Does Te Value Work & Productivity for Its Own Sake?

[Aramas]

Primary question is in the title. This thread comes from @Delilah's thread, "Why Te?" (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p/56366-Why-Te)

Here are some other questions that go along with the primary question: Do Te ego types enjoy work for its own sake? Do they generally seek out work for the purpose of working rather than meeting a goal? Are there Te ego types who do not agree with the idea that work has inherent moral value? Should we expect Te ego types to be productive, hard-working people? If someone is not productive or hardworking, does that mean that the person in question is not a Te ego type or that this person does not value Te?

I think this is a pretty important set of questions to ask. @Bertrand was saying in Delilah's thread that Te just means basically that Te types value logic that is based on objectivity rather than subjectivity, and that a lot of the descriptions had added extra stuff that wasn't really part of the nature of Te -- if I'm remembering and interpreting correctly. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

So, in essence, what is the nature of Te's (and Te ego/valuing types) relationship to work? Do they all have the same relationship to work? Are there lazy Te types?

If there isn't a universal value/understanding all Te types share for work, do the descriptions need to be changed?

[Bertrand]

I think the simplest way to think of it is work you enjoy really isn't work, but work in the sense of objective logic is just evaluating effort/resources in terms of input compared with useful (or desired) output. anyone can do this to varying degrees innately I think Te valuing is naturally viewing the world through this lens or finding such logic to be in the last resort the most convincing

[Aramas]

I think the simplest way to think of it is work you enjoy really isn't work, but work in the sense of objective logic is just evaluating effort/resources in terms of input compared with useful (or desired) output. anyone can do this to varying degrees innately I think Te valuing is naturally viewing the world through this lens or finding such logic to be in the last resort the most convincing

I've known some SLIs who seemed to express a lot of dissatisfaction with the nature of modern labor. A lot of them are naturists and favor a return to an environment where they consider work to be innately more humane and fulfilling. This would fit the idea that Te types can't separate work and fun that well without incurring some amount of pain.

Desired might be a better word than useful, because people often disagree on what's useful. The word desire is usually understood to have some degree of subjectivity.

[timber]

I love working tbh.

[Bertrand]

yeah totally, I often think work in the contemporary world is "uncivilized" but by that I really mean perhaps, too artificial, too "civilized" by another meaning, really in some sense just "inhumane"

[Aramas]

yeah totally, I often think work in the contemporary world is "uncivilized" but by that I really mean perhaps, too artificial, too "civilized" by another meaning, really in some sense just "inhumane"

I think it's just due to the extreme specialization and division of labor more than anything else. In tribal societies, one person does a variety of tasks. In modern labor, one person does one very narrow task with extreme levels of efficiency. I think Ti is to some degree involved in this extreme labor specialization, because it necessitates the creation of a hierarchy to organize labor. People don't often think of Ti being related to labor efficiency, but I think it is.

The descriptions of Ti I've seen that mention hierarchy don't mention why it exists in Ti societies. I think it has this adaptive purpose of organizing labor when it's highly specialized. It's not just for the benefit of those at the top, although it is. And it's not just about authority and power. It has something to do with an adaptation that's useful for survival in those societies.

[timber]

Its ironic because on the Fire line I find the Hierarchal Ti to be stifling and a huge time waster. A million and one tiny little bureaucratic check points for what is essentially Te work.

[Cosmic Teapot]

I'll try to answer the questions from my own subjective* viewpoint and expect the questionner to have read the desciptions for extroverted thinking so we're on the same page from a theoretical perspective.
*Because I think there are differences between the four Te-ego types
I'll define "work" as in "Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result."


Do Te ego types enjoy work for its own sake?

No. I work because I get something out of it. Preferably money but that varies. When I invest work into a hobby or a craft the intended result is to get better at it and eventually mastering an activity that I care about. The idea is once I'm good enough at something I can a)make it more efficient or profitable so I am b)irreplaceable to someone and c)gain a certain amount independence from other people.
I can work for "altruistic" reasons like helping a friends in the garden all day long under a burning sun and get nothing out of it. When I see the whole activity as waste of time that has no practical result for anyone or is poorly planed out I refuse to help.


Do they generally seek out work for the purpose of working rather than meeting a goal?

If there is something that tricks the brain into thinking it's doing work when it has no defined endgoal then it's called a waste of time and efforts.
If work has no goal then it's the result of shitty planning.


Are there Te ego types who do not agree with the idea that work has inherent moral value?

