Difference between Ti and Te

[discojoe]

This is a PM I sent to dolphin, but I thought some of it was pretty good, so I decided to post it. It starts off as an explanation of Ti via how LSI supervises SEE, but I went on to explain Te in the second half. The first workplace example it based off of one of Expat's anecdotes, but it's my own spin on it.



Ti is subjective logic, meaning you make judgments based on a concrete, internal set of rules used to verify information and assess the quality of an action or thing.

Here is a hypothetical example:

At work, there is a manager who has been doing things that have caused his subordinates to be upset with him. This culminates in a confrontation between the manager and several employees, one of whom is SEE.

The SEE has formed a negative Fi sentiment toward the manager, and he verbally expresses his feelings by shouting that the manager has failed in his job at the expense of the rest of the employees.

Unfortunately for the SEE, there is another employee present who has sided with the manager and who happens to be LSI. The SEE's remarks toward his superior are perceived as an affront to the LSI's internal system of rules, and he harshly reprimands the SEE, firmly telling him that managers are not to be spoken to in such a manner.

The SEE is helpless to respond, because his method of decision-making is based around his internal sentiments toward whatever is the object of his attention. He doesn't consider the propriety of his actions, and such rules are something that LSIs very astutely accumulate. LSIs have Fi role, which makes them insecure about the ethical ramifications of their actions and words, so they incorporate social etiquette into their Ti perception of reality.

These "Ti rules" that are accumulated by the LSI, though subjective, are often valid and applicable to reality.

Another example is when my SEE friend blurts out embarrassing information in a public setting, like the time they mentioned that one of their friends, who was present at the time, needed braces. I didn't want to bring any more attention to the person in question, so I said nothing. In private, however, I was very strict in telling them what I thought about their comment.

The LSI can be wrong in his supervision of SEEs, but the SEE cannot respond because he knows that he does not consider the "rules" when making decisions. He is a creature of pure impulsive will, not of logic. This is not to say that he can't be highly intelligent, but his goals and decisions will be based off of impulsive desire, not logical analysis.



To clarify the often confusing difference between Te and Ti, I want to go back to the first example and explain how Te would advise the SEE.

Te wouldn't be concerned with the rules being broken. It would instead look at the matter in terms of consequences versus benefits, pros v cons. Very generally speaking, it would probably say something like this:

"I agree that the manager is incompetent. However, a direct confrontation will probably result in the loss of employment, so it's probably not worth it. A better idea would be to anonymously complain to your boss's superiors about his incompetence."

Instead of being smitten by a barrage of Ti rules and regulations, the SEE is given something he can digest: a matter-of-fact statement about the wisdom of his actions, as well as advice on the best alternative course of action.

Here's one more way of looking at it. Say an SEE wants to explore a certain part of the wilderness and needs directions, which either Ti or Te can provide. Te would give the SEE a map with clearly labeled landmarks, warnings, and other useful information that the SEE can incorporate into this impulsive desire to ramble through the wilds.

Ti, on the other hand, would create a detailed, step-by-step series of specific instructions on exactly how to traverse this particular region. The SEE would naturally perceive these directions as boring and overly restrictive, and most likely would end up ignoring them. However, ignoring the Ti instructions causes the SEE, who is without Te backup, to get lost for a week before finally returning home. Upon seeing the SEE, Ti scolds him for not following the instructions, an accusation against which the SEE cannot effectively mount any defense.

[Suz]

Here's one more way of looking at it. Say an SEE wants to explore a certain part of the wilderness and needs directions, which either Ti or Te can provide. Te would give the SEE a map with clearly labeled landmarks, warnings, and other useful information that the SEE can incorporate into this impulsive desire to ramble through the wilds.

Ti, on the other hand, would create a detailed, step-by-step series of specific instructions on exactly how to traverse this particular region. The SEE would naturally perceive these directions as boring and overly restrictive, and most likely would end up ignoring them. However, ignoring the Ti instructions causes the SEE, who is without Te backup, to get lost for a week before finally returning home. Upon seeing the SEE, Ti scolds him for not following the instructions, an accusations against which the SEE cannot effectively mount any defense.

