Thread: Te - What is it, how does it work? Need Help understanding static vs. dynamic.

1. Te - What is it, how does it work? Need Help understanding static vs. dynamic.

I am LII and am still having problms grasping exactly what Te is and how it works. I am not even sure exactly where / how to start asking questions. I have similar problem with Fe.

My problem is understanding dynamic information elements in general. I don't understand how an element can be dynamic and rational at the same time, don't understand how Te is using logic when things are not clearly defined, black or white definitions.

Is Te like attempting to use logic while not paying full attention to things, so bypassing things quickly? How does this work? How does this even "acheive results" and "be efficient" if not all the details are taken into consideration and things are not fully understood for exactly what they are?

How is Te logic?

I would find it very helpful if I could be given exact definitions explanations for this and plenty of good relatable examples.

Very important, how is Te experienced in consciousness? What is the experience of it?

What are the best words for describing it?

How true are my following statements regarding Te and dynamic information elements in general?

- Te is like having smooth transitions between things. But my question here is what are those things in and of themselves? How can you pay attention and not pay attention at the same time?

- Te is a lose of boundaries. But again, my question is if things don't have boundaries, then how do they exist/get noticed? How do you know what you're working with? How do you understand things through Te?

- Does Te require a time element to it to be able to wrok?

- Te and other dynamic elements are like not payign full attention to things.

- Te blends things together without understnanding their properties, the things they are built from.

I made a similar post about trying to get a handle on dynamic elements earlier today, link below.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...e-of-Te-and-Fe

Thanks for the Help

2. Dude, get to the point.

3. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Dude, get to the point.
Are you not able to see my point? Is this part of how Te works? Not able to go through things and collect what's relevant while discarding what isn't? Not able to break things down and give relevant answers to each of the pieces?

I'll try re writing this in a more easy to understand way later.

Here,s another post I made. Perhaps you might want to have a look at this?

4. Originally Posted by VorticalFlow
I am LII and am still having problms grasping exactly what Te is and how it works. I am not even sure exactly where / how to start asking questions. I have similar problem with Fe.

My problem is understanding dynamic information elements in general. I don't understand how an element can be dynamic and rational at the same time, don't understand how Te is using logic when things are not clearly defined, black or white definitions.
If you're trying to understand the IM elements starting from the dichotomies, you're gonna have a bad time. They just aren't that well-defined yet.

But Te is logic generally because it's about factual information.

[COLOR=#333333]Is Te like attempting to use logic while not paying full attention to things, so bypassing things quickly?
No. It may seem less detailed or careful than Ti though.

How is Te logic?

I would find it very helpful if I could be given exact definitions explanations for this and plenty of good relatable examples.
Logic is about impersonal things and facts are impersonal. If you want more of a detailed theoretical explanation, try here: https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com...mation-Domains

Very important, how is Te experienced in consciousness? What is the experience of it?

What are the best words for describing it?
I suppose it's experienced as a focus on work and productivity and doing things in an efficient and effective manner.

How true are my following statements regarding Te and dynamic information elements in general?

- Te is like having smooth transitions between things. But my question here is what are those things in and of themselves?

Yeah, good question. This is one reason why the abstract definitions aren't clear.

How can you pay attention and not pay attention at the same time?
You can pay attention to one aspect and ignore another. (What is the relevance though?)

- Te is a lose of boundaries. But again, my question is if things don't have boundaries, then how do they exist/get noticed? How do you know what you're working with? How do you understand things through Te?
Where did you get "Te is a lose of boundaries" from?

- Does Te require a time element to it to be able to wrok?
Accuracy doesn't necessarily depend on time but yes, you could say that Te is very much temporal in how it deals with changing information and observable phenomena (which are constantly fluctuating). Plus any IM element naturally "works" in time as a cognitive process.

- Te and other dynamic elements are like not payign full attention to things.
Um, no.

- Te blends things together without understnanding their properties, the things they are built from.
Like what?

5. Originally Posted by VorticalFlow
Are you not able to see my point? Is this part of how Te works? Not able to go through things and collect what's relevant while discarding what isn't? Not able to break things down and give relevant answers to each of the pieces?

I'll try re writing this in a more easy to understand way later.

Here,s another post I made. Perhaps you might want to have a look at this?

I was demonstrating Te in the face of Ti.

6. To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.

7. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.
I experience this a lot at work. My boss typically is interested in a line of thought insofar as we can make use of it. I spit out lines of justification that work with what we've said in the past and usually he is aware of the need to maintain that system but we are always adding thin caveats to justify accepting anomalies into the system.

I have met people who just somehow decide something and then settle on it very quickly and that always bothers me because I want to make sure it won't fuck something else up first. Sometimes that "gap" has inconsequential risks associated with it, sometimes it's symptomatic of a blind spot that will and has caused significant problems.

I have no idea what this means in regard to Ti/Te but I wanted to throw it out there since it seems related.

8. @ouronis, the thing to do is to keep track of how many times those initial guesses of those people turned out to be right. This will give you a way to assess how much you can count on their guesses in the future.

When I did this, about 20 years ago, I was at about 40%. But I know an LIE who is closer to 80%. Only one, though.