I don't know if that is different among Te-ego types.
I think when you do work (and get paid for it - in whatever currency) you have to do it well. You can't be sloppy and must be competent. Working for someone is give and take. You exchange your time for an amount of payment that seems worth it - which in my eyes can be defined as a form of morality but then we're on political territory.


Should we expect Te ego types to be productive, hard-working people?

No. You should expect people to be selfish -> minimal effort for maximal profit [1].
Laziness is a part human nature. We always try to save energy. What differs from person to person is how well they're able to save energy.
Then there are those kind of people who work hard for praise and good feelings only. This is called naivety.
I find the idea of Te-type = hard-working type misleading. Te is a function that enables someone to be productive, efficient etc.... if the person in question wishes/ has a reason* to do so.
*money, purpose, status, security or a deep passion for not starving to death


If someone is not productive or hardworking, does that mean that the person in question is not a Te ego type or that this person does not value Te?

No. I know plenty of other types who can be called workaholics.
LII, ESEs are some of them.

edit:
[1] What you should and can expect from employees at workplayces is a problem from idustrial sociology. Anyone who is interested can google the transformation problem. My own viewpoint is not good enough to deal with the issue in its entirety.

[Aramas]

Its ironic because on the Fire line I find the Hierarchal Ti to be stifling and a huge time waster. A million and one tiny little bureaucratic check points for what is essentially Te work.

Kafka wrote a lot about bureaucratic overload in modern society. Some speculate that he was actually a Delta, not a Beta. And you're right, Ti organization can progress to the point where it actually hurts labor efficiency. A few people realize they won't have to do much work if they make themselves a bureaucracy they can get lost in, so you have an army of bureaucrats take over and destroy what useful labor organization existed before. It's cool that you used the phrase "Te work." So maybe that meant there's also Ti work? Are you saying that Te isn't necessarily about work by itself?

What do you think Ti work is?

[Hope]

Te= business logic. Te types care for investment of resources and profit. Is not necesarily about money, could be different benefits or goods.

Primary question is in the title. This thread comes from Delilah's thread, "Why Te."

Here are some other questions that go along with the primary question: Do Te ego types enjoy work for its own sake?

No, they enjoy profit

Do they generally seek out work for the purpose of working rather than meeting a goal?

No.

Are there Te ego types who do not agree with the idea that work has inherent moral value?

I don't get what you are referring to. Inherent moral value of work? What do you mean?

Should we expect Te ego types to be productive, hard-working people?

No

If someone is not productive or hardworking, does that mean that the person in question is not a Te ego type or that this person does not value Te?

No, Te doesnt mean hard work when talk about productivity, is about gain.

I think this is a pretty important set of questions to ask. @Bertrand was saying in Delilah's thread that Te just means basically that Te types value logic that is based on objectivity rather than subjectivity, and that a lot of the descriptions had added extra stuff that wasn't really part of the nature of Te -- if I'm remembering and interpreting correctly. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Are there lazy Te types?

Yes, xLI.

If there isn't a universal value/understanding all Te types share for work, do the descriptions need to be changed?

Which ones?

[Delilah]

I kinda agree with Crystal. I'd really appreciate it if more Te egos replied to this.

What i've personally noticed for instance from XLI is that for the minimum effort they try to get maximum returns. Sometimes i've seen this in SLI for instance even in worst case scenario translate to freeloading, relying on the effort of other people. For ILI i've seen relying on connections so like unless they expect their connections to support them in some way they won't even put in the effort.

I don't think it is fair to associate LSE with work either, a lot of them seem to work for a stable bureaucracy or like for the government: smth stable that has guaranteed work for instance etc.

I think working for the sake of it might be some other type entirely. I know for instance for me it is absolutely essential that i *work* and it keeps me healthy. That being said i don't have the knack for maximizing returns of my work. I wonder how Te types do this, how they maximize their returns - they seem to keep it a secret even on this forum lol

[squark]

I wonder how Te types do this, how they maximize their returns - they seem to keep it a secret even on this forum lol

Some of it may just be efficiency of action. Where other people are running this way and that and not accomplishing as much, Te types usually seem to have more purpose, a plan of actions so they can expend less effort.