This part really brought it home, thanks dj! It's a lot clearer to me now!

[strrrng]

I agree with everything except the last part. I loathe detailed, step-by-step instructions, and would much rather someone tell me what needs to be done, with a brief synopsis of the boundaries in the situation. this gives me the freedom to improvise and add a 'personal touch' to whatever I have to do.

[discojoe]

I agree with everything except the last part. I loathe detailed, step-by-step instructions, and would much rather someone tell me what needs to be done, with a brief synopsis of the boundaries in the situation. this gives me the freedom to improvise and add a 'personal touch' to whatever I have to do.

Well this is essentially Ti base v Te base. Too much Ti will always piss off an IEI/SEI. An SLE would give more general directions, but they would still be "instructions" rather than a guide.

[Beautiful sky]

SEE also have Te so that function gets activated while other functions are supervised. Si is especially ridiculed and criticized because SEE ignore it and raise particular disturbance while LSE tries to take pleasure in it and rest.

LSI would not be disturbed by SEE's Se preference to make noise while they are submersing in Si because they both have Se in the ego block. But LSI would try to get SEE to follow their system, but if the SEE is blindly following another system, they will have a very hard time switching to LSI systems. These systems are not built on Si they are built on Se.

[Beautiful sky]

My boss is LSI and works closely with my SEE friend. They don't have any Ti/Fi conflicts like this. they always lean towards Se and work things out and because LSI has Fi role, he is able to empathize and understand my SEE friend.

[Beautiful sky]

Ti, on the other hand, would create a detailed, step-by-step series of specific instructions on exactly how to traverse this particular region. The SEE would naturally perceive these directions as boring and overly restrictive, and most likely would end up ignoring them. However, ignoring the Ti instructions causes the SEE, who is without Te backup, to get lost for a week before finally returning home. Upon seeing the SEE, Ti scolds him for not following the instructions, an accusation against which the SEE cannot effectively mount any defense.

This is a PLAN; in the realm of Ne valuing. not Se impulsivity. Because LSI has Se they can very well accomodate the impulsive nature of Se dominant SEE. Actually, it's a method because it concentrates on HOW to...hence Te....

[discojoe]

Go away. Constantly being badgered by you and your false, worthless interpretations of socionics is very annoying.

[Beautiful sky]

Read what I wrote and think about it.

[Suz]

My boss is LSI and works closely with my SEE friend. They don't have any Ti/Fi conflicts like this. they always lean towards Se and work things out and because LSI has Fi role, he is able to empathize and understand my SEE friend.

you probably mistyped them.

I've noticed Fe-valuers and Fi-valuers tend not to understand each other that way, and clash over such matters.

[Suz]

SEE also have Te so that function gets activated while other functions are supervised. Si is especially ridiculed and criticized because SEE ignore it and raise particular disturbance while LSE tries to take pleasure in it and rest.

LSI would not be disturbed by SEE's Se preference to make noise while they are submersing in Si because they both have Se in the ego block. But LSI would try to get SEE to follow their system, but if the SEE is blindly following another system, they will have a very hard time switching to LSI systems. These systems are not built on Si they are built on Se.

I dont recall this conversation ever referring to Si vs Se. Obviously that realm wont be a point of contention between SEE and LSI.

[Beautiful sky]

I like detailed step by step instructions that are concise and clear and have a plan and a map to follow along with it; so I guess these things fall in the realm of Te/Ne/Si. These things make it predictable and have a method.

[ashlesha]

I agree with everything except the last part. I loathe detailed, step-by-step instructions, and would much rather someone tell me what needs to be done, with a brief synopsis of the boundaries in the situation. this gives me the freedom to improvise and add a 'personal touch' to whatever I have to do.

i've noticed one of the biggest things that comes up between myself and the SLE i work with is that when he instructs me to do something, i usually end up confused about what exactly it is that he expects from me and i ask for more specific detail. when i do this he seems to think i'm stupid or something. he seems to get really impatient by having to slow down and explain because it impedes the process or something.

once he was talking to me trying to figure out what was going on with this interpersonal issue at work. and i was trying to explain who said what and trying to remember when they said it, etc. and he interjected. and in a soft, reassuring voice, he says, "now, honey, i don't need to hear all this piecemeal bullshit, i'm not a fucking cowboy, ok?" lol.

