Extraverted Logic Te as "Business Logic": A Misnomer

[Transigent]

Edited for gayness.

[Cone]

I suppose you're looking for my input to back you up, Transigent. And of course, as always, I have the information you need. I swear, we are like Jung and Freud, us two. (Granted that the Russians are right about Jung being an INTp.)

And of course, I have always wondered myself about this 'business logic' thing and Te. I have no real interest in business-type endeavours, as I am more interested in Ni stuff, like being a writer and trying to beat out Wittgenstein. I will admit, Te does have some business application, especially for my ENTj friend who's obsessed with creating a worldwide business conglomeration, but that is not all that it deals with, as Russians 'seem' to be obsessed with this business aspect as you have pointed out, Transigent.

But I will say this: even though I don't want to go into business, I do find it a very invigorating experience, and I find that I am naturally good at it. Here's a prime example of a business-related experience, printed in italics to create that 'storytime' effect:

In my Social Studies course last semester, the entire class was challenged into selling a hypothetical product called the "Echopen". This pen supposedly had the ability to remember exactly what the penman using the pen wrote down, and it could accurately reproduce the information with the press of a button. Quite an innovation for our time. We were split up randomly into groups of about five people, giving us five groups in all. Now, our objective was to predict consumer demand as well as what other companies' strategies might be and from there decide upon how much to invest in different resources, development, advertising, etc. The price was at first set to a fixed $30, but after the first or second period, we were permitted to change this price to fit our needs. Now mind you, I wasn't so enthusiastic about the whole idea at first, but after learning that this would involve prediction, quick and accurate decision making, and a go-with-the-flow type of strategy, I was hooked. I mean, can you find any other games that cater so well to an INTp's information metabolism?

Our decision-making team was made up of an INTp (myself), and ESTj, and an ESTp. (Really, there were two others, but they never really put much input into the whole thing, and it was a good thing, too.) I had ideas; so did everyone else. We had already went through a practice round to get accustomed to what to expect, (and we came in last place during that.) Now, in my natural style, my first objective was to acquire complete control over every decision made so that I could apply my choices without having to submit to others or agree to a compromise I didn't want. Fortunately, this proved to be an easy task, seeing that I was ESTj's supervisor and that the ESTp, being much less accustomed to business decisions, would take my side before he ever considered the ESTj's position. So, after control was secured, my next task was to see what the others would choose as positions.

The ESTp became kind of like an advisor and a yesman to me, always seeming to agree with my decisions. He was quite useful in identifying certain points-to-remember, and he could always come up with a good strategy for me to consider. The ESTj on the other hand decided to become my mortal enemy. He was a strict principle-follower, as he often suggested certain heuristics to adhere to. His strict and short-sighted approach to business, as well as his natural inclination to try and take responsibility, became quite an obstacle for me. He would always say to follow this or that certain principle that he derived from trends in the business numbers. He couldn't cope with my approach to the process, that being one of complete disregard for any preconceived systems, principles, or strategies. Rather than follow any strict path, I would always use what I learned from the previous practice round and what I noticed about the trends of certain figures to predict what we needed to do next. Of course, this proved to be the best approach. After much arguing and hesitation, I always won with my decisions, thanks to the ESTp's help.

We won this time around.

-----------------------------------------------------------

That was just a little example of how certain types work in the business world. As you can see, even though I wasn't interested at first, the INTp's TIM works great in business logic (and strangely enough, the group that gave me the most trouble during the game was run by an ISFp. Of course, it was because of his recklessness on the last decision that I won; go figure.) So maybe there are a lot of people in Russia with Te in their ego that are in business, or maybe it was a translation error; I don't know. But I do know that you make a good point, Transigent.

In other words, I have noticed that in my consideration of the functions and what actions they create, I always try to "check" my conjecture by seeing if the action relates in a general way to the name of the function itself.

This is interesting. I always tell myself that I'm going to do this eventually, yet I often times just let myself accept what adjectives they apply to each function. I'm always thinking, "I'm going to fix these damn conjectures and put in something better." It's good to have someone cover up for the laziness of your Id. :wink:

For instance, I have noticed that people with conscious Te tend to be very comfortable using a foriegn concept or idea skillfully to solve a problem (while being very aware of the source from where the concept came from, and to usually refer to the entire concept under it's "proper name"), while a Ti needs to be sure that they completely understand the concept before they use it (and even if they do use it, they will use it in bits and parts, not really caring about where they originally got the idea since they have integrated it completely and irreversibly into thier reasoning structure.)