IRL they do notice this, because my dad (Te lead) has commented before how my mom (gamma SF) works really hard, is constantly going, and works much harder than he does, but somehow doesn't seem to get as much done. He also commented before on how when he was working on some housing developments, how he had a crew of just "two old guys" which was him and another Te lead guy, and they were building houses at more than twice the rate of larger crews full of these young guys who were trying to race them. And my dad and his partner weren't even rushing. I think it comes down to purposeful action. If all your actions are for a reason and it's to move forward, then you'll go forward much faster than someone whose actions are going every which way.

[Delilah]

@squark: what i've noticed in XLI in particular is that frequently they won't make a move at all unless they see it as bringing in the hoped for results. Like ILIs would rather not act than act on something they have foreseen no returns on. Whereas some other type might go by the logic of doing something or at least trying to do something, since taking no action seems like just plain sitting there being lazy (even if the action is gonna be equal to null pretty soon in terms of results)

Do you think Te leads do this too?

[Singu]

I think this is a pretty important set of questions to ask. @Bertrand was saying in Delilah's thread that Te just means basically that Te types value logic that is based on objectivity rather than subjectivity, and that a lot of the descriptions had added extra stuff that wasn't really part of the nature of Te -- if I'm remembering and interpreting correctly. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

How would something be based on "objectivity"? You might say, "data, facts", but if you trace back all the facts to its main "source", then it would essentially be based on one's own perception, so it would be subjective.

Something can only be objective, if there's some universality involved, such as using logic, or coming up with objective explanations that makes it possible to be applied to OUTSIDE of its domain.

For example laws of physics are objective in the sense that it's universal - it's not something that is only applied to Jane, but not Joe. It's not something that's only applied to Mars but not Pluto. It has universality. How could this simple information that may only exist inside of a person's head, be applied to the entire universe? That would be objectivity.

[squark]

@squark: what i've noticed in XLI in particular is that frequently they won't make a move at all unless they see it as bringing in the hoped for results. Like ILIs would rather not act than act on something they have foreseen no returns on. Whereas some other type might go by the logic of doing something or at least trying to do something, since taking no action seems like just plain sitting there being lazy (even if the action is gonna be equal to null pretty soon in terms of results)

Do you think Te leads do this too?

Yes, but I don't know if it's to the same degree. I was working for my dad installing siding on houses one summer, and my older sister and I were working alone on one project. The wind was blowing like mad, so that every piece of siding was whipping around, next to impossible to work with. My sister didn't think we should quit, but finally my dad shows up and tells us to pack it up, wondering why we weren't back since everyone else had quit hours earlier. In that case it was better to do nothing until the wind quit, and he knew it (and I knew it too)

Other times, he'd just plan for when the best times to work would be. So, when working in the south in the summer, his crew would be up and working by daylight when it was still cool outside, and then they'd be done for the day just when it started getting hot. So, they were able to get a lot more work done than crews who started late and tried to work through the heat of the day. He also made his workers take all their breaks and a long lunch, which substantially cut down on errors due to fatigue, so less mistakes had to be corrected or redone.

So, I guess it's planned breaks, and times of not doing anything because that was more productive than trying to do something in bad conditions. I'm not sure if that's the same as the XLI you're describing or not.

[Aramas]

Te is just inductive logic. That is it. When someone has Te in their ego, it makes them prone to bad generalizations which turn into work.

The problem with deductive logic is that all the premises can be true and follow from one to the next all the way to the end. That doesn't mean that the conclusion derived from the process has any relationship to reality. In other words, you can have complete internal consistency and still be wrong. Life requires both kinds of reason.

I like your definition. I think it's pretty simple and might work. Cuts through the crap nicely, too. I think the definition of Te as "business logic" places capitalistic meanings into the definition of the function, when it might be possible to have anti-capitalistic people with strong Te. So Te must be something other than business logic, @Crystal. And that term misleads people unintentionally.

This example brings me to my next point: it's things like calling Te "business logic" that lead to inaccurate typings, because people are not really looking at what the function's true nature is, but rather a term that's been assigned to it. @domr's example shows how abstract the functions really are, and so really include a much wider variety of people than we think.

[domr]

@Aramas @Bertrand @Singu

I'm nearly finished with my Socionics upgrade. The big discovery I made was that what people called extraverted judgement was in fact inductive logic while introverted judgement was deductive.

Today I realized that introverted and extraverted are better represented with specialized and generalized respectfully. Knowing this, we can generate the following definitions:

Induction: Specialized Perception + Generalized Judgement
Deduction: Specialized Judgement + Generalized Perception

We can deduce and analyze the 8 psychological blocks.