[Suz]

i've noticed one of the biggest things that comes up between myself and the SLE i work with is that when he instructs me to do something, i usually end up confused about what exactly it is that he expects from me and i ask for more specific detail. when i do this he seems to think i'm stupid or something. he seems to get really impatient by having to slow down and explain because it impedes the process or something.

once he was talking to me trying to figure out what was going on with this interpersonal issue at work. and i was trying to explain who said what and trying to remember when they said it, etc. and he interjected. and in a soft, reassuring voice, he says, "now, honey, i don't need to hear all this piecemeal bullshit, i'm not a fucking cowboy, ok?" lol.

lol one time i was in a similar situation with one of my supervisors, who probably was also SLE, now that you mention it. It's funny that your supervisor was the one who brought up the interpersonal issue too. You were just trying to supply the information which he apparently didn't want to hear.

[Suz]

I like detailed step by step instructions that are concise and clear and have a plan and a map to follow along with it; so I guess these things fall in the realm of Te/Ne/Si. These things make it predictable and have a method.

I guess you are Ti-valuing.

[ashlesha]

lol one time i was in a similar situation with one of my supervisors, who probably was also SLE, now that you mention it. It's funny that your supervisor was the one who brought up the interpersonal issue too. You were just trying to supply the information which he apparently didn't want to hear.

hah, well he was nice about it...the strong language is how he always talks, but the way he said it was soft and sweet, like he was reassuring me. i think he was trying to relieve me of using TeSi like he would do for his dual.

but yeah, after he said it, i thought: what exactly do you want me to say, then??

[tcaudilllg]

Go away. Constantly being badgered by you and your false, worthless interpretations of socionics is very annoying.

No she's right DJ. That's what an ILI would do. Anything sequential is gamma Ni.

[Beautiful sky]

No she's right DJ. That's what an ILI would do. Anything sequential is gamma Ni.

[discojoe]

In case any neophytes are browsing this topic, please be aware that tcaudilllg and Maritsa are both considered insane by the general Socionics community, and the bulk of what they say may be safely discarded.

[Beautiful sky]

Dj, I have you on ignore. Please, in the future, do not respond or comment on my posts. Good luck with you.

[Absurd]

Dj, I have you on ignore. Please, in the future, do not respond or comment on my posts. Good luck with you.

I can't believe you put your dual on ignore.

[Beautiful sky]

I can't believe you put your dual on ignore.

I know.

He's blind, ignorant, unreceptive, mean, ridicules human beings, is crude and unwilling to learn and become a nicer human for it.

AKA HOPELESS at this point. I don't see any progress and I've interacted with him for far too long.

I have another valuable dual and I'm good with that.

And, you're a wonderful person too and you're not my dual...

[discojoe]

In case any neophytes are browsing this topic, please be aware that tcaudilllg and Maritsa are both considered insane by the general Socionics community, and the bulk of what they say may be safely discarded.

[Absurd]

I know.

He's blind, ignorant, unreceptive, mean, ridicules human beings, is crude and unwilling to learn and become a nicer human for it.

AKA HOPELESS at this point. I don't see any progress and I've interacted with him for far too long.

I have another valuable dual and I'm good with that.

That's sad. I hope discojoe will see the light, see the truth and error of his ways someday. Delta has one spot left for such wonderful individuals like discojoe. You're doing a great job, Maritsa.

And, you're a wonderful person too and you're not my dual...

Thank you. I try the best I can.

[Beautiful sky]

That's sad. I hope discojoe will see the light, see the truth and error of his ways someday. Delta has one spot left for such wonderful individuals like discojoe. You're doing a great job, Maritsa.



Thank you. I try the best I can.

[Aiss]

No she's right DJ. That's what an ILI would do. Anything sequential is gamma Ni.