Take the following observation of how I learn a chapter of Physics (again in italics):

Whenever the Physics teacher (ISTj) sets out to teach a new chapter of Physics, he starts by outlining general concepts and definitions of what he's teaching. Then he proceeds to apply these concepts to mathematical formulas. He does some example problems on the markerboard, assigns homework, and he's done. Now, during that lecture period, everyone's diligently taking notes and copying down examples--except for me (and somehow, the ISFp.) I'm quite the absent-minded professor, so do you expect me to be paying attention? Of course not! The only things I write down are the equations, just so I don't forget those. The rest of the material is quickly forgotten, except for maybe basic definitions. I do somewhat try to watch how he works out some of the examples, just so I know what direction to take.

Whenever I go to work out the assigned problems, I disregard all systematic approaches to solving them. Often times, I see others (mostly Ti people) writing out all of the information and then following the specific concepts in order to get to an answer. I, being the visual mathematician, try to visualize exactly what's going on in order to decide what steps to take and what equations to apply. For example, I may visualize the event in my head and say, "well, the block hits the object from this angle going at this velocity, so the object will react this way, so I must use this equation." The ESTj often uses Te in the way you describe, Transigent, i.e. he will figure out what he needs to find and apply equations from there. It's quick and dirty and it often works, but it does fail sometimes.

Where I often find myself in the middle of the chapter is in a state of confusion. I often times depend too much on the visualization of the event, which doesn't always show what equation to use. Fortunately for me and about a few days before the test, my Physics teacher will remind me of certain concepts that I've never really used, and this helps me link the visualization with the concept, thus creating a well-balanced understanding. Then I usually waste everybody on the chapter test.

Moral of the story: as a Te-centered student, it's good to have a Ti-centered teacher to pull everything together.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

So, as you can see, application comes first, understanding later for Te-centered individuals (as you have noted.) So, I suppose Te students often learn by doing, as experience is the best teacher for them.

While this may be specific to journals (i.e. it is a structured publication and things must be done in certain ways to save space) it is a more general trend that I have seen in certain people's reasoning process.

For example, when asked to explain something, the Te will reduce that something to a list of well accepted laws and equations, focusing most on what concepts interact together to obtain the subject of discussion.

I am often struck by how sometimes people explain things by showing you the general structure, void of any details. Often times I will see things explained like this on this forum:

Can someone please explain how a mirror relation between an ENTp and an INTj helps one another?

Sure, it goes like this. The INTj's Ti is their area of confidence and for ENTps, it's their area of creativity. So, when the INTj processes information through Ti, he sees it as complete and non-negotiable, whereas the ENTp sees it as variable and changeable. This works likewise for Ne in both types, only the INTj is the creative one now.

I hope that explains everything.

Sorry, but it didn't. If I wanted that description, I could have looked it up. No examples, no correlations to other concepts to help reinforce this concept.

I know how hard this may be for you, but I wish you would give examples on some of your generalizations, Transigent. It's hard enough to rack my brain trying to understand what you said and how I can derive examples from that (I guess deriving examples is an Ni thing, if I remember correctly.)

An explanation of a concept from a Te to a Ti or vice-versa is almost useless to the other.

Hmm...

The Ti gets frustrated from lack of clear connections and relations between the abstract concepts that the Te is tossing around so flippantly.

The Te gets frustrated from the lack of grounding and the constant widening of scope that the Ti seems to embrace.

Hmm, again...

Another thought: Ti is often times concerned with static objects and details, since thinking is intensive. They don't get as wide of a picture, so actions and events are often not as much of a concern. Te is often times concerned with the dynamics of objects, since thinking is extensive. It gets a wider picture of all of the facts and details, albeit not being as intensive, so they often concern themselves with actions and events. Read the function descriptions and models on this site again. You'll see plenty of Ti influence there.


Your INTp friend,

Cone

[discourse]

Naming Business Logic is an error. is Practical Logic actually , when translated right. is the Logic of Structure, when translated right.

[Cone]

No critique of what I said?

Pedro, I was up for two hours last night writing that...

[WVBRY]

Naming Business Logic is an error. is Practical Logic actually , when translated right. is the Logic of Structure, when translated right.

Being an INTp I disagree because much of my logic is not used for practical purposes. Im speaking from experience. Sure I use my logic for practical purposes, but beleive it or not, I dont really like to, I just do it when I have to. This is similar to what the original poster was saying, that is not necessarily practical logic. Of course it all depends on what you mean by practical.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with most of what the original poster wrote, except for one small thing.

The Ti gets frustrated from lack of clear connections and relations between the abstract concepts that the Te is tossing around so flippantly.

This is only true for NTs, not STs. Abstract concepts is something that thinking deals with in conjecture with intuition, id imagine its different for a sensing thinking type. Just a minor detail.