9. Te - I want to know what works.

Ti - I need to know everything about it from every single possible angle and read every published written book about it so that I can come to understand with absolute certainty and accuracy how it works.

Te- Get a calculator.

Te - I like to read to learn (read know how to do things)

Ti- E = mc2

Te - what does E = mc2 do?

Ti- What is the diameter of the earth?

Ti- I want to study physics so I can understand the world.

Te- I want to study business so I can make money.

Ti -wants to consume knowledge

Te- wants to apply knowledge

10. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.
I like the Gordian knot as an example but it's more like TeSe vs. Ti (or SEE vs LII if you will). Similarly "get to the point" is a kind of impatient Se response, typically to Ne information.

Originally Posted by ouronis
I experience this a lot at work. My boss typically is interested in a line of thought insofar as we can make use of it. I spit out lines of justification that work with what we've said in the past and usually he is aware of the need to maintain that system but we are always adding thin caveats to justify accepting anomalies into the system.

I have met people who just somehow decide something and then settle on it very quickly and that always bothers me because I want to make sure it won't fuck something else up first. Sometimes that "gap" has inconsequential risks associated with it, sometimes it's symptomatic of a blind spot that will and has caused significant problems.

I have no idea what this means in regard to Ti/Te but I wanted to throw it out there since it seems related.
You seem to be focusing on the Se part and how it means having a lack of Ni.

11. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
I was demonstrating Te in the face of Ti.
LOL

I felt like I was the ONLY person that got your joke.

Oh sorry, it wasn't a joke, it was Te

12. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.
This is a good definition.

Te people care about the bottom line, what works, they have no time to discuss cute-sy theoretical stuff

This can make them excellent CEOs and supervisors, but sometimes at a cost of human FEELS. This is where the INFj leaps into the rescue and tells them "its all good bro!!" and everyone walks away happy

13. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.
That's a nice description as it does not limit Te to "making money" stuff. What would you say about a Te ego moving in a feeling environment and needing empathy and social grace as skills to get by? Beside "run" I mean.

14. Originally Posted by wonderland
That's a nice description as it does not limit Te to "making money" stuff. What would you say about a Te ego moving in a feeling environment and needing empathy and social grace as skills to get by? Beside "run" I mean.
Lol. “Run”. At first, your suggestion of being in a feeling environment scared me silly. However....
@wonderland, we all have some of each of the functions, so we’re not entirely helpless. But as thinking-doms, we just appear much less capable to feeling-doms, like a young kid would appear to an adult.

I once asked an artistically talented 19-year old ESI to look at my guest bedroom and make suggestions on how it could be redecorated to make guests feel more welcome. (I had seen her own bedroom when she was showing me examples of her artwork, and it was the kind of place that just exuded beauty and comfort.) I explained that I wasn’t really capable of designing comfortable spaces, because I don’t have any feelings.
She (a feeling dom) replied that everyone has feelings, but not everyone shows them.
To me, her words seemed to be written in the air in flaming letters. What? I have feelings? To this feeling moron, her statement seemed so wise.
But notice: To her, this was just an offhand remark, expressed with utter confidence, as if she’d spent a lot of time already thinking about it.
Feeling-wise, she was the adult with power and control and I was the child.

However, this was an in-Quadra interaction, where I got automatic support. I’ve been in Alpha-dominated feeling environments, and there, instead of getting automatic support, I was made to feel completely wrong in every way.

So you just have to be aware of what kind of ethical and feeling environment you are in.
And if you need empathy and social grace to get by, you need a feeling-dom at your side as an advisor. Otherwise, you are going to be a monkey trying to work on a jet engine.

15. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
Lol. “Run”. At first, your suggestion of being in a feeling environment scared me silly. However....
@wonderland, we all have some of each of the functions, so we’re not entirely helpless. But as thinking-doms, we just appear much less capable to feeling-doms, like a young kid would appear to an adult.

I once asked an artistically talented 19-year old ESI to look at my guest bedroom and make suggestions on how it could be redecorated to make guests feel more welcome. (I had seen her own bedroom when she was showing me examples of her artwork, and it was the kind of place that just exuded beauty and comfort.) I explained that I wasn’t really capable of designing comfortable spaces, because I don’t have any feelings.
She (a feeling dom) replied that everyone has feelings, but not everyone shows them.
To me, her words seemed to be written in the air in flaming letters. What? I have feelings? To this feeling moron, her statement seemed so wise.
But notice: To her, this was just an offhand remark, expressed with utter confidence, as if she’d spent a lot of time already thinking about it.
Feeling-wise, she was the adult with power and control and I was the child.

However, this was an in-Quadra interaction, where I got automatic support. I’ve been in Alpha-dominated feeling environments, and there, instead of getting automatic support, I was made to feel completely wrong in every way.

So you just have to be aware of what kind of ethical and feeling environment you are in.
And if you need empathy and social grace to get by, you need a feeling-dom at your side as an advisor. Otherwise, you are going to be a monkey trying to work on a jet engine.
I thought Role Fe comes out at this point.

