Does Te Value Work & Productivity for Its Own Sake?

[Aramas]

@Aramas I'll try to answer your questions from my own pov. However let me say right off the bat is about profit (financial or other) so there is no "work for it's own sake".



No, like I said Te is about profit. If it seems to me there is nothing to be gained from it I won't even bother.



I certainly don't. The goal doesn't have to be something very big or very long term - it can be mowing the lawn - but in this case the point isn't to mow the lawn for it's own sake.



I think only Mr. Pheeny from the show Boy Meets World thinks work has inherent moral value, lol.



Not necessarily.



Not necessarily. But being productive and being hardworking are two different things. You can be hardworking without being productive. You can't be productive without being hardworking, or at least, working, so they are connected but not the same. Anyways, I think ego types are naturally more aware of productivity than others, which doesn't mean that everyone who is productive is ego, or that every ego is productive, at least not at all times of their life.



I think it is important to ask too, if there is such misunderstanding of what is due to descriptions (which are usually written by ego types). I think @Bertrand might be right for the most part, though in terms of how it manifests itself is about profit, imo. Again, not necessarily financial, it's more about like asking "what's in it for me/what am I getting out of this" with respect to every action I undertake. It's not even really calculation, it's like I automatically know what's in it for me and what isn't. It's hard to explain. But yeah, in terms of the cogntive process can be explained in terms of valuing logic which is more objective (concerned with facts rather than logic for it's own sake), but in terms of how it is experienced, for me, is more like an awareness of "what's in it for me" and if the answer is "nothing" then my answer is "why do it"? Keep in mind this is about work and actions undertaken, not about people, relations with people just kinda happen and there not everything is explainable through logic, though I tend to take on the same attitude of what's in it for me which is why I don't waste my time on fruitless relationships where I'm always fighting with the other person.



See above; it's about "profit".



I can only answer for myself. Individual type differences will play a role, but not in so much as the four ego types all value (since this is what they have in common, differnces will be between irrational functions valued and strengths).



Probably SLI.



While I'm fairly confident is about profit and "what am I getting out of this", and this is true for all types, I can't answer for others. Not sure the descriptions need change. Maybe some of them do, idk.

I would also like to point out that I am against using people to get something out of them. While it is fairly pointless to continue relations that damage you, I don't build relations on the basis of using the other person towards some end. I think this is where actually complements .

But doesn't everyone ask themselves what's in it for them? Human beings are innately self-interested -- at least to some degree. The economic ideology of capitalism magnifies and reinforces this instinct. Capitalism wouldn't have been successful (at least for a time) without the assessment of self-interest being accurate. The entire process of human survival from prehistory to today is the partial history of self-interest. People express this self-interest in different ways, so I think what concrete behaviors count as self-interest can be confusing. There's a saying that "altruism is selfish" because the altruistic acts of a person fulfill that person's selfish need to be altruistic. So it's hard, imo, to chalk up self-interest as being the domain of a single psychological function. It's just too broad and fundamental an aspect of human character for that. It would be like ascribing hunger to Si or Se. But we all have to eat, and if we didn't, we would die. Same thing goes for self-interest and "what's in it for me:" any human alive today is always asking himself that question, even if only unconsciously. Their ancestors wouldn't have survived otherwise.

[Bertrand]