[Aramas]

@Aramas @Bertrand @Singu

I'm nearly finished with my Socionics upgrade. The big discovery I made was that what people called extraverted judgement was in fact inductive logic while introverted judgement was deductive.

Today I realized that introverted and extraverted are better represented with specialized and generalized respectfully. Knowing this, we can generate the following definitions:

Induction: Specialized Perception + Generalized Judgement
Deduction: Specialized Judgement + Generalized Perception

We can deduce and analyze the 8 psychological blocks.

So would Fe be endogenous inductive logic while Te is exogenous inductive logic? Good ideas.

[Hope]

The problem with deductive logic is that all the premises can be true and follow from one to the next all the way to the end. That doesn't mean that the conclusion derived from the process has any relationship to reality. In other words, you can have complete internal consistency and still be wrong. Life requires both kinds of reason.

I like your definition. I think it's pretty simple and might work. Cuts through the crap nicely, too. I think the definition of Te as "business logic" places capitalistic meanings into the definition of the function, when it might be possible to have anti-capitalistic people with strong Te. So Te must be something other than business logic, @Crystal. And that term misleads people unintentionally.

This example brings me to my next point: it's things like calling Te "business logic" that lead to inaccurate typings, because people are not really looking at what the function's true nature is, but rather a term that's been assigned to it. @domr's example shows how abstract the functions really are, and so really include a much wider variety of people than we think.

You should read more socionics authors instead of speculate, that would give you a clearer idea about the meaning of functions. Capitalism has nothing to do with business logic, thats your own association and is far from socionics definition.

[Aramas]

You should read more socionics authors instead of speculate, that would give you a clearer idea about the meaning of functions. Capitalism has nothing to do with business logic, thats your own association and is far from socionics definition.

I've read A LOT of Socionics articles, and a lot of them talk about Te being fundamentally concerned with business and making money. Those descriptions limit Socionics.

Also, you misread my post. When I said that "business logic" is a bad definition, I was not saying that business logic is one of the definitions of Te. I was criticizing the use of that term because it's misleading and inaccurate.

[Aramas]

+E (Fe) is inductive ethics, +L (Te) is inductive logic.

new notation.

Have you read this: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...s-in-Socionics

That's where I got the terms exogenous and endogenous from. Might help you develop your ideas.

[Hope]

I've read A LOT of Socionics articles, and a lot of them talk about Te being fundamentally concerned with business and making money. Those descriptions limit Socionics.

You should process better the info that you read then. Read for reading doesnt help you to construct knowledge, it must be processed in your brain. Then, most russian authors doesnt say that business logic means just making money. Its a logic of profit, not just in money realm, I even said that in my first post (see that you dont process what you read?). If you dont get that socionics is a psychological model and talks about psyche and its patterns (the natural program of mind function aka personality) it will be hard for you to understand it properly and you'll start mixing up concepts (socionics psychological concepts with different fields concepts), like for example saying that business logic (Te) is money making or capitalism.

Then, if you want posts going in one single specific way, you should comment this in your op. Instead of saying that you dont understand X and want input about it, for then devaluing what ppl with that specific element say about it.

Also, you misread my post. When I said that "business logic" is a bad definition, I was not saying that business logic is one of the definitions of Te. I was criticizing the use of that term because it's misleading and inaccurate.

Who knows what you were trying to say, I dont pay much value to it either. And you were the only one misleading it because you make free associations far from what socionics definitions try to say. Thats why you dislike it and think it misleads when it doesnt. And I agree with you in dorm making functions more abstract, as abstract that is incomprehensible.

[Delilah]

I think in some articles in Russian i've seen Te described as "Profiteur" or some such, reminiscent of focusing on profit from ...something, w/e.

I actually think some extreme (bad?) forms of capitalism are quite far from Te like places that make you work for so little would not appeal to a Te type.

I think something that i think i've noticed is also this idea of Value: so like Te can easily assess the value of input/action/work. Like a Te type kinda knows the value of their own work better than another type.

Anywhw, i'm just brainstorming, hoping there will actually be Te ego types contributing from their own perspective.

[Hope]

Also I've gotten into arguments with @Crystal. She doesn't appear to care about being scholarly.
[/FONT][/COLOR]

...says the guy who wants to invent his own system because of having too much trouble understanding socionics model A as it is, and ofc because he thinks he's a genius.

[The Reality Denialist]

Isn't LSE the usual workaholic? Well, there is that result vs process part where process people work for process and result people work for result.

