# Thread: Te vs Ti vs Se

1. ## Te vs Ti vs Se

Originally Posted by PistolShrimp
Are facts a thing? I don't particularly care about those, either. I am mostly going by what I've read here so my understanding could be off.
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...ation_elements
Te is not just facts. Since you're just getting into Socionics, it'd be best not to quickly assume that all the simple definitions and descriptions are 100% comprehensive and accurate.

For example both Ti and Te can relate to "facts". The properties of a pencil such as its dimensions, color, material, mass, weight etc all those are factual data but are more related to Ti processing. Knowledge about the pencil, such as where it was made, how much it cost, how much it's worth, and any other thing that could be said about it in relation to the world around it would be closer to Te processing.

2. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
For example both Ti and Te can relate to "facts". The properties of a pencil such as its dimensions, color, material, mass, weight etc all those are factual data but are more related to Ti processing. Knowledge about the pencil, such as where it was made, how much it cost, how much it's worth, and any other thing that could be said about it in relation to the world around it would be closer to Te processing.
Perhaps you mean Te and Se, not Te and Ti. What you describe there is rather this, you talk about the perception of objects and therefore no Fields information is used to collect that.

Note that it depends on how the person takes it or equivocation, but if we stick to the letter, the weight of something is an extrinsic property - and a fact (Te), how much it weighted - while the mass is intrinsic, not a full fact (Se) - not a fact, it is the empirically justified assumption that what gives its specific weight is in the object (Static, in Socionics). Like I said before, what was not tested or not fully empirical is not a fact (not happened), and this is easy to demonstrate in our example: you weight one object and it is one kilogram (in common usage) heavy (happened), then you say that that object has a mass of one kilogram, and always weights 1 kilogram. So when you put it again on another balance, you "know" it will weight one kilo, however that is not a fact, because you haven't measured it yet on this balance. In what Te is concerned, the object may weight differently in the two cases - ie. the first balance may have been not adjusted - those are the actual facts (purely empirical).

Similarily, the value of one object can be seen differently: how much it costs indeed seems to suggest a fact - how much costs in the explored shops - though its worth is not a fact. That is because, similarily to the above case, part of your evaluation of the object is subjective: you assigned the value to the object itself (Static) overlooking how much it is sold on the market all the time.

Remember, facts *occurred* already to the object - in the past. Occurance is not applicable for what is said to be in the object - properties. Therefore Dynamic Egos, though their Je function, primarily use empirical experience as a sum of occurances (facts, events, impressions) in the past, while Static Egos as occasions to gather insight in the properties of the objects, through their Pe function. They are almost indistinguishable in communication, there are certain situations that reveal the real way a peer has interpreted the same phenomenon.

3. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
For example both Ti and Te can relate to "facts". The properties of a pencil such as its dimensions, color, material, mass, weight etc all those are factual data but are more related to Ti processing. Knowledge about the pencil, such as where it was made, how much it cost, how much it's worth, and any other thing that could be said about it in relation to the world around it would be closer to Te processing.
Originally Posted by The Ineffable
Perhaps you mean Te and Se, not Te and Ti.
That's right. Both Te and Se are concerned with facts as far the socionics song goes. And I do agree. What ESC scribbled there in first instance is actually Se not Ti. Again, per socionics.

4. Can't edit again using browser of my liking. Bummer.

Hey, nil, come over here and say 'hence...the edit button'.

But to the point.

It is quite funny this mumbo jumbo called socionics actually works. I thought I'm not going to get into it seeing no real use of it. Works as in, helps me to see things that certain members have in common. Members who often accentuate their differences.

This forum actually is like a fish tank, I was serious when saying that in some thread of mine before. Don't care whether one gets it or not. I did see that pretty fast. Didn't even think it is going to be that easy. Was up for a challenge but no.

5. Originally Posted by The Ineffable
Perhaps you mean Te and Se, not Te and Ti. What you describe there is rather this, you talk about the perception of objects and therefore no Fields information is used to collect that.