I actually think the idea that humans are innately self interested when spun out to a philosophy or theory is Ti. it sort of defines altruism out of existence. I think anyone can believe this, but I think Te types can genuinely believe altruism is possible. "altruism is selfish" sounds like something originating in the mind of an ILE, almost the antithesis of LIE. LIE is probably more "selfish is selfish and altriusm is altriusm, and I'm just looking to make my way in the world; I can be either selfish or altrusitic" , and none of that presents a kind of problem, its when you try to make it all static and set the definitions in opposition, that it becomes a kind of paradox. conflating efficiency with simply not being counter productive is the second thing. theres still a form of positive Te which is to be better or best, whereas -Te is simply not contradicting yourself or otherwise passing the threshold whereby a thing becomes pure waste. saying humans innately seek to not self destruct and thus have built in self interest is a form of setting the "avoidance of catastrophic failure" as the watermark for all improvement making all activity an exercise in self improvement, or selfishness, as it were, which is very much non Te valuing. a part of Te valuing is I would say not compressing it like that. to find the meanings in the shades of Te and so forth, and not live, when searching for a partner for example, like "we're all self interested" (because they're actually attracted to selflessness, even if in cynical moments they might say its all cognizable as self interest); this is precisely how people can use the same words to mean different things. its actually why LSI and LIE are mirage and this is a good example of mirage. they would probably both agree with that statement, but the psychological outlook is almost nevertheless entirely different. Te (in people like EII) would say that feature of humanity is what provides the basis for real altriusm, it doesn't explode it, etc etc. they could soften LIE but be ineffective vs LSI in making that particular case

[Singu]

Well you're obviously quite side-tracked. Why should profit just revolve around money? What's the thing you do every day that keeps you alive? Do you eat money? No, it's food to feed you. If you work the soil and grow veggies in your spare time, the profit won't be for your pockets, but for your belly. Same if you care to cover yourself in winter, you'll survive the cold, without making money out of that, but in the meanwhile you're alive. No profit? I'd say it's a good profit to be alive and well. Moreover, if you spend your free time doing charity work, you probably won't get any money out of it, but that won't erase your profit that lied in the experience itself, and not in a monetary reward.
Obviously a definition of profit should be broadly applicable, because we can find profit, subjectively, everywhere.

Well other than obtaining some objective marker, such as money or some "stuff", what can be meaningfully considered as "profit"? Is bettering your health profit? Is survival profit?

I'm just not sure what can be considered to be "profit", in contexts outside of bartering and trading.

[Bertrand]

I'm just not sure what can be considered to be "profit", in contexts outside of bartering and trading.

lol thank you captain obvious. this has been the problem from day one, with not just you but the general descriptions and stereotypes arising out of them of Te valuing in general. its just another layer on "what I can't understand doesn't exist" which is really just the problem of projection itself. the unknown has to be assimilated in terms of the known, thus the "all gammas love money" stereotype. Im so glad this phase is finally starting to come to an end. when I first got here it was nothing but these kinds of IEIsms being tossed around, with adam strange as the little man up front to embody them in service of the collective, as if to say "look, I'm a cognizable instance of your stereotype--please like me because I bring to you validation of your limited understanding" its a way of laundering the unknown out of existence. a kind of blackface for everyone to laugh at and de-stress over. a good night at the theatre

[Singu]

lol thank you captain obvious. this has been the problem from day one, with not just you but the general descriptions and stereotypes arising out of them of Te valuing in general. its just another layer on "what I can't understand doesn't exist" which is really just the problem of projection itself.

Yes, thank you for not being able to come up with anything coherent.

I guess what you don't realize is that I'm merely pointing out a contradiction, because you can't say that Te is both about profit and not about profit. You're changing and twisting the definition of profit to solve this contradiction. It would be a violation of the law of identity to turn the identity of profit into something that is not about profit. It's just turning into something Orwellian.

[Bertrand]

Te is about profit. what people understand profit to represent varies. in the sense that what I understand profit to mean is not what you understand it to mean, means I can say "its not about profit" in the context of your definition. what ends up playing out is you say something like profit, I say its not about profit, what is really going on is you're meaning all sorts of things and excluding other things by profit, and im saying those meanings are not appropriate and do not clearly capture the scope is what is meant by profit when the socionics who wrote the definitions meant when they said it. a lot of what you're doing is trying to control or ignore context and simplify the thinking and staticize the picture in general. all of this is a product of personality, so when you try to do this in the context of a discussion on personality itself it functions to destroy personality inasmuch as personality is not something that can be subjected to this process and come out alive (it does not respect the experience or perspective of other personalities about personality, it lacks fractal structure). in other words, your personality itself makes a discussion of this kind on personality problematic, which is what im saying about how the environment gets wrecked when this sort of thing prevails because its essentially an anti psychology take on a psychological theory itself. its a form of regulatory capture where the crooks are running the prison and so forth. this happens in academia a lot too. in essence its a power play because it tries to wrest control over the language and discourse and thus meaning and thus dignity in a way that ultimately harms alternative perspectives that are in all likelihood more valid or at the very least just as valid. this is essentially what a stereotype is