(I'm not Te ego type and I clearly do not put much emphasis on getting something out of something but then SLE's tend to do that)

[Hope]

I understand Model A. My work is original Model A from Dual Nature of Man + Dimensions. That's it. I cut out all the useless junk that people added later.

so funny.

[Aramas]

Humorous aside: SLI declines work

[The Reality Denialist]

I think tackling problems by making something new is what gives me satisfaction. Money seems so incredibly... secondary. I am one of those who would not join in any sort of union either as they want to secure things.

[FDG]

Many other users have already said most of what I would have said, I´d add that LSE and LIEs are EJ types and their primary psychological focus is affecting the environment to provide some sort of "external rational dynamic organization". Accomplishing this requires the investment of a lot of energy. Thus these types may be seen as workaholics but they are just fulfilling their standard vision of reality.
SLIs and ILIs become workaholics when they are engrossed in what they´re doing - when what they do is of personal significance for them.

Capitalism in its crudest form (post-soviet times?) seems to be the domain of irrational resolute types - Se and Ni doms.

[FDG]

That being said i don't have the knack for maximizing returns of my work. I wonder how Te types do this, how they maximize their returns - they seem to keep it a secret even on this forum lol

Part of it has to do with a disgregard for both Fi and Fe i.e. considering implicit and explicit obligations as something not "real" and that should be subordinated to external logic. So you can be disagreeable and tell someone else that you won´t do something because it´s a waste of time and effort.

[esq]

https://youtu.be/OUpZ6iURanM?t=2m23s

[Singu]

I don't see how any types or "functions" could be ascribed to capitalism, since capitalism is a fairly recent phenomena/invention. And there also many different schools of capitalism. It's also likely that like with anything, capitalism will eventually be replaced by something else in the future.

Its a logic of profit, not just in money realm, I even said that in my first post (see that you dont process what you read?).

What kind of profit is it?

[idontgiveaf]

Guys, you don't ask Te..

You ask the person not an idea. Omgg

[Aramas]

Guys, you don't ask Te..

You ask the person not an idea. Omgg

Depends on your perspective. What if we're just huge vehicles for gametes?

[Aramas]

Many other users have already said most of what I would have said, I´d add that LSE and LIEs are EJ types and their primary psychological focus is affecting the environment to provide some sort of "external rational dynamic organization". Accomplishing this requires the investment of a lot of energy. Thus these types may be seen as workaholics but they are just fulfilling their standard vision of reality.
SLIs and ILIs become workaholics when they are engrossed in what they´re doing - when what they do is of personal significance for them.

Capitalism in its crudest form (post-soviet times?) seems to be the domain of irrational resolute types - Se and Ni doms.

The crudest form would probably be early industrial England before child labor laws and before limits/standards for the number of hours in the working week. Take a look at the average lifespan of people working in textile factories around Manchester. If you thought 40 was a young age to die, you'll be horrified.

[Shining]

http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/d...ichkov/aspekty


"Thus, the information macroelement «objects» () is subdivided into two information elements: «work» () and «system»() (the symbols are now single-colored). We have given such names to these information elements because by using objects’ properties (their essence), we do some work (on objects or by means of them). Let us take wood, for example. This material is soft enough (though not so soft as fluff), but it is softer than a metal. Therefore, we can tool it by some harder sharp metal instrument such as a knife, a saw, or an axe. Since wood doesn’t sink, we can build a raft out of it. Since wood burns, we can use it as fuel. Working with objects, a man creates technologies, methods, procedures, manufacture process.

In socionics, the information element «work» is also called «practical logic», «black logic» (according to the color of its symbol ).

It should be noted that, whenever we hear the word «work», it is not necessarily the context of the «work logic». When someone writes a program, serves clients, sings on the stage, or creates a book, he or she works as well, but this activity is nor a work on objects neither by means of them. Therefore, we should be attentive and remember that «work logic» relates only to objects and their properties."


About :
"We can consider not only physical but also psychological space. You’ve possibly heard the expression «life space». We can broaden, defend, enrich, make larger or smaller, or protect all these spaces. When you buy something for yourself, your home, or family, as well as earn money, you thereby are strengthening your life space."


"Another example of a multi-elemental word is «money». Let us compare two sentences:

Money is a means of enrichment.
Money is stamped paper notes of certain value.

In order to make analysis of information elements, make a step back. The first sentence alludes to the notion of extending one's life space; thus, it must be «will sensing» . While the second sentence is talking about a material object and its qualities, thus it is about «work logic» ."