Note that it depends on how the person takes it or equivocation, but if we stick to the letter, the weight of something is an extrinsic property - and a fact (Te), how much it weighted - while the mass is intrinsic, not a full fact (Se) - not a fact, it is the empirically justified assumption that what gives its specific weight is in the object (Static, in Socionics). Like I said before, what was not tested or not fully empirical is not a fact (not happened), and this is easy to demonstrate in our example: you weight one object and it is one kilogram (in common usage) heavy (happened), then you say that that object has a mass of one kilogram, and always weights 1 kilogram. So when you put it again on another balance, you "know" it will weight one kilo, however that is not a fact, because you haven't measured it yet on this balance. In what Te is concerned, the object may weight differently in the two cases - ie. the first balance may have been not adjusted - those are the actual facts (purely empirical).

Similarily, the value of one object can be seen differently: how much it costs indeed seems to suggest a fact - how much costs in the explored shops - though its worth is not a fact. That is because, similarily to the above case, part of your evaluation of the object is subjective: you assigned the value to the object itself (Static) overlooking how much it is sold on the market all the time.

Remember, facts *occurred* already to the object - in the past. Occurance is not applicable for what is said to be in the object - properties. Therefore Dynamic Egos, though their Je function, primarily use empirical experience as a sum of occurances (facts, events, impressions) in the past, while Static Egos as occasions to gather insight in the properties of the objects, through their Pe function. They are almost indistinguishable in communication, there are certain situations that reveal the real way a peer has interpreted the same phenomenon.
Seems External Static in general to me. You can't just have Ti and I probably automatically associated it with Se.

According to Aushra Augusta: http://socionics.us/works/socion2.shtml#1

Four perceptual elements of bodies (with their symbols):

— Perception of the appearance and shape of an object
— Perception of the inner content and structure of an object
— Perception of the external dynamics of an object — its movements in space
— Perception of the internal dynamics of an object — the changes taking place within it

Four perceptual elements of relations (with their symbols):

— Perception of the internal situation of an object
— Perception of time
— Perception of an object's position in space
— Perception of an object's attraction and repulsion

Comparing that with what I stated:

"The properties of a pencil such as its dimensions, color, material, mass, weight etc"

I can unproblematically agree that what I said fits with the description of . However, it can also fit with . Dimension, weight, color and mass(excluding material) are static properties derived from and used to determine one object's interrelation to other objects in space. None of these could be measurable nor observable without other objects in existence as they are all relative. Height, length, width, volume, etc all these are both fields and bodies, and when I will agree to these being more than is when we are discussing specific, actual objects and not speaking of abstract properties.

Overall I don't support such intensive Information Aspects analysis of words because one can easily overfocus on irrelevant or unsubstantial data and miss the point.

6. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
I can unproblematically agree that what I said fits with the description of . However, it can also fit with . Dimension, weight and mass are[...]
You can stretch it to Ti but Se is still there. What you did there, is you presented two functions in tandem. Not one, not three and not four. Two. Mass going by those funny definitions you posted isn't Ti as in the domain of Ti. Se it is. Mass is not and never was "Perception of an object's position in space". Mass falls under "Perception of the appearance and shape of an object."

As long we're not talking chemistry, that is.

7. Arggh. Damn forum and damn browser.

Re-read what you wrote ESC and I'm really sorry to inform you but that does look Se to me with a spice of Ti. Anyone can easily say it is dominant Se as in SeTi.

8. Originally Posted by Absurd
You can stretch it to Ti but Se is still there. What you did there, is you presented two functions in tandem. Not one, not three and not four. Two. Mass going by those funny definitions you posted isn't Ti as in the domain of Ti. Se it is. Mass is not and never was "Perception of an object's position in space". Mass falls under "Perception of the appearance and shape of an object."

As long we're not talking chemistry, that is.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mass

• a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size: a mass of dough.
• a collection of incoherent particles, parts, or objects regarded as forming one body: a mass of sand.
• aggregate; whole (usually preceded by in the ): People, in the mass, mean well.
• a considerable assemblage, number, or quantity: a mass of errors; a mass of troops.
• bulk, size, expanse, or massiveness: towers of great mass and strength.