16. Originally Posted by Lord Pixel
I thought Role Fe comes out at this point.
Well, yeah, it does. And I can do role Fe pretty well for a short time. (But long enough for an LSI to mistake me for her dual - - -) When I'm moving through a crowd of strangers, I'm looking friendly, open, focused, optimistic, like someone who hasn't a care in the world, who has it together and wants to meet you. That's not easy to maintain.

Privately, I'm more like the guy in Joni Mitchell's song "Raised on Robbery":

He was sitting in the lounge of the Empire Hotel
He was drinking for diversion
He was thinking for himself
A little money riding on the Maple Leafs....

But if I were immersed in a feeling or an ethical environment for any length of time, it would be tough for me. The role Fe is mostly to disarm my audience until I can wrap them up in my nefarious plans, which are entirely Te/Ni and mostly bereft of emotion.

17. Te assigns meaning to reality. Like what something is and what it does etc. Sensing seems more "primitive", it just experiences. I see this a lot at work with Te people (often LSE). For them reality has labels and meaning. For me reality is just impressions, and I sometimes don't even understand what I see right in front of me. (When I take in things in my natural state of mind)

This sounds strange, but in real life / real time situations at work the contrasts between different functional processing can be amazingly clear.

18. Originally Posted by Tallmo
Te assigns meaning to reality. Like what something is and what it does etc. Sensing seems more "primitive", it just experiences. I see this a lot at work with Te people (often LSE). For them reality has labels and meaning. For me reality is just impressions, and I sometimes don't even understand what I see right in front of me. (When I take in things in my natural state of mind)

This sounds strange, but in real life / real time situations at work the contrasts between different functional processing can be amazingly clear.
I would say that Te NAMES parts of reality, and by doing so, separates them from each other and from the self.

19. To regurgitate my techie view:

Socionics is nothing more than a classification system; all components of behaviour are assigned to one of the eight tags but not without controversy. There are no dynamic bins and there should be no bin labeled dynamic because all information processing is dynamic. Te-classification comprises observations of a closed-loop system that rationalizes in realtime -as things happen, which is more analog-like. When Te-processes are on, input is also on and the processes with the highest priority lead the loop. Ti-processes are not in realtime but operate on data that has been collected previously, which is more discrete-like. When Ti-processes are on, input is off, and vice versa (a sort of daisy-chain controlled by the set of processes with the highest priority). Type should be all about process and information flow - not outcomes.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tterns-by-I-O?

a.k.a. I/O

20. Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
To regurgitate my techie view:

Socionics is nothing more than a classification system; all components of behaviour are assigned to one of the eight tags but not without controversy. There are no dynamic bins and there should be no bin labeled dynamic because all information processing is dynamic. Te-classification comprises observations of a closed-loop system that rationalizes in realtime -as things happen, which is more analog-like. When Te-processes are on, input is also on and the processes with the highest priority lead the loop. Ti-processes are not in realtime but operate on data that has been collected previously, which is more discrete-like. When Ti-processes are on, input is off, and vice versa (a sort of daisy-chain controlled by the set of processes with the highest priority). Type should be all about process and information flow - not outcomes.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tterns-by-I-O?

a.k.a. I/O
Well. There are obviously two approaches, one is correlational, and the other is causational, or explanatory. The explanatory approach is obviously superior to correlational approach, but the only problem is that finding causations or explanations is very difficult.

Making correlations can't explain the reason why. It's not much use correlating behavior X with a certain region of the brain, unless you're a brain surgeon or something who is physically messing with the brain. In the same way, saying behavior X is correlated with Fe isn't much help, and the only "solution" that you can give is that you need the dual function Ti or something. But that also doesn't explain exactly how Ti helps Fe.

So weaknesses are revealed when you are asked to explain something, and if you can't explain it, then you don't know if the correlation is valid or not. It could be caused by something else, or you could be missing a whole bunch of other important information.

Or the only other logical conclusion that you can make is that a Fe person will ALWAYS act in a certain way. But that is refuted by the fact that the human brain is plastic, behavior is malleable, and humans seemingly are capable of making a choice. The real cause of the vast majority of social human behavior is likely rooted in one's cognition. And the innate property of the human brain can't possibly be the cause of something, because you'd need the environment in order to give virtually any kind of expression. So our cognition is likely the result of the brain PLUS the environment.

21. Originally Posted by Singu
...........Or the only other logical conclusion that you can make is that a Fe person will ALWAYS act in a certain way. But that is refuted by the fact that the human brain is plastic, behavior is malleable, and humans seemingly are capable of making a choice. The real cause of the vast majority of social human behavior is likely rooted in one's cognition. And the innate property of the human brain can't possibly be the cause of something, because you'd need the environment in order to give virtually any kind of expression. So our cognition is likely the result of the brain PLUS the environment.
The brain may be plastic but cognition and ego needs structure - a stable kernel. Observable behaviour may be alterable but information processing structure is more likely not, and most of who we are resides in software below the surface. Brain functioning is irrelevant to Socionics like computer algorithms are to word processing. Information processing certainly does exist so that we can operate in and on the environment; therefore, environment does greatly affect who we become but not so much how we process. I agree that finding causation is difficult; we still don't really know what gravity is but we're not stuck at observing different varieties of apples falling from trees.......

a.k.a. I/O

22. Originally Posted by VorticalFlow
I am LII and am still having problms grasping exactly what Te is and how it works. I am not even sure exactly where / how to start asking questions. I have similar problem with Fe.