But basically I think you made some good points and I agree that gets a terrible name, having much more uses than just business matters. Im glad someone someone sees this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pedro: I dont really think logic of mechanisms is really a good name for , because any form of logic deals with mechanisms in one form or another, at least as far as I understand.


I would define as exteriorised or externalized logic, and as interiorised or internalized logic. Dialectical logic is also a good name for

[discourse]

Another name for the is Logic of Actions. Don't blame me, if you don't like it. Those names were made out by Victor Gulenko, INTj, + , and is in his ID block, from where he can't reach it and that's why also not understand it probably, like people with strong can. But I would name Black Logic the Logic of Facts or The Factual Logic, because The Black Logic finds similarities between the facts. The White Logic, how ever, deserves it's name,The Structural Logic, because people with strong tend to build structures out of facts: the hierarchies, classification, levels. It's all about systemising the material.

[Cone]

"Logic of actions" - Oh, I very much like it. That's what I've always thought of Te being. Now, Logic of Facts I don't like very much, because the 'facts' that I like and use aren't exactly 'facts' as in "the capital of Canada is Ottawa", but rather examples of concepts and the concepts themselves.

[discourse]

Practical being S thing and impractical being N thing is pure MBTI point of view. ENTj has weaks S, but he is very practical. Calculates profit, good at working machinery, knows how to work with his hands, ask Cone, he has as creative function and I am sure he could tell you how practical he is.
And overall whole discussion is basicly going on over the problems of language, not over the essence of the functions.

[WVBRY]

Practical being S thing and impractical being N thing is pure MBTI point of view. ENTj has weaks S, but he is very practical. Calculates profit, good at working machinery, knows how to work with his hands, ask Cone, he has as creative function and I am sure he could tell you how practical he is.
And overall whole discussion is basicly going on over the problems of language, not over the essence of the functions.

I have in my ego block , and im horribly clumsy and impractical. I pity anyone whom I operate machinery around.

being practical in the sense you imagine (good with hands, operating machinery and phycial equipment etc)has to do with sensing, not thinking, im sorry to say it, but thats what I think. You say that ENTjs are practical, and thats a good point, but they aerent good with their hands. The reason ENTjs are practical is because works constantly which means that they are super quick to analyze situations on the spot, which is why they know how to give orders and be in command in critical situations, but that doesnt make them good with their hands. ENTjs are good at giving orders and seeing what needs to be done in a situation better then they are at doing those things.

So it all depends what you mean by practical. used in conjecture with intuition can criticze situations and see whats wrong with them, something many types lack, beleive it or not, and thats why ENTJs are considered practical, but I wouldnt say they are practical, they good at seeing what needs to be done.

So ENTjs are not practical in the sense that they are handy(good with their hands, concentrates well on tasks, etc), they are practical in the sense that they are quick witted.

[Creepy-]

Interesting discussion, but it seems like it focuses on internal mechanisms rather than on values, on what Ti and Te WANT. Ti wants understand, Te knowing. Well and good, but let's look at that closer.

Examining the contrapositive, Te's worst nightmare would be being "out of the loop" or "out of the know". Everybody's laughing at you and you just haven't been able to dig up enough dirt on someone to stab him with a barbed witicism (wit is Te).

Ti's worst nightmare would be coming to an unshareable understand. Eureka, I've figured it out, but since this is an introverted realization, how can I find a way to share it with the world? Jung refers to how Ti's fear not being understood.

While I've been writing this, I've just figured out something of profound use: a description of WHY Te seeks Fi and Ti seeks Fe. (Socionics weakest point imho has been a lack of explanation as to HOW supporting functions actually support one another.)

Te seeks Fi because it is the close, personal relationship that allows one "access" to that person. Think of this in the business sense: why is it that those most successful in the business world (strong Te) tend to have to be "one of the boys"? They have to be on the inside track all the way up. Join the right fraternity etc. It is because they need to be "in the know" and thus on inimate terms with the other players.

Ti seeks Fe because the realizations of understanding arrived at by the Ti, being introverted, tend to be of a personal nature. This triggers a strong desire by the Ti to shout their insight to the world (Euraka! is the expression of a Ti) and Fe becomes the emotional carrier of this personal energy. An unshareable realization is a prime ingredient for insanity (both from a personal and societal definition), and is why, for example, the INTJ is often called the crackpot.

Now someone else can try to figure out an explanation for the supporting functions of the other 6...

[drake]

Being practical means using an object in practice efficiently. Knowing about practical is about knowing situations and ways - where and how - an object might be used.

Those are my definitions.

Sensorics are practical because they physicaly use objects more than intuits. Intuits can, however, imagine where and how objects can be used, but they don't have the skill to use them.

