inspired by starfall.
what is Te to you? describe in your own words.
Ask Absurd.Originally Posted by laghlagh
Ahahaha, get it?! I referenced an external source about Te!!!
...
She doesn't think I'm LSE.
Ah, gotcha.
Is the sky blue, or do you have to check with someone first?
I see Te in two parts: one in terms of references, or finding reliable sources of information, being 'skeptical' of what you hear. Which is why I was joking that you made a thread asking others' opinions about Te, because I find it ironic, asking for opinions about how you find out information.
2nd is efficiency-related. Being able to accomplish objectives without much time wasted. Using logic on the outer world, applying order to things. Not necessarily 'being organized', but approaching the external world systematically, under sound, consistent rules and principles.
Having to explain myself to illusionary's is boring.
Yes, I do, and I don't know if it drives the Merry people or myself more nutsIs the sky blue, or do you have to check with someone first?maybe a poll will help in that...
By the way, once my brain gets all the pieces in the right place, I'll make a post here about!
Laghlagh!! I'm so tickled by the the irony of something you didn't actually say because I'm projecting my random mental farts on a completely neutral statement that said nothing about your personal sentiments teeheehee oh woo hoo hoo oohh look at me go!!
Haha, I'm not sure what drives people more nuts, Te for the Merry people or Fe for the Serious people! As you can see:Yes, I do, and I don't know if it drives the Merry people or myself more nuts
By the way, once my brain gets all the pieces in the right place, I'll make a post here about
Laghlagh!! I'm so tickled by the the irony of something you didn't actually say because I'm projecting my random mental farts on a completely neutral statement that said nothing about your personal sentiments teeheehee oh woo hoo hoo oohh look at me go!!hahaha.
Efficiency.
Learn to interpret a metaphor Kassie.
Ti is like common sense, fitting things into a coherent structure, and making sure pieces in that structure are consistent all throughout. Ti egos, in particular, rely heavily on what they've experienced and seen and uses this to create general trends, constantly re-editing and perfecting this framework throughout life. Personally, since learning this stuff, I've noticed that I'm really sensitive to the inconsistencies and contradictions people make, sometimes so much on this particular forum, it boggles my mind.
Te, on the other hand, is not really concerned about this type of consistency/structure. I think of Te as raw data, facts, numbers, statistics, and relying on things that have been proven by reliable sources.
This difference between Ti-valuing vs Te-valuing I've noticed brings a point of tension and uncertainty. For example, when I express my view points through my Ti-lens, Te-valuers will often be skeptical, since my view points are often information that's not readily proven, factual or efficient. Te-valuing types I've noticed will be more inclined to rely upon external authority to validate information, whereas Ti-valuers will place more importance on the information making sense before validating.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 05-24-2011 at 09:50 PM.
Not how I would define it, but how I see it.
To me Te is what is being used when someone tries to validate a perceived pattern by organizing data (like experiment results, statistics and stuff) in such a way, that makes it easier for others to see that pattern.
As I see it, “the problem” is that these kinds of arrangements of data, is just an arrangement that implies connections that is creating patterns, and not "proof" that there actually are connections. (As I see it, this is partly what the "Te-efficiency" is)
Well the real problem is more that people that aren't adept at arranging and analyzing raw data, believes that these "validated patterns" are truths in themselves(like raw data), and not just a collection of data that could be interpreted to support an argument.
EDIT:
---> The reliable sources thing, with Te, is actually a validated pattern by itself. Example: Relying on information from source A has proven useful several times -> we can skip the raw data-level in the information hierarchy when the data is processed by source A. (Another part of what the Te-efficiency is)
BUT: Since people that suck at Te can't make accurate assessments whether or not a source is reliable, they will perish in fire (a fact that is supported by loads of data).
Last edited by plotter; 05-24-2011 at 09:28 PM.
It doesn't exactly either help that you project yourself as knowing what other people are thinking or deciding what their intentions are or deciding whether they are full of shit before listening to them. That is the Jungian Ni function you are using to do that; and you do act like you have an Ni HA as a result. It's odd that it's supposed to be your PoLR? And no, I'm offering this as an unbiased gift after reading a lot of Jung and finding clarity on a lot of things that this forum doesn't seem to understand or produce. You can ridicule me for it if you want, but you don't come off as LSE in the forum.
Te is logistics, clear and simple. Anything you try to describe this with (like efficiency) will depend too highly on individual understanding of what efficiency means or what it is referencing in relation to a goal and will be wrong and confusing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistics
How this manifested in my ESTj friend back in undergrad while studying for an economics exam:Anyway, I suppose I'll start out to say: When I see spoken of as 'productivity', 'practicality', 'business', 'money', 'hard facts'… well, quite frankly I have no fucking idea what any of you (nor most of Socionics) is talking about and I suspect that neither do those making said claims. None of these attritbutes are meaningful descriptors to me regarding.