My problem is understanding dynamic information elements in general. I don't understand how an element can be dynamic and rational at the same time, don't understand how Te is using logic when things are not clearly defined, black or white definitions.
The world of things is called dynamic, because it is in constant state of changes. Everything is an evolving situation. The Te is dynamic, because the sitations of actions is always changing to adapt to the new reality. So, you are building a house, Te is refered to as dynamic in this sense, because the building of that house is a changing evolving situation. Te is taking the pieces of information: where to buy the lumber material - well the BEST place is at Home Hardware, because they have 10% of 2x4s; how to get the roof on - well on Monday, thursday, friday the roofing contractors can't make it, so it will have to be on the other days...

And so on.

Is Te like attempting to use logic while not paying full attention to things, so bypassing things quickly? How does this work? How does this even "acheive results" and "be efficient" if not all the details are taken into consideration and things are not fully understood for exactly what they are?
Because you don't really need to understand the principles of things in order to do them, unless that is your job to know the principles, in an effort to do the best version of that job possible. W

How is Te logic?
Do this, that results. A=B Its actually cave man logic, not in the sense that it is primitive, but in the sense that its sequentialized thinking through reality in order to achieve an outcome, usually best use of time. Which is why efficiency is associated with Te.

Very important, how is Te experienced in consciousness? What is the experience of it?
Simply put: it is the capacity for a human being to experience the *alert, problem solving-mind* The alert problem solving mind is the prominent modality in the current Western Civilization.

What are the best words for describing it?
Refer to the wiki.

How true are my following statements regarding Te and dynamic information elements in general?

- Te is like having smooth transitions between things.

Yes, it can be. Si and Ni "flow" gives this different characters.

But my question here is what are those things in and of themselves?
Have you ever tried to do something and looked up a youtube video to show you how? That youtube video is a kind of Te, as well as the act of youlooking up the video, is Te in and of itself. You wanted a way to do a thing and in order to do that the fastest way, you went and watched a how to video. Logic of your actions. Need to do a thing + watch a how to video + doing it = getting it done.

How can you pay attention and not pay attention at the same time?

Are you referring to the ignoring Ti while still doing Te? Its all about dimensionally. When a IE is 4d dimensional, it means that individual has being preforming that IE since childhood. Do something that long and you don't really need to consciously pay attention to it with some self conscious effort, it means its just effortless.

With Te, maybe they have done something a thousand times by now and they have the whole process licked, there is no longer any need to deeply understand the underlying principles of how to do said thing, or why to do it, or how this effects that.

- Te is a lose of boundaries. But again, my question is if things don't have boundaries, then how do they exist/get noticed? How do you know what you're working with? How do you understand things through Te?
Not sure what you mean.

- Does Te require a time element to it to be able to wrok?
Yes. All things in reality require a time element.

- Te and other dynamic elements are like not payign full attention to things.
The opposite. Te is fully paying attention to things. Might be, though, that they are on auto pilot. See what I said about childhood onwards. Se is static, because its looking at things as discreet objects, even though they are in flux, it still seems them as separate from each other. Ne is also static, because it is looking at discreet objects of another kind, even though they might be in flux, it still seems them as snap shots. Te is dynamic, because events are moving from one to another, things to do are moving from one to another. First this, then that, type of perception.

- Te blends things together without understnanding their properties, the things they are built from.
Very possible this could happen. They might piece together tons of information: specifications, real world applications, methods, ect, science, how I saw my Grandpa do it, how my Daddy done' taught me, how I did it last year, this year..And so on.

You have to step away from thinking of Te as logical in a debating Socrates sense. It's not intellectual logic, although it can be, IF that is the application the user is doing at the time. Its more simple.

Thanks for the Help
No problem.

23. @Finaplex Thanks! thats one of the most helpful responses I've received, and thanks for everyone else for helping also.

24. Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
The brain may be plastic but cognition and ego needs structure - a stable kernel. Observable behaviour may be alterable but information processing structure is more likely not, and most of who we are resides in software below the surface. Brain functioning is irrelevant to Socionics like computer algorithms are to word processing. Information processing certainly does exist so that we can operate in and on the environment; therefore, environment does greatly affect who we become but not so much how we process. I agree that finding causation is difficult; we still don't really know what gravity is but we're not stuck at observing different varieties of apples falling from trees.......

a.k.a. I/O
Well we're going to need answers to the question of "why?", because only explanations are capable of generating universal answers, while observations are only local information.

For example, we don't just observe a bird flying and say, "Only birds, or only something like birds are capable of flying". Only someone who was curious enough to find the answer to "Why do birds fly?" was capable of coming up with the theory of aerodynamics. We could correlate many traits of birds with flying, such as 1. It must have feathers. 2. It must be light and small 3. It must flap its wings... etc, in order to fly. And it is true that all of those things are included in the theory of aerodynamics of what can cause flight, but they're only a very small part of many other things that could fly, like the Boeing 747 that is made of steel, weighs 300 tons and does not flap its wings. So the theory of aerodynamics is a universal theory, because it's a theory that contains universal, abstract explanations to the questions of "why?", and not observations. It contains every possible things that can cause flight, even things that have never been observed or categorized. It also tells us what's not possible.