- Perception of the appearance and shape of an object
- Perception of an object's position in space

Mass is dependent upon dimensions & content, it is separably both and . The appearance and form of an object cannot exist without its structure & composition and structure & composition only exist within the object they form.

Like I said, I don't support these analyses and won't entertain them for long. It's basically meaningless.

9. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
Seems External Static in general to me. You can't just have Ti and I probably automatically associated it with Se.
I excluded External because that is besides the point and complicates the explanation for no reason. But I hinted in my post that factual data is related to Extroversion/Bodies, just I have chosen a particular case because when we talk about Internal information we exclude accuracy from the start, and therefore we can't talk about "facts" at all. Being External is a prerequisite.
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
— Perception of the appearance and shape of an object
— Perception of the inner content and structure of an object
— Perception of the external dynamics of an object — its movements in space
— Perception of the internal dynamics of an object — the changes taking place within it
I'm not sure whether those are Aushra's definitions, nevertheless, you can observe that in the case of Ne and Fe, there is and interference of the subjective representation of the inner/hidden properties or changes. Only Se and Te can be applied to facts - while, like I said, Se not being fully objective, for it predicts present and lasting properties that are not experienced [1].

Fields information is also not applicable, it's the internal reflection of external world, it is conceptual and not applied to a certain instance (object). Fields information are merely the rules that are drawn using the information gathered by Bodies IEs empirically.
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
I can unproblematically agree that what I said fits with the description of . However, it can also fit with . Dimension, weight, color and mass(excluding material) are static properties derived from and used to determine one object's interrelation to other objects in space. None of these could be measurable nor observable without other objects in existence as they are all relative. Height, length, width, volume, etc all these are both fields and bodies, and when I will agree to these being more than is when we are discussing specific, actual objects and not speaking of abstract properties.
Yes, Bodies and Fields can never be separated in practice, but that is besides the point, our goal was to figure out what is what. You made the mistake to mix in only the Fields function in the Static case (Se), not doing so for the Dynamic one (Te). Think that facts, as they are, are unusable per se, they have no meaning, unless one's only purpose is to keep records. However we know that they are actually used very successfully in practice, that is where the Fields Dynamic functions come into play (Si and Ni).
---

When you talk about Se, it is not necessary to talk about the necessity of Ti. Indeed generic notions like "length" or "triangle" are Static Fields, but it is the Extroverted Perception which caused their existence in the intellect first place. Or do you imagine that humans have always had these notions a priori then looked for them in nature? When you look at a triangle, you don't know it is a triangle in advance, only after your perception gathers that unspeakable information from your senses are you able to identify its structure and relationships to other objects. I gather that if this perception itsef were not able to sort the sensory data, one would not be able to match it against the existing structural knowledge.

Imagine closing your eyes and following a surface touching it with your hand. Depending on the complexity of the surface, you will make different assumptions of what it is. That means that you have no concepts about it and you build them on the fly from the object, all you can tell is "it goes like this, then like this, hmm... this seems to be something long, let me start over faster... hmm this is long... and this is edgy, and this is a hole. oh yeah, a sqare hole". You don't have any structural information about the object and if that it has a shape or a texture that you never experienced before, you don't even know how to qualify it (because you don't have the Fields information), it will take you a hell of a long time to find a place for it in your brain, even when it takes no time to experience it as it is.
---

[1] - @Absurd: this is what I mean when I say that Se information can't be fully qualified as facts, although in practice it is often referred so.

10. Seems like I can't change the title of my thread to "Te vs. Ti vs. Se vs. Shrimp's Type Me Thread." Drat.

11. I don't understand why you need walls of text to demonstrate how "dimensions, color, material, mass, weight etc" are and not .

Originally Posted by The Ineffable
I excluded External because that is besides the point and complicates the explanation for no reason. But I hinted in my post that factual data is related to Extroversion/Bodies, just I have chosen a particular case because when we talk about Internal information we exclude accuracy from the start, and therefore we can't talk about "facts" at all. Being External is a prerequisite.