[Bertrand]

thats funny because I think its self evidently true that if you say Te = profit, you still have to define profit otherwise you've literally said awerfhwgt=raE TRtty its totally meaningless and only pushes things back one layer. it just becomes a question of what is profit. and different types answer that question differently because they understand profit in different ways. desire informs profit, but so does efficiency. for example I may value a thing subjectively so highly that I pay way too much objectively but still see securing the thing to be by my own standards a form of "profit" perhaps to be spun into some other form of offsetting gain down the line based on some other knowledge or expecation. other people dont think that far ahead, or place a different subjective valuation on the same thing and see no profit. can you then say one thought in terms of profit and the other didn't? no it was informed by a confluence of factors amounting to personality itself. to fix the meaning on Te to profit and fix that meaning to money gains is to beg the question and stereotype the quadra. anyway I wouldn't expect either of you to understand because like Jung says to see this sort of thing is as likely as the common man admitting to themselves theyve been a criminal. people just do not accept that they are unwittingly capable of such behavior, i.e.: people tend to think of stereotypes as something other people do, its why racism is nowhere yet everywhere at the same time. another paradox of non-contradiction for singu to contemplate

[Aramas]

I actually think the idea that humans are innately self interested when spun out to a philosophy or theory is Ti. it sort of defines altruism out of existence. I think anyone can believe this, but I think Te types can genuinely believe altruism is possible. "altruism is selfish" sounds like something originating in the mind of an ILE, almost the antithesis of LIE. LIE is probably more "selfish is selfish and altriusm is altriusm, and I'm just looking to make my way in the world; I can be either selfish or altrusitic" , and none of that presents a kind of problem, its when you try to make it all static and set the definitions in opposition, that it becomes a kind of paradox. conflating efficiency with simply not being counter productive is the second thing. theres still a form of positive Te which is to be better or best, whereas -Te is simply not contradicting yourself or otherwise passing the threshold whereby a thing becomes pure waste. saying humans innately seek to not self destruct and thus have built in self interest is a form of setting the "avoidance of catastrophic failure" as the watermark for all improvement making all activity an exercise in self improvement, or selfishness, as it were, which is very much non Te valuing. a part of Te valuing is I would say not compressing it like that. to find the meanings in the shades of Te and so forth, and not live, when searching for a partner for example, like "we're all self interested" (because they're actually attracted to selflessness, even if in cynical moments they might say its all cognizable as self interest); this is precisely how people can use the same words to mean different things. its actually why LSI and LIE are mirage and this is a good example of mirage. they would probably both agree with that statement, but the psychological outlook is almost nevertheless entirely different. Te (in people like EII) would say that feature of humanity is what provides the basis for real altriusm, it doesn't explode it, etc etc. they could soften LIE but be ineffective vs LSI in making that particular case

It doesn't define altruism out of existence if you acknowledge that humans have a lot of competing drives within themselves, one of which is self-interest -- which is what I was trying to communicate. I wasn't trying to make it s complete philosophy or theory. The reason I tried to call attention to human self-interest is that it's a very common behavior, and trying to say that Te is about "what can I get out of this" is saying that Te is about self-interest. But self-interest is so common that it would be ridiculous to limit it to a single Socionics IE.

[niffer]

I think it is about manipulation to get something out of objects/circumstances (being dynamic IE—it’s an action, not about static properties or states). It can be used productively or unproductively, but if used seriously by someone who is a strong user of it, it can be used to make things work so that the best value or profit is generated or extracted from some situation. The prescription of value/desire would be the job of Fi (or Fe).

In LIEs, the unconscious Fi seeking, while weak, acts as a compass for what the nature of their profit should look like (what they want). This is how Te the of Te leads is directed and purposeful, towards “profit” for feeding some desire, an outcome they prescribe value to.