"I've noticed that when I'm learning how one thing works, the next thing you learn builds on that. Then the next, etc., I don't really care about that stuff, I'd rather just know the facts I need to know."
So the bottom line, or end goal takes precedent over the process of getting to the end goal, in which in this case he saw was unnecessary for the exam. Productivity > Structure here. That's one way I've seen it manifested in my ESTj friend, and I've seen similar attitudes in other areas. That's what I mean by productivity.
Yeah I would like to know this too, can you illustrate with a real life example?@Ash
How would you say manifests itself in terms of behavior or personality?
Last edited by Computer Loser; 05-25-2011 at 03:38 AM.
How would you say
I think this is mostly what people are referring to when they mention productivity/money/etc however right or wrong they may be.I hope this helps!
I just bought a pair of pants.
I researched the background of the company and found that they manufacture uniforms for military and law enforcement, so the pants should be sturdy and workable for active wear. I saw that out of 33 reviews, 31 of them were 5 star reviews, with one 4 star review and one 3 star review. A combined total of 67 out of 68 people voted for the first three 5 star reviews, so I read them. I looked at the 3-star review and saw that the person didn't like that the pants had a gusset in them that was huge by his standards - this was not a problem for me at all, functionality is a part of my style anyways!
For $35 (shipping included), I'm getting more "pants" for my money than the standard average, and they're even ahead of my own curve! Black is nearly impossible to mismatch, and since there's a sense of formality to them, I should be able to match them with a black sport coat (which I'll test later in store) - I match a brown sport coat with a pair of fisherman's pants (a type of high quality, lightweight cargo pants that cost $55 each), and it works, and this should be less of a gap to bridge... and if it doesn't work? I still have good pants!
I ordered the pants - I'm in between sizes, so I went for a larger size due to reading a highly liked review, in favor of the pants, that said they ran a bit small. And a belt comes with it too - worst comes to worst, it can be donated to charity, and someone gets a really sturdy belt... best case scenario? I get an awesome belt!
My end goal is to assemble a Beta quadra friendly wardrobe of sorts, in addition to a more Delta quadra friendly one (which will be heavier in earth tones and accessories - I should pick out a scarf, preferably hand-made if I can work it), so that if I know what situation I'm getting into as far as people are concerned, and I know the score at least a little bit, I can hopefully make everything work better for everyone (and if worst comes to worst, I'll still have a clothing upgrade and more style points)...
To me, Te is the function present in: the Ego of γ-NTs & δ-STs, the Id of α-NTs & β-STs, the SuperId of γ-SFs and δ-NFs, and the SuperEgo of α-SFs and β-NFs. As is Fe, Te is Dynamic Objects, however, unlike Fe, which interprets at deeper level, Te monitors the continuously-flowing outward explicit activity of objects in an algorithmic and comparative way. It is in this way that Te is responsible for the amassment of quantitative raw data(which can then be processed into information and, successively, knowledge) and which-and-how objects interact affirmatively with other objects(only ever becoming more comprehensive).
γ-Te and δ-Te are differentiated, respectively, by Ni and Si. How this manifests is in γ-Te working primarily from the distant intuitive realm, and δ-Te working primarily from the close-ranged sensate realm. As such, the aforementioned activity, data, and affirmative interactions γ-Te and δ-Te monitor are distinctly dissimilar, only bearing a superficial semblance due to the fact that the psyche is able to unconsciously process more than one dimensions of information.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
Te can only be applied to private (ontologically subjective) instances of data. when a Te type applies their judgment to any issue within the shared, public discourse, s/he uses Fi. so contrary to all these stories of "objectivity", you don't just get subjectivity, but emotion and what's worse, a form of it that the theory itself states they royally suck at moderating.
That's nice, but everybody does this. Not type-related.Yeah, everybody uses Ti, but wouldn't types use it + all other functions to different degrees, importance, and combinations? (Ego, Super-Ego, Id) Thus, the manifestation of different types with different apparent strengths and weaknesses, with some functions pairing better than others, thus some types seemingly getting along better with certain types (intertype relations)?If you were that sensitive to contradictions and inconsistencies, you'd have eschewed Socionics from your mind long ago.
For instance, relative to all my friends, I have a structured, regimented, one way of doing a lot of things. I constantly look for loopholes and try to close them, and when I feel like its the best it can be, I'll be very close-minded about changing my mind. This manifests as me being really stubborn and strict, and I think a lot ISTjs can attest to this in general.