I'm not sure whether those are Aushra's definitions, nevertheless, you can observe that in the case of Ne and Fe, there is and interference of the subjective representation of the inner/hidden properties or changes. Only Se and Te can be applied to facts - while, like I said, Se not being fully objective, for it predicts present and lasting properties that are not experienced [1].

Fields information is also not applicable, it's the internal reflection of external world, it is conceptual and not applied to a certain instance (object). Fields information are merely the rules that are drawn using the information gathered by Bodies IEs empirically.

Yes, Bodies and Fields can never be separated in practice, but that is besides the point, our goal was to figure out what is what. You made the mistake to mix in only the Fields function in the Static case (Se), not doing so for the Dynamic one (Te). Think that facts, as they are, are unusable per se, they have no meaning, unless one's only purpose is to keep records. However we know that they are actually used very successfully in practice, that is where the Fields Dynamic functions come into play (Si and Ni).
---

When you talk about Se, it is not necessary to talk about the necessity of Ti. Indeed generic notions like "length" or "triangle" are Static Fields, but it is the Extroverted Perception which caused their existence in the intellect first place. Or do you imagine that humans have always had these notions a priori then looked for them in nature? When you look at a triangle, you don't know it is a triangle in advance, only after your perception gathers that unspeakable information from your senses are you able to identify its structure and relationships to other objects. I gather that if this perception itsef were not able to sort the sensory data, one would not be able to match it against the existing structural knowledge.

Imagine closing your eyes and following a surface touching it with your hand. Depending on the complexity of the surface, you will make different assumptions of what it is. That means that you have no concepts about it and you build them on the fly from the object, all you can tell is "it goes like this, then like this, hmm... this seems to be something long, let me start over faster... hmm this is long... and this is edgy, and this is a hole. oh yeah, a sqare hole". You don't have any structural information about the object and if that it has a shape or a texture that you never experienced before, you don't even know how to qualify it (because you don't have the Fields information), it will take you a hell of a long time to find a place for it in your brain, even when it takes no time to experience it as it is.
---

[1] - @Absurd: this is what I mean when I say that Se information can't be fully qualified as facts, although in practice it is often referred so.
The most important thing said here is:
"Fields information is also not applicable, it's the internal reflection of external world, it is conceptual and not applied to a certain instance (object). Fields information are merely the rules that are drawn using the information gathered by Bodies IEs empirically."

In other words, speaking of , or a Static Field, is the imprint of a Static Body, no? The imprint is a reflection of what the Object is, it's essence translated into a definite or indefinite framework. A Static Field is the mold so to speak.

So back to what I was saying: "The properties of a pencil such as its dimensions, color, material, mass, weight etc" .

These things exist purely as External Static Fields when contemplating mental abstractions, and work with External Static Bodies when considering the physical manifestations. There's the mold, and there is what the mold makes. You can recreate any shape or form if you have its framework or mold, and this is how I liken External Static Field to "The properties of a pencil such as its dimensions, color, material, mass, weight etc". Having a pencil's mold - it's dimensions, color hue, weight, and material - the factual framework of properties - you can manifest or describe the physical pencil. Such properties are External Static Object when there is a physical representation to serve as an example of what a pencil is, but there is always a Static Field that is the qualitative outline of the object. The factual, and therefore objective(External), but subjectively-focused on(Field) qualities being Ti.

12. Please, take it to another thread. I don't understand half of what you guys are on about and it's not really helping with determining my type.

13. The mods will move it, don't worry.

14. Originally Posted by PistolShrimp
Please, take it to another thread. I don't understand half of what you guys are on about and it's not really helping with determining my type.
ESC is claiming that Ti is always paired with Se, for some reason, and that Se describes facts as well. He is using both of these hypotheses to prove that Ti can include facts in its definition as well. I don't understand where he is going with that either.

I think the issue here is that he using his own cognition to describe those function, which is essentially flawed and biased, as all ours are. I can see how it could make sense for an ILI to make such claims but it isn't true for everyone.