[Bertrand]

It doesn't define altruism out of existence if you acknowledge that humans have a lot of competing drives within themselves, one of which is self-interest -- which is what I was trying to communicate. I wasn't trying to make it s complete philosophy or theory. The reason I tried to call attention to human self-interest is that it's a very common behavior, and trying to say that Te is about "what can I get out of this" is saying that Te is about self-interest. But self-interest is so common that it would be ridiculous to limit it to a single Socionics IE.

yeah the main thing is Te is not self interest [1]. interpreting the entire world in terms of that particular drive as the basic force is kind of like Se actually. but you have different versions of Se and Te interacting to essentially color their overall worldview which has an infinite degree of shades. the type most likely to staticize people as being self interested and view everything through that lens is probably SLE, especially if you further push it back and call it survival or something more primal. Te base is more about viewing the world as rational which is essentially to say it can be divided up as a carrots and sticks and everything can be cognized in terms of incentives and disincentives (this says nothing of what to do with that, just that all force is distributed as the tension between these poles which are rational). i think LIE looks at the world that way. survival and power are more irrational concepts although they can be cabined in thinking terms, they fundamentally play out in irrational ways despite being thought of as "understandable" from an intellectual point of view. in other words, economics is more like Te base, but that doesn't mean everyone is money grubbing, it means the overlay is rational. when people talk about people being self interested to an irrational degree, i.e.: capable of subverting economics for other reasons (beta is the realm of idealogical crusaders for example) you get more into the cynical talk of SLE, where people "will let you down" and are "self interested" in that sense, but its an irrational sense (SLE is the first to subvert an expectation of "rational self interest" toward some "higher" goal, essentially to throw a wrench in the machine but as part of a creative rational plot toward some end, so in some sense it becomes a matter of specifics as to who "wins" LIE wins over time since they think longer term, essentially, but if SLE can win one engagement decisively enough it means there is no future etc). LIE finds order in the chaos, SLE just tries to force it into certain channels. in other words LIE looks at the world as susceptible to rational analysis and manipulation whereas SLE applies force to control what is fundamentally viewed as irrational. their creative element is just in rationally applying that force. LIE can irrationally influence what they see as fundamentally rational, by this it becomes about "vision" in order to get from point A to point B and so forth. SLE says its more or less a jungle and to get from point A to point B one uses rationality to constrain that chaos, not that it is fundamentally orderly already

the problem is there's so many abstract variables, because its time vs force vs structual logic vs objective logic and each of those when they intersect create shades of divergent meaning, so like when someone says "people are self interested" what is really going on and what they really understand that to mean is quite different although on the outside they can look quite similar because they're fundamentally trying to adapt to the same outer world. I think people struggle with this because its a form of -Ti to capture the dynamic in a way that can be rotated and isn't expected to be fixed from one angle. you see repeated attempts to fix the meaning but it always devolves into stereotypes as soon as you do that

the question of whether people are self interested and what that means and what the consequences of believing that are have been debated since the beginning, which I think is the truest testament to it being a psychological concept, not one capable of being pinned down entirely. instead its sort of a moving target depending on who you're talking to

[1] you might say "self interest" is more a emergent property of weak Fi in all its forms (Fi sets the subjective value of things, so from literal self the interests emerge--the more cynical you are about people's ability to responsibly distribute their own interests for the best of all the lower your Fi is likely to be). you might say the notion of "self interest" can be construed as an ethical statement or a logical one which further means the relationship to Fi and specific functions depends on what someone means when they talk about self interest. "self interest" in the mouth of Fe valuing is a cynicism (with the exception of Ti base types), because all Fe types minus the Fi role ones tend to consider as a basic proposition the role of the objective environment, not the subjective self, as properly setting interests

[Delilah]