It's actually confirmed by wikisocion:

They are more confortable narrating events or stories, or making a point, on a sequential basis - "this happened, and then this, and then that" - since they are not confident that others will connect the dots as to how one event leads to the other, since the they do not feel confident when doing that themselves.

[strrrng]

i've noticed one of the biggest things that comes up between myself and the SLE i work with is that when he instructs me to do something, i usually end up confused about what exactly it is that he expects from me and i ask for more specific detail. when i do this he seems to think i'm stupid or something. he seems to get really impatient by having to slow down and explain because it impedes the process or something.

yeah, the majority of SLEs I've dealt with, expect you to figure various details and nuances out yourself. I had one tell me, "yeah, I tend to give vague directions, so you kind of need to read my mind." actually I think this has to do with the fact that SLEs expect people to monitor their patterns, so the meaning of what they say should be implicit.

once he was talking to me trying to figure out what was going on with this interpersonal issue at work. and i was trying to explain who said what and trying to remember when they said it, etc. and he interjected. and in a soft, reassuring voice, he says, "now, honey, i don't need to hear all this piecemeal bullshit, i'm not a fucking cowboy, ok?" lol.

lol yeah, it's either, give a brief synopsis or, if you add anything, make it a personally relevant impression. SLEs seem to care a lot about subjective perception of experience. they'll relay their own in a seemingly scattered, blithe manner, but it's to find latent meaning.

hah, well he was nice about it...the strong language is how he always talks, but the way he said it was soft and sweet, like he was reassuring me. i think he was trying to relieve me of using TeSi like he would do for his dual.

but yeah, after he said it, i thought: what exactly do you want me to say, then??

convey some pattern of human behavior you derived from the experience. they're good at melding those kinds of things within a concrete structure, and so tend to exchange information more for its own value than the enjoyment of interaction. you basically have to read them and know what they want.

[Suz]

And, you're a wonderful person too and you're not my dual...

No he's MY dual

I think.

[Aiss]

convey some pattern of human behavior you derived from the experience. they're good at melding those kinds of things within a concrete structure, and so tend to exchange information more for its own value than the enjoyment of interaction. you basically have to read them and know what they want.

That's something I've so far associated with Te, to be honest... exchanging information rather than talking for the sake of interacting (devalued Fe). Though I suppose it could be more Se/Ni related, like expecting to connect the dots or read between the lines seems to be. Or maybe it's [SLE's] constructivism, but then it doesn't make sense for ESEs.

[discojoe]

Everyone shut up. What I wrote in the first post is correct, and it's meant to help Socionics neophytes understand Ti and Te. Stop filling the topic with your retarded speculations and shitty theories. You're just going to confuse people who are trying to actually learn something.

[Jarno]

in behaviour:

Ti: thouroughness: don't miss anything, be complete
Te: effecient: lose everything except the important

[squark]

Discojoe, please consider the following especially as it relates to the topic, as well as your own political and economic stance:

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

If tolerance for the sick, the suffering, or the deranged should chance to be an ingredient in the formula, special provisions will be devised for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, colonies, etc., or at least extensive plans for such projects. For the actual execution of these schemes the [p. 436] motives of justice and truth do not, as a rule, suffice; still devolve upon real Christian charity, which I to do with feeling than with any intellectual 'One really should' or I one must' figure largely in this programme. If the formula is wide enough, it may play a very useful rôle in social life, with a reformer or a ventilator of public wrongs or a purifier of the public conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more, does he develop into a grumbler, a crafty reasoner, and a self-righteous critic, who would like to impress both himself and others into one schema.

Contrast that with an entirely different means of thought:

When describing extraverted thinking, I gave a brief characterization of introverted thinking, to which at this stage I must make further reference. Introverted thinking is primarily orientated by the subjective factor. At the least, this subjective factor is represented by a subjective feeling of direction, which, in the last resort, determines judgment. Occasionally, it is a more or less finished image, which to some extent, serves as a standard. This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern. It formulates questions and creates theories; it opens up prospects and yields insight, but in the presence of facts it exhibits a reserved demeanour. As illustrative examples they have their value, but they must not prevail. Facts are collected as evidence or examples for a theory, but never for their own sake. Should this latter ever occur, it is done only as a compliment to the extraverted style. For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.