If there are observable differences among Ti vs. Te types, and it's true that there are differences, then... why? Why would they be different? Perhaps it is likely, like the theory of aerodynamics, that once some underlining theory has been found, the "source" of Ti and Te are going to be the same, but they're just slightly different expressions of it.

25. Originally Posted by Singu
.........If there are observable differences among Ti vs. Te types, and it's true that there are differences, then... why? Why would they be different? Perhaps it is likely, like the theory of aerodynamics, that once some underlining theory has been found, the "source" of Ti and Te are going to be the same, but they're just slightly different expressions of it.
Like I've said in other posts, we're simply observing T in each of the only two information processing configurations, which have differences in data flow that have profound effects on behaviour. Humans have basically the same brain structures, configurations and preferences; it's just that we have limited processing capacity so, early on, choices have to be made in order to build and maintain a stable ego.

a.k.a. I/O

26. Originally Posted by Singu
Well we're going to need answers to the question of "why?", because only explanations are capable of generating universal answers, while observations are only local information.

For example, we don't just observe a bird flying and say, "Only birds, or only something like birds are capable of flying". Only someone who was curious enough to find the answer to "Why do birds fly?" was capable of coming up with the theory of aerodynamics. We could correlate many traits of birds with flying, such as 1. It must have feathers. 2. It must be light and small 3. It must flap its wings... etc, in order to fly. And it is true that all of those things are included in the theory of aerodynamics of what can cause flight, but they're only a very small part of many other things that could fly, like the Boeing 747 that is made of steel, weighs 300 tons and does not flap its wings. So the theory of aerodynamics is a universal theory, because it's a theory that contains universal, abstract explanations to the questions of "why?", and not observations. It contains every possible things that can cause flight, even things that have never been observed or categorized. It also tells us what's not possible.

If there are observable differences among Ti vs. Te types, and it's true that there are differences, then... why? Why would they be different? Perhaps it is likely, like the theory of aerodynamics, that once some underlining theory has been found, the "source" of Ti and Te are going to be the same, but they're just slightly different expressions of it.
This post is Ti.

Underlying Universal Principles that explain the relation between variables of flight-> Ti.

I’ve said it before Ti serves Te.

Te would be: I’ll meet you at the Tarmac at 8:30 while there is time to unload the airplane from the hanger. It was fueled by Trimac on tuesday. We have been cleared for take off at 9:00 and according to the weather should be a smooth flight.

27. Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Like I've said in other posts, we're simply observing T in each of the only two information processing configurations, which have differences in data flow that have profound effects on behaviour. Humans have basically the same brain structures, configurations and preferences; it's just that we have limited processing capacity so, early on, choices have to be made in order to build and maintain a stable ego.

a.k.a. I/O
Do you think that you could analyze how the computer hardware works, by categorizing the entire library of softwares in existence? We can't look at its "source-code", let alone know what kind of programming languages it's programmed in. And we can only understand its code, because we have theories of programming languages, theories of mathematics, theories of logic, etc. that can make sense out of it.

So if we were to ever understand how the human mind works, then we'd need to understand the programming language, which will be psychology. And the theory of how the hardware works will be understood by neuroscience. And they're both going to be understood in completely different ways that will work from two separate theories.

The current observable human behavior is only a very small fraction of what the human mind is capable of. Just as the current entire library of softwares in existence is only a small fraction of what can potentially be programmed into a computer, which is unlimited.

We can't say that the entire category of softwares in existence is the totality of all possible softwares, or that we can "derive" the most basic foundation of all softwares, which the softwares are based on, from it. Because then obviously, completely new kind of softwares will be written in the future. We can't figure that out until we can understand what the "programming language" it's written in.

We can say that the human mind is the software. And our software is what has evolved over thousands of years within the human culture, because it was useful in some ways and it helped us survive. So if we were to make a theory of human behavior from current observations, then it's only going to be limited to behaviors of the specific culture. It can hardly be considered to be the most basic and the most fundamental building blocks of how the human mind works.

If the human brain evolved in a completely different, alien environment, then it will likely evolve in different ways. However, there could be things that are universal, if there are universal laws of how a society functions, how emotions work, etc.

28. Originally Posted by Singu
Do you think that you could analyze how the computer hardware works, by categorizing the entire library of softwares in existence?......... And they're both going to be understood in completely different ways that will work from two separate theories.........a very small fraction of what the human mind is capable of.........
I doubt it because there are characteristics of computer hardware that don't show up in any software so it's up to neuroscience; one would not be able to distinguish one field-effect transistor from another. Although brain functioning is largely irrelevant to information processing at a temperament/type level, actual processing (information flow) structures do need to be defined at the least grosso modo rather than working from the current classification formats.