I actually think the idea that humans are innately self interested when spun out to a philosophy or theory is Ti. it sort of defines altruism out of existence. I think anyone can believe this, but I think Te types can genuinely believe altruism is possible. "altruism is selfish" sounds like something originating in the mind of an ILE, almost the antithesis of LIE. LIE is probably more "selfish is selfish and altriusm is altriusm, and I'm just looking to make my way in the world; I can be either selfish or altrusitic" , and none of that presents a kind of problem, its when you try to make it all static and set the definitions in opposition, that it becomes a kind of paradox. conflating efficiency with simply not being counter productive is the second thing. theres still a form of positive Te which is to be better or best, whereas -Te is simply not contradicting yourself or otherwise passing the threshold whereby a thing becomes pure waste. saying humans innately seek to not self destruct and thus have built in self interest is a form of setting the "avoidance of catastrophic failure" as the watermark for all improvement making all activity an exercise in self improvement, or selfishness, as it were, which is very much non Te valuing. a part of Te valuing is I would say not compressing it like that. to find the meanings in the shades of Te and so forth, and not live, when searching for a partner for example, like "we're all self interested" (because they're actually attracted to selflessness, even if in cynical moments they might say its all cognizable as self interest); this is precisely how people can use the same words to mean different things. its actually why LSI and LIE are mirage and this is a good example of mirage. they would probably both agree with that statement, but the psychological outlook is almost nevertheless entirely different. Te (in people like EII) would say that feature of humanity is what provides the basis for real altriusm, it doesn't explode it, etc etc. they could soften LIE but be ineffective vs LSI in making that particular case

I remember taking economics courses in college and there were those who completely bought the theory of self-interest and even some who went so far as to consider economics and the idea of self-interest as a basic principle. Yet other schools of thought exist and yes, i agree with you, that altruism does defy that idea of people being innately self-interested, among other things.

[Bertrand]

that's the thing, if you read Jung you realize Te is not inductive, it is logic that creates a circle that inevitably leads back to objective factors as that which grounds the circle, whereas Ti is subjective. Te can operate via induction or deduction, same with Ti

what you're actually trying to do is simplify the model in regard to what logic is with recourse to attaching "logic" to these other concepts which are themselves short hand, but this subordinates the model to pre existing logical constructs, and the whole point of a psychological model is to get above or behind that in order to explain where those types of concepts come from

in other words, you're elevating the concept of induction and deduction over the concept of type and that's anti psychological in the sense that psychology in the form of cognitive framework is actually what precedes the development of those concepts

[Bertrand]

Exactly, it's induction and deduction--reason itself--that creates the psychological types.

alright buddy.. also that quote from jung is out of context, it depends on how hes situating Te, whether as dominant function and acting positively or negatively. not all te is mere appendage

[Bertrand]

it really is the model for people that can't be assed to read or comprehend jung, made by one of their own. you haven't so much simplified the thing as not comprehended it in its fullness to begin with, its the logical equivalent of the dog with no teeth praising itself for not biting

d e g e n e r a t e

[Bertrand]

yeah you're framing your own incompetence as a kind of virtue, which is both funny but irritating. its the mathematics of terrence howard. anyway I don't need to try and ram it home, the results will speak for themselves. one thing ive noticed about this mindset is its complete invulnerability to criticism, because its entire ability to comprehend what its missing is precisely what's lacking. it creates this weird effect where because of this its incapable of issuing fundamentally new knowledge because it doesn't recognize anything that isn't already known, even in principle. which is why you always make such bold assertions without a shred of self awareness. its because you don't understand your own relationship to things in terms of broader context, thus as far as you've concerned you've already got it figured out at every single moment. which is weird, because its like how did you ever learn anything I wonder. my guess is its always been the hard way

[Bertrand]

I remember taking economics courses in college and there were those who completely bought the theory of self-interest and even some who went so far as to consider economics and the idea of self-interest as a basic principle. Yet other schools of thought exist and yes, i agree with you, that altruism does defy that idea of people being innately self-interested, among other things.

