already mentioned.
Indeed, people can make anything fit into their scope, which is why I find Socionics frustrating, especially since, most people don't realize this or they do, but don't care.
I will echo Juju's sentiments and say don't be embarrased (or we will all have to be ).
Ceci n'est pas une eii.