Even the most intelligent human brains aren't limitless; there are physical constraints such as power delivery and heat dissipation, so choices have to be made about how information is processed and what aspects of information is processed so that the brain can cope. Although humans are capable of great things, words like limitless means that their egos are talking.......

a.k.a. I/O

29. Te is a function of fixation on things that are important. How are they important? They are focal points in the community and they also have capacity. Te is the border between Ni-fields transforming into Si fields - conceptual abstraction turning into concrete works.

For Ej Te is something that requires that you have to take action, the fear of lost opportunity, the fear of missing out, the feeling of misery and miserliness.
When Bill Gates writes " We focus on only a few issues because we think that’s the best way to have great impact, and we focus on these issues in particular because we think they are the biggest barriers that prevent people from making the most of their lives." He is describing Te.

For Ip Te is greed, being enchanted by something so great you want to throw yourself at it. The opportunity found, the moment when you're strong while others are weak.
When Buffett says "only when the tide goes out do you discover who has been swimming naked"

He is describing his understanding of Te.

30. @Smilex Ejs and Ips are closed-loop thinkers; their filters narrow down data input (focus) so that rationalization processes can widen - hence, your first sentence is somewhat correct. One process has to be limited in order to allow another to run concurrently. Focus, which is essentially selective filtering, is important because the brain has limited processing capacity. However, I would propose that Ips are better at focus though they may often be less productive.....

a.k.a. I/O

31. Originally Posted by Smilex
Te is a function of fixation on things that are important. How are they important? They are focal points in the community and they also have capacity. Te is the border between Ni-fields transforming into Si fields - conceptual abstraction turning into concrete works.

For Ej Te is something that requires that you have to take action, the fear of lost opportunity, the fear of missing out, the feeling of misery and miserliness.
When Bill Gates writes " We focus on only a few issues because we think that’s the best way to have great impact, and we focus on these issues in particular because we think they are the biggest barriers that prevent people from making the most of their lives." He is describing Te.

For Ip Te is greed, being enchanted by something so great you want to throw yourself at it. The opportunity found, the moment when you're strong while others are weak.
When Buffett says "only when the tide goes out do you discover who has been swimming naked"

He is describing his understanding of Te.
That quotation by Bill Gates perfectly sums up a well-directed life.

A lot of supposedly avaricious rich business owners are said to have "converted" or "switched" to philanthropy in their old age. I assert that they never changed. They were always interested in making the best of a system, whether that system was a steel mill, personal computing, or the education and health of the general population.

32. Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
@Smilex Ejs and Ips are closed-loop thinkers; their filters narrow down data input (focus) so that rationalization processes can widen - hence, your first sentence is somewhat correct. One process has to be limited in order to allow another to run concurrently. Focus, which is essentially selective filtering, is important because the brain has limited processing capacity. However, I would propose that Ips are better at focus though they may often be less productive.....

a.k.a. I/O
It would be more correct to say that EJs and IPs are preferentially closed-loop thinkers.
THe filter thing... for IPs and EJs every function works as the mirror opposite of how it works for the other so lumping these temperaments together is usually a mistake. Great care should be taken when discussing them as a combination.
As for focus, it all depends on how you define focus. Focus is a necessity for productiveness and if we take that into consideration it seems like Ejs are more focused than Ips. But it's all how you define it.

Here's a description by a Fi type about how they experienced their Ej friends' extrovert function:

Terry looked at me. He said: “Do not underestimate this anger. This anger was the engine that powered Good Omens.” I thought of the driven way that Terry wrote, and of the way that he drove the rest of us with him, and I knew that he was right.
There is a fury to Terry Pratchett’s writing: it’s the fury that was the engine that powered Discworld. It’s also the anger at the headmaster who would decide that six-year-old Terry Pratchett would never be smart enough for the 11-plus; anger at pompous critics, and at those who think serious is the opposite of funny; anger at his early American publishers who could not bring his books out successfully.
The anger is always there, an engine that drives. By the time Terry learned he had a rare, early onset form of Alzheimer’s, the targets of his fury changed: he was angry with his brain and his genetics and, more than these, furious at a country that would not permit him (or others in a similarly intolerable situation) to choose the manner and the time of their passing.
And that anger, it seems to me, is about Terry’s underlying sense of what is fair and what is not. It is that sense of fairness that underlies Terry’s work and his writing, and it’s what drove him from school to journalism to the press office of the SouthWestern Electricity Board to the position of being one of the best-loved and bestselling writers in the world.
It’s the same sense of fairness that means that, sometimes in the cracks, while writing about other things, he takes time to punctiliously acknowledge his influences – Alan Coren, for example, who pioneered so many of the techniques of short humour that Terry and I have filched over the years; or the glorious, overstuffed, heady thing that is Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and its compiler, the Rev E Cobham Brewer, that most serendipitious of authors. Terry once wrote an introduction to Brewer’s and it made me smile – we would call each other up in delight whenever we discovered a book by Brewer we had not seen before (“’Ere!’ Have you already got a copy of Brewer’s A Dictionary of Miracles: Imitative, Realistic and Dogmatic?”)
Terry’s authorial voice is always Terry’s: genial, informed, sensible, drily amused. I suppose that, if you look quickly and are not paying attention, you might, perhaps, mistake it for jolly. But beneath any jollity there is a foundation of fury. Terry Pratchett is not one to go gentle into any night, good or otherwise.
He will rage, as he leaves, against so many things: stupidity, injustice, human foolishness and shortsightedness, not just the dying of the light. And, hand in hand with the anger, like an angel and a demon walking into the sunset, there is love: for human beings, in all our fallibility; for treasured objects; for stories; and ultimately and in all things, love for human dignity.
Or to put it another way, anger is the engine that drives him, but it is the greatness of spirit that deploys that anger on the side of the angels, or better yet for all of us, the orangutans.
Terry Pratchett is not a jolly old elf at all. Not even close. He’s so much more than that. As Terry walks into the darkness much too soon, I find myself raging too: at the injustice that deprives us of – what? Another 20 or 30 books? Another shelf-full of ideas and glorious phrases and old friends and new, of stories in which people do what they really do best, which is use their heads to get themselves out of the trouble they got into by not thinking? Another book or two of journalism and agitprop? But truly, the loss of these things does not anger me as it should. It saddens me, but I, who have seen some of them being built close-up, understand that any Terry Pratchett book is a small miracle, and we already have more than might be reasonable, and it does not behoove any of us to be greedy.