15. Originally Posted by Ryan
ESC is claiming that Ti is always paired with Se, for some reason, and that Se describes facts as well. He is using both of these hypotheses to prove that Ti can include facts in its definition as well. I don't understand where he is going with that either.
I wasn't claiming that. I'm saying responding to Shrimp's post " I probably automatically associated it(Ti) with Se" in trying to describe the difference between Te and Ti.

It's not the first time you tried to speak for others. If you're going to do it at least keep me out of it because it only misrepresents people's positions and causes more problems.

16. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
I wasn't claiming that. I'm saying responding to Shrimp's post " I probably automatically associated it(Ti) with Se" in trying to describe the difference between Te and Ti.

It's not the first time you tried to speak for others. If you're going to do it at least keep me out of it because it only misrepresents people's positions and causes more problems.
Welp.

What did I do wrong in that other post?

17. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
In other words, speaking of , or a Static Field, is the imprint of a Static Body, no? The imprint is a reflection of what the Object is, it's essence translated into a definite or indefinite framework. A Static Field is the mold so to speak.
Yes.
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
So back to what I was saying: "The properties of a pencil such as its dimensions, color, material, mass, weight etc" .
No, because you talked about the object properties, those-that-have-no-name-which-you-gather-through-Bodies-functions-and-conceptualize-as-Fields, not abstract ones. Yes, "color" is Fields, but the blackness of your phone is Bodies; yes, "value" is Fields, but the \$100 worth of your phone is Bodies. You forgot what this started off, you said:
Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
For example both Ti and Te can relate to "facts".
Don't confuse object properties with abstract properties, you make an awfully gross equivocation, and I'm gonna give you an example from C programming, perhaps you can understand better:
typedef struct _Point {
float x;
float y;
float z;
} Point;

Point p1;
p1.x = 10.0;
p1.y = 15.0;
p1.z = -10.0;
In the first case (Point), you have the definition, the Fields - and the properties of the structure are literaly fields, BTW. They are empty, it would be absurd to ask you to tell me the x of the Point because there is no such thing, the properties of the structure abstract and they are x, y and z. The object (instance of the structure) that appears in the second case (p1), when the properties are values, that is 10.0, 15.0 and -10.0. This is what the object is, a sum of values that have no name and no purpose but which you associate as something. In the example above the fact that you know what the initial purpose of those values are stands merely in making it yourself and having the names in the definition (like Ji->Pe), but you may use these values as something else entirely if you want to, also, in reverse engineering (like Pe->Ji) you have only the objects and their values whose meaning you don't initially know, but assign temporary labels to them and try to figure out what they mean.
---

@PistolShrimp: the mods will move the off-topic to a separate thread.

18. Originally Posted by Ryan
Welp.

What did I do wrong in that other post?
You stated your disagreement with my position, and when you explained why, it was not even my position. See strawman fallacy

Originally Posted by The Ineffable
Yes.

No, because you talked about the object properties, those-that-have-no-name-which-you-gather-through-Bodies-functions-and-conceptualize-as-Fields, not abstract ones. Yes, "color" is Fields, but the blackness of your phone is Bodies; yes, "value" is Fields, but the \$100 worth of your phone is Bodies. You forgot what this started off, you said:
The extrinsic properties of objects are Bodies and I agree with that. A blue phone is a blue phone, but its exact shade of blue is not extrinsic, that is wholly dependent upon perspective and personal understandings. A 20lb barbell is still a 20lb barbell, even if you measured it in kilograms, but how heavy it is(feels) depends upon the strength of the person carrying it. A frontyard with dimension of 30x40m is still 30x40m, but how big or small that is depends on a person's perspective. All these dependencies are intrinsic and are Fields, not Bodies.