THIS is the difference between Te and Ti, not maps or sequential steps. Do you believe even more strongly in the validity of an unproven idea that you have put together in your own mind than in anything you have seen proven and established or accepted as provable fact? Maybe it sounds somewhat delusional to you on the surface, but it's the subjective interpretation and internal logical coherency that is more important to Ti, and the external Or provable factors that are more important to Te. Laws to be enforced therefore are in the realm of Te, not Ti. Either one in total isolation or extreme manifestations is a problem, but they are very clearly different. That's an understanding that will be useful to neophytes, not something that has them typing every rule-enforcing, map abhoring person as Ti. Because that's not Ti at all.

[discojoe]

Please learn Socionics, fool. I'm not getting dragged into an argument with autistic people who turn simple concepts into indecipherable, useless rubbish.

[Suz]

in behaviour:

Ti: thouroughness: don't miss anything, be complete
Te: effecient: lose everything except the important

weird. On my job i had a reputation for being very thorough, and I certainly made a huge effort to be. Wouldn't that go against Ti-POLR if what you are saying is true?

[squark]

Please learn Socionics, fool. I'm not getting dragged into an argument with autistic people who turn simple concepts into indecipherable, useless rubbish.

I'm not looking for an argument, just asking you to consider some things. I assume you've read Reinin's book since you quoted large portions from it before, so if you don't like how Jung phrases it, read how Reinin does, and you'll come to the same conclusion. Extroverted and introverted thinking are not describing extroverted or introverted people in a social way, but rather the orientation of the thought process itself.

[Skeptic]

In an effort to serve my own ends as well as the current crisis in this topic, I will put forth some questions I would have made a topic about anyway..

I am unsure about Ti's relation to subjectivity with respect to its 'it makes sense' atittude as well as its tendency to rule out things that, while having evidence behind them, do not have a sensible structure. An answer to the following would clear my confusion;

1) Is this because Ti feels the only way to be consistent is establishing a line of reasoning to give a real world problem sense while ignoring possible evidence that might contradict a sensible conclusion?

2) Is this then how Ti ignores Te? By deliberately and constantly creating theoretecal constructs to account for real world phenomena as opposed to looking to established methods with evidence supporting them to explain these phenomena (as opposed to Te which evidence may contradict sense etc etc)?

3) How far will the Ti ego go to deliberately concoct his own method or solution that coincides with his mental constructs (which make sense to him and are consistent which are necessary to a Ti ego)? I can see the answer to this question being 'always' because when the values of a Ti ego are crossed (and, in turn, his inner sense of logical consistency) he is disgusted and would not seek to overturn his own philosophy, but rather, to defend it with all his logical might. However, I'm interested in hearing how the Ti ego would react to more technical matters that aren't so related to his inner structures, for example, whether or not the Ti ego would go out of his way to have his own personal method for doing all the math problems that already have established equations that the Te ego would presumably embrace immediately to save time and effort. It seems as though finding an original and personal way to approach absolutely everything would be unreasonable and consume far too much... time and effort.

3 in a nutshell; Will the ego incorporate established thought structures into his own structure if the incorporated structures coincide with his inner values and no harm is done?

Perhaps more later if I can gather my thoughts. I'm somewhat tired and these are questions I mulled over earlier and couldn't find an answer to them through anything else.

[squark]

In an effort to serve my own ends as well as the current crisis in this topic, I will put forth some questions I would have made a topic about anyway..

I am unsure about Ti's relation to subjectivity with respect to its 'it makes sense' atittude as well as its tendency to rule out things that, while having evidence behind them, do not have a sensible structure. An answer to the following would clear my confusion;

1) Is this because Ti feels the only way to be consistent is establishing a line of reasoning to give a real world problem sense while ignoring possible evidence that might contradict a sensible conclusion?

2) Is this then how Ti ignores Te? By deliberately and constantly creating theoretecal constructs to account for real world phenomena as opposed to looking to established methods with evidence supporting them to explain these phenomena?