33. Here's another life story about the discovery of Te: (Again, the EJ version)

As a high-school student in Ottawa, Canada, O'Leary took a job at Magoo's Ice Cream Parlour at a mall where girls from his class would hang out. It wasn't a cool job by any means, but he hoped it could get him a chance to work his magic.
The first day went by easily enough, but the next day didn't end so smoothly.
"It was the end of the day of my second day of work, and the woman who owned the ice cream parlor said to me, 'Listen, before you go, scrape all the gum up between the tiles,'" O'Leary tells Business Insider.
He saw two problems with that:

1. It was a Mexican tile floor, the kind that would require some tough maneuvering on his hands and knees.
2. He'd have to do that in front of the cute girl who worked at the shoe store across from him, risking humiliation among her and her friends.
"I said, 'No, I'm not going to do that. You hired me to be an ice cream scooper,'" O'Leary recalls. "She said, 'I hired you for whatever I want. You work for me. Scrape the gum or you're fired.' And I said, 'I'm not doing it,' and so she fired me."
He says he didn't really understand the full weight of what it meant to be fired. He was shocked and embarrassed.

"I realized then that when you work for somebody else, you're basically their slave," he says. "From that day on I swore I'd never work for anyone else. That was the beginning of my journey."
O'Leary writes on LinkedIn that he got home with "tears of hot rage stinging my cheeks." He told his stepfather that he'd never work for anyone again, to which his stepdad replied, "Even if you're self-employed, you'll be serving someone," explaining that business owners have obligations to their customers and shareholders.
O'Leary writes that his stepfather's lesson became clear years later, but he was convinced that he would one day become an entrepreneur

34. @Smilex, that's a great story. It mirrors my own experience, including my first job as a page (a book reshelver) in a library, then being asked to sweep the floors in front of my female classmates who studied in the public library after school, and the humiliation I felt. I quit shortly after that.

It is absolutely true that working for yourself means having many bosses. The key difference between being an employee and an entrepreneur is that an entrepreneur, having many bosses, can afford to quit working for the bosses who are assholes. You'd be amazed at what a difference this makes.

Of course, this level of business is still only about halfway up the hierarchy of enlightenment. A higher level is to engage in work which enables the greatest number of people (not just your customers) to lead better lives.

35. And here's a few IP quotes on Te...

“Don’t wait for the perfect time, you will wait forever. Always take advantage of the time that you’re given and make it perfect.” Daymond John
“We all want the freedom to make our own decisions.” Daymond John
“The easiest thing to sell is the truth.” Daymond John
You are born a chooser.” Daymond John
“I believe the last thing I read at night will likely manifest when I’m sleeping. You become what you think about the most.” Daymond John
“I do today what people won’t so I achieve tomorrow what other people can’t.” Daymond John
“Everyone has an idea, but it’s taking those first steps toward turning that idea into a reality that are always the toughest.” Daymond John
“When looking at trends I always ask myself basic and timeless questions about business, and the one I seem to always come back to is, how is this different than anything else in the marketplace?” Daymond John

36. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
@Smilex, that's a great story. It mirrors my own experience, including my first job in a library, then being asked to sweep the floors in front of my female classmates who studied in the public library after school, and the humiliation I felt. I quit shortly after that.

It is absolutely true that working for yourself means having many bosses. The key difference between being an employee and an entrepreneur is that an entrepreneur, having many bosses, can afford to quit working for the bosses who are assholes. You'd be amazed at what a difference this makes.
Amen.

37. Originally Posted by Adam Strange
That quotation by Bill Gates perfectly sums up a well-directed life.

A lot of supposedly avaricious rich business owners are said to have "converted" or "switched" to philanthropy in their old age. I assert that they never changed. They were always interested in making the best of a system, whether that system was a steel mill, personal computing, or the education and health of the general population.