[Soupman]

@squark: what i've noticed in XLI in particular is that frequently they won't make a move at all unless they see it as bringing in the hoped for results. Like ILIs would rather not act than act on something they have foreseen no returns on. Whereas some other type might go by the logic of doing something or at least trying to do something, since taking no action seems like just plain sitting there being lazy (even if the action is gonna be equal to null pretty soon in terms of results)

Do you think Te leads do this too?

It's to do with energy IPs are measured, they don't expend more than is necessary. That is true of IJs too

[marooned]

I feel like IJs are more measured in energy expenditure than IPs. IPs are spurt people usually. They don't have the energy and kind of slowly start gathering it and use it all at once when it's there. They admire EPs who are the masters at "spurting." IJs like to be steady so they won't end up in these last minute spurt situations. They admire EJs who are always using a lot of energy but pretty much at the same rate in a more steady/measured way (at least if those EJs are strong in sensing). Ugh. This kind of thing is why it's impossible to make these distinctions.

The part about IPs is true of me anyway. I have EP-envy. EPs rock in how they use energy and I'd love to have as much energy as they do.

[Aramas]

http://en.socionicasys.org/teorija/d...ichkov/aspekty


"Thus, the information macroelement «objects» () is subdivided into two information elements: «work» () and «system»() (the symbols are now single-colored). We have given such names to these information elements because by using objects’ properties (their essence), we do some work (on objects or by means of them). Let us take wood, for example. This material is soft enough (though not so soft as fluff), but it is softer than a metal. Therefore, we can tool it by some harder sharp metal instrument such as a knife, a saw, or an axe. Since wood doesn’t sink, we can build a raft out of it. Since wood burns, we can use it as fuel. Working with objects, a man creates technologies, methods, procedures, manufacture process.

In socionics, the information element «work» is also called «practical logic», «black logic» (according to the color of its symbol ).

It should be noted that, whenever we hear the word «work», it is not necessarily the context of the «work logic». When someone writes a program, serves clients, sings on the stage, or creates a book, he or she works as well, but this activity is nor a work on objects neither by means of them. Therefore, we should be attentive and remember that «work logic» relates only to objects and their properties."


About :
"We can consider not only physical but also psychological space. You’ve possibly heard the expression «life space». We can broaden, defend, enrich, make larger or smaller, or protect all these spaces. When you buy something for yourself, your home, or family, as well as earn money, you thereby are strengthening your life space."


"Another example of a multi-elemental word is «money». Let us compare two sentences:

Money is a means of enrichment.
Money is stamped paper notes of certain value.

In order to make analysis of information elements, make a step back. The first sentence alludes to the notion of extending one's life space; thus, it must be «will sensing» . While the second sentence is talking about a material object and its qualities, thus it is about «work logic» ."

I'm a bit confused. Do the System Socionics people think the macroelement "objects" deals only with physical objects? They don't provide any examples of non-physical or psychological objects.

Also, I usually think of "enrichment" as more commonly an Si word, if anything. It's not about enlarging space but adding a substance to another so that it's more valuable, or concentrating it to be more potent. For example, you can add nitrogen to soil to make it better for crop production. The soil is enriched.

Maybe there's something lost in translation from the Russian, but I don't think their definitions are right.

Also, they explicitly mention that there's a non-physical dimension for Se, but they don't really talk about that for Te in that quote.

Referring to the computer programming example, maybe they have never heard of object-oriented programming... Lol.

[Aramas]

I think the idea is you could construe those activities in terms of work logic, but that's not what those people engaged in those activities are likely to be doing. but yeah you're right an object can be anything, its simply the thing to which the subject is in a relationship with that is not the subject (or it even can be the subject as when the subject relates to itself or relates to the relating of itself to itself, which is essentially what psychology is)

also I think enrichment in this case means literally that which adds to riches, not the more Si sense which is like a qualitative kind of inner cultivation. you're right there's probably translation issues

So, certain activities have certain likely or probable perspectives people use to see them from? As in, different activities, even though they can be seen from the perspective of any IE, have a natural affinity for one or some IEs. If that's what you mean, I understand you.

And tbh, the only thing that really comes to mind when I think "enrichment" are worksheets from highschool that had that label at the top. My only thought was, "yeah this bullshit's pretty rich." The only other context I use the word in is when I think of uranium enrichment. Iran in the news and all that....