Don't confuse object properties with abstract properties, you make an awfully gross equivocation, and I'm gonna give you an example from C programming, perhaps you can understand better:

In the first case (Point), you have the definition, the Fields - and the properties of the structure are literaly fields, BTW. They are empty, it would be absurd to ask you to tell me the x of the Point because there is no such thing, the properties of the structure abstract and they are x, y and z. The object (instance of the structure) that appears in the second case (p1), when the properties are values, that is 10.0, 15.0 and -10.0. This is what the object is, a sum of values that have no name and no purpose but which you associate as something. In the example above the fact that you know what the initial purpose of those values are stands merely in making it yourself and having the names in the definition (like Ji->Pe), but you may use these values as something else entirely if you want to, also, in reverse engineering (like Pe->Ji) you have only the objects and their values whose meaning you don't initially know, but assign temporary labels to them and try to figure out what they mean.
---
Well I don't have any training in any programming languages, so you will have to translate your meaning into a more communicable context as me taking weeks or even months to cultivate a necessary background is unreasonable.

19. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
You stated your disagreement with my position, and when you explained why, it was not even my position. See strawman fallacy
Wow, you're such a loser. Who cares? I wasn't even debating you despite my disagreement with your "position". You said it's fine to focus on the types as long as people substantiate their claims, which is pretty dumb to say when the thread wasn't about the types per se. Yet I could have made my point without mentioning you and your stupid unimportant post. I blame my laziness.

20. Originally Posted by Ryan
Wow, you're such a loser. Who cares? I wasn't even debating you despite my disagreement with your "position". You said it's fine to focus on the types as long as people substantiate their claims, which is pretty dumb to say when the thread wasn't about the types per se. Yet I could have made my point without mentioning you and your stupid unimportant post. I blame my laziness.
You care as you asked for me to spell it out for you. Stop being a faceless troll and bug off.

21. Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold
The extrinsic properties of objects are Bodies and I agree with that. A blue phone is a blue phone, but its exact shade of blue is not extrinsic, that is wholly dependent upon perspective and personal understandings. A 20lb barbell is still a 20lb barbell, even if you measured it in kilograms, but how heavy it is(feels) depends upon the strength of the person carrying it. A frontyard with dimension of 30x40m is still 30x40m, but how big or small that is depends on a person's perspective. All these dependencies are intrinsic and are Fields, not Bodies.
Hmm I view extrinsic/intrinsic properties dependent on Dynamic/Static, not Bodies/Fields, so you seem to have misunderstood what I said. Let's leave it here, nice discussion (too bad you didn't get what I meant, though).

22. Te is about epistemically straightforward and unproblematic facts. things you can more or less directly observe and/or measure
Ti is about epistemically challenging and potentially controversial facts. things that require a complex chain of reasoning/inferences to be arrived at

Se is not about facts. at all. it is about entities, objects and our way of understanding these in a holistic (= P) manner.

delta STs take in Te via the empirical method. they simply quantifyably keep track of what they observe.
gamma NTs produce Te (i.e. the testable claim) from the Ni/Se holistic model of the world. this can at times even make them averse to empiricism.

23. Originally Posted by Ryan
ESC is claiming that Ti is always paired with Se, for some reason, and that Se describes facts as well. He is using both of these hypotheses to prove that Ti can include facts in its definition as well. I don't understand where he is going with that either.

I think the issue here is that he using his own cognition to describe those function, which is essentially flawed and biased, as all ours are. I can see how it could make sense for an ILI to make such claims but it isn't true for everyone.

Uhh.... Mind pointing out how you could have made your point without bringing him up when he is actually the focus of that post?
The first paragraph is your misconception about what he was saying and then the second paragraph you say that what he was saying is flawed, etc. and there was nothing productive about it, you weren't making any point besides "ESC urong"

NOTHING MAKES SENSE. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE.

24. I wasn't talking about the above post.

25. Originally Posted by labocat
Te is about epistemically straightforward and unproblematic facts. things you can more or less directly observe and/or measure
Ti is about epistemically challenging and potentially controversial facts. things that require a complex chain of reasoning/inferences to be arrived at

Se is not about facts. at all. it is about entities, objects and our way of understanding these in a holistic (= P) manner.

delta STs take in Te via the empirical method. they simply quantifyably keep track of what they observe.
gamma NTs produce Te (i.e. the testable claim) from the Ni/Se holistic model of the world. this can at times even make them averse to empiricism.
Yes.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•