Another example, for instance, is me defining a reliable person as being timely all the time when you need them to be. Let's say during event A my friend was on time, but during events B and C, my friend was really late. During a conversation, I over hear the friend saying "yeah, I think I'm a pretty reliable dude." A light bulb will go off in my head because what they said is very inconsistent with how they actual act. This way of thinking manifests as me being really inflexible and stubborn amongst my friends - Why? Because I do it all the friggin time. However, not all types are like this or care to approach life this way (for example, ENFps, in comparison). Would you agree with that statement? This is what I mean by the whole consistency and structure thing and how some types are more prone to use it in different degrees and importance.
Sorry if my examples and definitions seem really superficial, but I try to simplify things to "attempt" to try and apply them in real life. I know they are probably not very precise.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. Do you think your attitude in particular is type-related? People that seem to have a good understanding of this stuff seem to be superb at defining things with precision and complexity, which I respect you for. With that in mind, its understandable that it's probably impossible to pin point these things down in real life with accuracy. Not all things complex like the sun can be precisely explained to someone that has no perception of sight.This is a basic human limitation; abstract imagination can't substitute for experience. Try describing the sun to a blind person who's never seen it—no matter how clear and elaborate the description, their visual imagination of it will never achieve parity with the real thing.
Surely I'm not the only one here who grasps this.
I can offer plenty of video and text excerpts of people I think are , and you can observe them yourself for common parallels. It's pointless for me to describe it otherwise.
"Define a Zebra"
Us mere mortals: Uh...A striped horse thingy.
You smart people: You can't describe it! Its complexity surpasses the human mind. A Striped horse is NOT a precise definition, dumb fucks!
---
Also, Ashton, a couple more questions:
What do you think about the disagreement between you and I? Is it related to my Ti (trying to box things into a consistent, neat box) versus your Te? Or am I being a dumbass here again trying to define the sun lol.
In the "Members typing" forum, you agreed with my self typing as ISTj-Ti. I was curious as to why ISTj and why you chose Ti subtype versus Se?
You also mentioned to be against stereotypes but that its entirely possible to accurately type somebody without knowing them/observing them in real life. You also agreed in the members typing forum that you agreed with many other people's typings. You also just mentioned watching videos to give you an idea of what Te is, yet pointing it out/describing it from examples is pointless:
So then, when you confirm someones type, and these common parallels aren't stereotypes/pointers, what exactly are they? What common parallels do you look for in members' typings or videos of Te?I can offer plenty of video and text excerpts of people I think are
Have a good day sir.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 05-25-2011 at 05:30 PM.
LOL i do the SAME exact thing before buying anything major! And before reserving hotel rooms too...I hope this helps!
I just bought a pair of pants.
I researched the background of the company and found that they manufacture uniforms for military and law enforcement, so the pants should be sturdy and workable for active wear. I saw that out of 33 reviews, 31 of them were 5 star reviews, with one 4 star review and one 3 star review. A combined total of 67 out of 68 people voted for the first three 5 star reviews, so I read them. I looked at the 3-star review and saw that the person didn't like that the pants had a gusset in them that was huge by his standards - this was not a problem for me at all, functionality is a part of my style anyways!
For $35 (shipping included), I'm getting more "pants" for my money than the standard average, and they're even ahead of my own curve! Black is nearly impossible to mismatch, and since there's a sense of formality to them, I should be able to match them with a black sport coat (which I'll test later in store) - I match a brown sport coat with a pair of fisherman's pants (a type of high quality, lightweight cargo pants that cost $55 each), and it works, and this should be less of a gap to bridge... and if it doesn't work? I still have good pants!
I ordered the pants - I'm in between sizes, so I went for a larger size due to reading a highly liked review, in favor of the pants, that said they ran a bit small. And a belt comes with it too - worst comes to worst, it can be donated to charity, and someone gets a really sturdy belt... best case scenario? I get an awesome belt!
My end goal is to assemble a Beta quadra friendly wardrobe of sorts, in addition to a more Delta quadra friendly one (which will be heavier in earth tones and accessories - I should pick out a scarf, preferably hand-made if I can work it), so that if I know what situation I'm getting into as far as people are concerned, and I know the score at least a little bit, I can hopefully make everything work better for everyone (and if worst comes to worst, I'll still have a clothing upgrade and more style points)...
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
Discounts
Looking for an Archnemesis. Willing applicants contact via PM.