-------------------

INTPs and ENTJs wouldn't touch the structural logic of an object - meaning 'inner wiring' and 'inner processes'.
ENTPs and INTJs would change the principles which allow an object to function.

Example: Consider a speaker near your monitor (if you have one). ENTJ would take the speaker and apply it to some equipment - computer and car radio. He would then build a factory which would produce speakers just for that equipment.
An INTP would have more choices where to apply a speaker - guitars, hi-fi, headphones... He would build a factory which would produce speakers of different shapes and forms for more consumer groups.

An INTJ would take a speaker and look inside. He would discover the logic behind it and would probably apply some idea that would change the principle of sound output. A different type of magnet would be used or some parameter of underlying physical principle would be changed.

An ENTP would figure out how speaker works and would bring new complete parts. Those parts would be used to change types of wires, amplifiers, magnets would be added to improve strength...

Am I at least a bit right?
-------------------

[discourse]

To drake, right you are cause your examples seem to describe well how INTj,ENTp,ENTj,INTp- the NT club members, act. Also ENTp with strong Logic function is argumentative, makes good decisions based on research so ENTp with Logic might also be quite enough similar by his behaviour to INTj.

[Creepy-The Last Guest Poster]

Transigent, read up on the basics of Socionics (relations between functions) before the advanced stuff (7 & 8th functions, much more tenuous stuff). Other than that I like the enthusiasm of your wild train of ideas, although I confess to not following most of them.

About INTJ being called the crackpot: I'm afraid so. If this hasn't been posted to the board yet read http://soli.inav.net/~catalyst/Humor/mbtihaha.htm. Funny stuff.

Ni may have some wild visions but since the Ni is not concernced about its general applicability as does Ti it has the sense to keep it to himself...

Pedro, I'm not sure if your explanation accounts for why Ti seeks Fe in particular and not just F in general.

[indigoroom]

guys look here http://psihologia.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1561#1561

Extroverted logic is also called Practical Logic.

Introverted logic is also called Systematic Logic, or Structural Logic.

[WVBRY]

Being practical means using an object in practice efficiently. Knowing about practical is about knowing situations and ways - where and how - an object might be used.

Those are my definitions.

Sensorics are practical because they physicaly use objects more than intuits. Intuits can, however, imagine where and how objects can be used, but they don't have the skill to use them.

I agree with you one hundered percent. I was gonna make a thread about NTs and how they may be gonna concerned with practicality but might not be good at applying things directly but may be good at finding solutions, in theory, of how things can be applied.

INTPs and ENTJs wouldn't touch the structural logic of an object - meaning 'inner wiring' and 'inner processes'.
ENTPs and INTJs would change the principles which allow an object to function.

Example: Consider a speaker near your monitor (if you have one). ENTJ would take the speaker and apply it to some equipment - computer and car radio. He would then build a factory which would produce speakers just for that equipment.
An INTP would have more choices where to apply a speaker - guitars, hi-fi, headphones... He would build a factory which would produce speakers of different shapes and forms for more consumer groups.

An INTJ would take a speaker and look inside. He would discover the logic behind it and would probably apply some idea that would change the principle of sound output. A different type of magnet would be used or some parameter of underlying physical principle would be changed.

An ENTP would figure out how speaker works and would bring new complete parts. Those parts would be used to change types of wires, amplifiers, magnets would be added to improve strength...

Am I at least a bit right?
-------------------

Yeah, that makes sense. Im not sure you could, predict what each individual would do in an exact situation with exactitude, but on a more symbolic level you are right.

[silke]

Bumping this old thread since I don't want to make a new one just for this topic.

In Russian Te is called "деловая логика". The adjective "деловая" comes from the noun "дело" that has the meaning closest to "task" or "project" i.e. "something to do" rather than anything specific to business, commerce or enterprise.

Thus, translating "деловая логика" as "business logic" isn't an accurate translation. This can been seen in real life practice as well, as not everyone from Te quadra has an interest in business, business acumen, or aptitude for entrepreneurship. At the same time, there are many successful for profit organizations that have been spearheaded and run by people from the Ti quadra.

IMO "Logic of actions" is a semantically more accurate nomer for Te.

[Beautiful sky]

Naming Business Logic is an error. is Practical Logic actually , when translated right. is the Logic of Structure, when translated right.

this

Another name for the is Logic of Actions. Don't blame me, if you don't like it. Those names were made out by Victor Gulenko, INTj, + , and is in his ID block, from where he can't reach it and that's why also not understand it probably, like people with strong can. But I would name Black Logic the Logic of Facts or The Factual Logic, because The Black Logic finds similarities between the facts. The White Logic, how ever, deserves it's name,The Structural Logic, because people with strong tend to build structures out of facts: the hierarchies, classification, levels. It's all about systemising the material.

This too