I feel that adding to the previous would not be a bad thing.
For the initiator of the thread I suspect that the confusing thing about Te is how can an object be both abstract and concrete at the same time. Many concepts have immediate practical dimensions. Words like doctor, husband, contract, criminal, entrance, sick leave, christmas tradition and so on are abstract in their origin but define and lead to practical actions and events. They are best understood as Te objects. But any abstract Ne concept can be taken and turned into a Te object though sometimes this leads to absurdity. Let's consider something that is a well known concept though it doesn't exist, like telepathy. Now Te thinking would be.... how to turn that into practical consequences... maybe by trademarking it, or creating a stage magic illusion around it, or by redefining it as reading brain waves with machinery and using those brain waves to guide a program that writes sms messages. Then you can talk about this concept on both the levels of ideas and how it applies and now you're in Te territory.

ALso, successful Te concepts tend to turn into Se concepts. The first successful light bulb was a symbol as much as a practical tool, now it's just a light bulb.

Fe works the opposite... by turning a condom or a rifle or stepping into a bus with different coloured people into a symbol.

Any person who simultaneously understands both the abstract and the concrete dimensions of an object is likely high Te or high Fe. But the point of view is of course the opposite.

The previous posts focus on the 'absolute' Te, which unites the aspects of -and + or abstract and concrete Te. For many individuals classified as Te types the Te things they handle are only concrete or abstract because they're not actually very focused on Te.

For a high Ni gamma, Te is mostly theoretical, understood to exist by necessity but not really important. This is how Adam describes the rich investor's connection with money. Te is just the eventual outcome of conduct, just something that accumulates. On the other hand a full on balanced gamma considers the Te as important though still just an output factor. For a balanced delta, Te is usually the most important objects that define their practical life, like a uniform, tool, itinerary, debt, loyalty or whatever. For a high Si- delta Te is whatever is the available materials for their practical abilities, not really important because the focus is on their high personal skill to do anything with anything.

And so for some Te is a good thing, for some it's bad. For some it's an abstraction, for some a concrete item. But without a mental structure that is built around Te you can't really appreciate it in its fullness because ultimately it's defined by Ni and Si.

38. Originally Posted by Smilex
.........for IPs and EJs every function works as the mirror opposite of how it works for the other so lumping these temperaments together is usually a mistake.......Focus is a necessity for productiveness and if we take that into consideration it seems like Ejs are more focused than Ips..........
Without quoting someone, why do you think 'functions' are (have to be?) opposite rather than different configurations and process priorities? You seem to talk of processes as if they're defined by their results even when input is undefined and infinitely variable.
Ips do have similar configurations to Ejs but different priorities; their focus is skill honing, surveillance and defense. Your reason for focus seems rather limited unlike the dictionary.....

a.k.a. I/O

39. Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Without quoting someone, why do you think 'functions' are (have to be?) opposite rather than different configurations and process priorities? You seem to talk of processes as if they're defined by their results even when input is undefined and infinitely variable.
Ips do have similar configurations to Ejs but different priorities; their focus is skill honing, surveillance and defense. Your reason for focus seems rather limited unlike the dictionary.....

a.k.a. I/O
Ips and Ejs do not have similar configurations any more than Ejs and Ijs do. You need to start again.

40. Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
I doubt it because there are characteristics of computer hardware that don't show up in any software so it's up to neuroscience; one would not be able to distinguish one field-effect transistor from another. Although brain functioning is largely irrelevant to information processing at a temperament/type level, actual processing (information flow) structures do need to be defined at the least grosso modo rather than working from the current classification formats.
Well on classification, an example of a classification is something like say, AIDS, which is a classification of the observational symptoms, while HIV is the cause. HIV if left untreated, will inevitably lead to AIDS.

But if we don't know what causes AIDS, then all we can do is make blind correlations, and we can't really do anything about it other than be mystified by this mysterious ailment. And there are many many things that could be correlated with AIDS patients, even if those correlations may not have anything to do with each other. Only by knowing the causation that HIV will lead to AIDS, that we can do something about it.

A lot of the stuff, if not everything in Socionics is about making correlations between classifications.

Some people may confuse the 8 functions and Model A as the cause, but it's not, they're classifications. It's like saying AIDS is the cause of AIDS. It's like analyzing the lack of immune system in a patient and saying "This is AIDS! AIDS is real!". Well... yes! But why? What causes it?

Anyway, I'm sure by keep asking the question "Why?", we will lead to more general theories about why should something be this and not that. In order to know that HIV causes AIDS, we'll need an entire theory of biology to explain it. No such theory that can explain cognitive causality exist in psychology yet. It's difficult to explain why should X -> entrepreneur. That's why so many people remain mystified and not enlightened.

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck
Even the most intelligent human brains aren't limitless; there are physical constraints such as power delivery and heat dissipation, so choices have to be made about how information is processed and what aspects of information is processed so that the brain can cope. Although humans are capable of great things, words like limitless means that their egos are talking.......

a.k.a. I/O
What I mean by "limitless" is that, just as you can program virtually any kind of program into a computer, the human mind is capable of virtually any kind of cognition, whether it's flights of fancy, or a scientific theory that can accurately describe reality to a certain extent. There is no limit to what the combination of logic can produce, as that is infinite.

There are limits to how much information that can be processed, but that can be outsourced or offloaded to something else, like pen and paper or a computer.

Posting Permissions

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