3) How far will the Ti ego go to deliberately concoct his own method or solution that coincides with his mental constructs (which make sense to him and are consistent which are necessary to a Ti ego)? I can see the answer to this question being 'always' because when the values of a Ti ego are crossed (and, in turn, his inner sense of logical consistency) he is disgusted and would not seek to overturn his own philosophy, but rather, to defend it with all his logical might. However, I'm interested in hearing how the Ti ego would react to more technical matters that aren't so related to his inner structures, for example, whether or not the Ti ego would go out of his way to have his own personal method for doing all the math problems that already have established equations that the Te ego would presumably embrace immediately to save time and effort. It seems as though finding an original and personal way to approach absolutely everything would be unreasonable and consume far too much... time and effort.

3 in a nutshell; Will the ego incorporate established thought structures into his own structure if the incorporated structures coincide with his inner values and no harm is done?

Perhaps more later if I can gather my thoughts. I'm somewhat tired and these are questions I mulled over earlier and couldn't find an answer to them through anything else.

Yes to 1 and 2, but not to the extreme suggested in 3. In other words, yes that is in general how Ti operates with ignoring Te, however, it's not an attempt to be unique at all, nor is there a need to create a personal explanations for absolutely everything. Standard equations and methods are accepted, and reasonable explanations easily heard. Ideas are not such rigid things either, and Ti egos do not ignore Te in total. Facts and ideas are incorporated in the support of theories and ideas, and ideas form from observation, learning and taking in various things. One way to look at it would be that Te is the equation, while Ti is the explanation of the equation. Te might make laws for everyone, Ti is more interested in whether they're justifiable, and might just ignore the ones that aren't reasonable. So, in answer to your nutshell question, yes.

[redbaron]

all I know is, I like being told what to do but I don't wanna be told HOW to do something. I want however I do it to be good.

example: it's annoying when someone tells me I loaded the dishwasher wrong and then makes me stand there while they show me the "right" more efficient way to do it. really? I mean REALLY??? I do not have the time nor the inclination to reload the dishwasher YOUR WAY. sorry, uh-uh. Next time, do it yourself.

I dunno if that's even related but it's all I have to add to this thread.

bye.

[Skeptic]

Yes to 1 and 2, but not to the extreme suggested in 3. In other words, yes that is in general how Ti operates with ignoring Te, however, it's not an attempt to be unique at all, nor is there a need to create a personal explanations for absolutely everything. Standard equations and methods are accepted, and reasonable explanations easily heard. Ideas are not such rigid things either, and Ti egos do not ignore Te in total. Facts and ideas are incorporated in the support of theories and ideas, and ideas form from observation, learning and taking in various things. One way to look at it would be that Te is the equation, while Ti is the explanation of the equation. Te might make laws for everyone, Ti is more interested in whether they're justifiable, and might just ignore the ones that aren't reasonable. So, in answer to your nutshell question, yes.

Interesting that Ti is willing to incorporate existing structures into its own without subjecting it to a complete overhaul so long as is logically consistent to the person absorbing it.

Which brings me to my next point of confusion. How does the Ti ego in argument operate as opposed to the Te ego? I have read that the Ti is interested in declaring premises which are generally accepted and moving on from there to prove a point that follows logically from the premises while a Te ego is more interested in presenting evidence and real world examples that support his position directly.

 

Given that Ti doesn't ignore Te in total and vice versa, is it most reasonable to say that Ti will offer these real world examples but as less important and subordinate to a heavy logical procedure while A Te ego would conversely present light logical procedure to back up a strong evidence and practically based argument?
Theoretical argument substance;
; A is true and widely accepted which leads to B->C->D which leads to my conclusion, E, which has proven true in this example where A happened and E occurred
; The following events occured; their results indicate that A leads to E, which makes sense because A is related to C is related to E.

i.e.Will a Ti ego will use real life examples secondary to his heavy logical analysis while these real life examples would be the subject of a Te ego's heavy analysis which is more important to him than logical follow-up? And if placed in a place of contradictory reason to evidence; for Ti ego reason trumps evidence and for Te the other way around?

[Creepy-female]

blah blah blah crisis in this topic blah blah blah

word up