ENFp - Fi 7w6 sp/sx
The Ineffable IEI
The Einstein ENTp
johari nohari
http://www.mypersonality.info/ssmall/
When stuff is presented in a Te way, it's like I can read the original source, or see it with my own eyes, and it is there for me to do with as I please. Ti is like I'm expected to take a step along with the person presenting the information - there's an inference or something - and I find myself skeptical and suspicious of that step being taken. It isn't that I'm stupid or illogical and can't follow it. It's more that I don't trust people to remain objective when they take that step. I'm afraid they're intentionally leading the information somewhere, or maybe have an unintentional bias. I find myself stopping each time there is a step taken and thinking about it rather than reading straight through and just taking the information in. Whereas once I find a source trustworthy, I pretty much trust that source. Not blindly - my trust can be lost too. I don't know why but it's hard to explain this stuff in words.
That's my view as a Ti PoLR person.
There seems to be some relationship or trend between efficiency and having Te in the ego block, but Te isn't defined by efficiency. Maybe looking at data in that way leads to it?
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.
Te is considering the outside world as a stream of separate chain of if-then processes. (Ni, I suppose, would find the original source of this stream and adapt itself to that. Si, I guess, would find active ways to change the processes).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
He never has explanations for his typings, they're from a 3rd POV total bogus. Just think about the fact he types Sharon Osbourne as SEI - including subtype.
LOL, yeah, check this thread out: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=34698
You will learn where these differences steam from with time. To consider all conviction of the same tier - or the same nature -, namely those which are based on logical reasons with those which are not, would mean to allow post-modernist artists to write our theoretical physics manuals. Not going to happen.
here is little Effie's head
whose brains are made of gingerbread
when judgment day comes
God will find six crumbs
stooping by the coffinlid
waiting for something to rise
as the other somethings did-
you imagine his surprise
bellowing through the general noise
Where is Effie who was dead?
-to God in a tiny voice,
i am may the first crumb said
whereupon its fellow five
crumbs chuckled as if they were alive
and number two took up the song
might i'm called and did no wrong
cried the third crumb, i am should
and this is my little sister could
with our big brother who is would
don't punish us for we were good;
and the last crumb with some shame
whispered unto God, my name
is must and with the others i've
been Effie who isn't alive
just imagine it I say
God amid a monstrous din
watch your step and follow me
stooping by Effie's little, in
(want a match or can you see?)
which the six subjective crumbs
twitch like mutilated thumbs;
picture His peering biggest whey
coloured face on which a frown
puzzles, but I know the way-
(nervously Whose eyes approve
the blessed while His ears are crammed
with the strenuous music of
the innumerable capering damned)
-staring wildly up and down
the here we are now judgment day
cross the threshold have no dread
lift the sheet back in this way
here is little Effie's head
whose brains are made of gingerbread
-ee cummings in your face
Would you please give an example?
I have often observed my LSE bf use Fi (makes him look like me); they do suck at moderating emotions (their own alone); they are however, excellent at moderating other people's emotions because that becomes not their emotions, hence an objective way of looking at the other person's problems (problem solvers).
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
What I've currently found most remarkable about the information elements is the introvertion/extroversion aspect to the functions. From a naive standpoint one would assume that to introvert is to be removed form a situation, but that is not exactly the case of what they describe.
Basically, there is a problem here that no one has even bothered to mention which is how a function, in this case Te, can be processed internally in a person and how it can be processed externally in a person, or rather how it asserts itself compared to how it passively develops itself because introversion does not equate to passivity or mental processing since all the functions perform this aspect of functioning philosophically in a living being.
@Labcoat
Could you please define what you mean when you say subjective or objective, if you don't mind, for the good of better discussion in improving yours, as well as mine and others understanding? Because they are very broad words with many valid interpretations that relate to different things.
I have to read that.
I think you just did.
One common thing I find in Te mindsets is that everything about the world at large is in a never-ending state of metamorphoses into something else. I read something in this novel "Bones of the Master" by George Crane, who I think may be ISTp, that reads very similar to that concept:
Then you also have people like Buckminster Fuller, who I've heard at Te-ENTj and have no real criticisms of that typing:... [A] great number of Chinese words do duty for both nouns and verbs - so that one who thinks in Chinese has little difficulty in seeing that objects are also events, that our world is a collection of processes rather than things.
Solely from a subjective standpoint I always find myself fascinated by such philosophies. Part of this could also be a matter of Vortical-Synergetic, but it's a trend I've noticed quite a bit in Te people.I am not a thing — a noun. I seem to be a verb, an evolutionary process — an integral function of the universe.
Te is what works.
I'd rather people see for themselves and force their own brains to attempt to make sense of it, rather than having me instruct them on what it is. And I stand by the claim that theory and conjecture is no substitute for experience and observation. Looking at videos and self-report data offer the latter; relying on my 2nd-hand interpretive descriptions does not. Unless you want to use my own words as self-report data on what
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Reply With Quote