yes I think this "leveling" of ethics in terms of "all people are self interested" is kind of how Ti types can get into Fe relationships. It sort of simply assumes people are self interested and represses it, but its how they can end up in relationships that are little more than hate-contests-of-will to see who will crack first and call it a marriage. its like they don't even expect more of their partners, they simply only care about maintaining the appearance of rule following, the inner content of the relationship is hand waved as existentially impossible (or some form of illusory ideal) at the onset. romance then becomes the expression of emotions, and the official status, and not the inner life or attachments of the partners, because its already been decided humans are already scum and all we have are these institutions. in essence its asking way too much for your partner to genuinely like you, since people are by definition incapable of selflessness, instead what you look for is them to act as if--and if that's in place its as close as you can get; in its charitable form its actually quite beautiful, its a form of willpower to constrain oneself to an artificial mode of existence for the "benefit" of the other person and the maintenance of the vow. but from the Fi point of view it is an abomination, with nothing but resentment fomenting under the surface

[Singu]

This whole thing comes from the confusion of basing it on separate observations. And there are no contradictions in observations.

So you observe a Te type being self-interested. Then a moment later, the same Te type is being altruistic. This would mean that the Te type is both self-interested AND altruistic, and there is no contradiction. This is possible, because it is possible for people to hold contradictory ideas. It would be contradictory and an impossibility, if he were self-interested and altruistic at the same time. The problem is that they're based on different observations at different times. So they would require different explanations for each different observations.

An observation is concrete, and "Te" is an abstract idea. An observation can hold contradictions, but abstract ideas cannot (if you don't want to violate the law of contradiction or identity). And Te is based on observations. Seeing the confusion yet?

[WVBRY]

But doesn't everyone ask themselves what's in it for them? Human beings are innately self-interested -- at least to some degree. The economic ideology of capitalism magnifies and reinforces this instinct. Capitalism wouldn't have been successful (at least for a time) without the assessment of self-interest being accurate. The entire process of human survival from prehistory to today is the partial history of self-interest. People express this self-interest in different ways, so I think what concrete behaviors count as self-interest can be confusing. There's a saying that "altruism is selfish" because the altruistic acts of a person fulfill that person's selfish need to be altruistic. So it's hard, imo, to chalk up self-interest as being the domain of a single psychological function. It's just too broad and fundamental an aspect of human character for that. It would be like ascribing hunger to Si or Se. But we all have to eat, and if we didn't, we would die. Same thing goes for self-interest and "what's in it for me:" any human alive today is always asking himself that question, even if only unconsciously. Their ancestors wouldn't have survived otherwise.

Maybe egos are better at evaluating if work brings benefits and thus being able to answer (as opposed to just ask) "what's in it for me". So I still don't think egos do work for it's own sake. The benefits don't have to be material either.

Edit: I think Gamma NTs are good at evaluating if an action is a waste of time or not, since they spot potential right away (strong ) but Delta STs are a bit slower at it, they might repeat certain actions before realizing there is not point - "I had to try, at least". The Gamma NT will be like "why bother/it's a waste of time" when it comes to something they see as fruitless. So my comment above probably applies more to Gamma.

[WVBRY]

How can there be profit, without capitalism? This whole thing presupposes the existence of capitalism.

Because people have always asked what's in it for them, and furthermore, types, if we are to believe socionics exists somehow, have always been able to evaluate this.

This sounds more like pragmatism, which says what is "useful" is true.

This is not a correct reading of my post. Usefulness in itself is pretty useless, as demonstrated by the question "what's the use of use?". It's not about the utlity of an object or action, but about what it brings. If sitting in a chair staring at the rainclouds makes you profoundly happy, then this is a good reason to do exactly that, especially of you have no ambition to do anything else. You've "gained" something by sitting in your chair - happiness.

[Singu]

This is not a correct reading of my post. Usefulness in itself is pretty useless, as demonstrated by the question "what's the use of use?". It's not about the utlity of an object or action, but about what it brings. If sitting in a chair staring at the rainclouds makes you profoundly happy, then this is a good reason to do exactly that, especially of you have no ambition to do anything else. You've "gained" something by sitting in your chair - happiness.

Ok, and how is bringing happiness supposed to be objective, since that is a subjective criteria for judgment? That is a judgment of feeling, isn't it?

[WVBRY]

Ok, and how is bringing happiness supposed to be objective, since that is a subjective criteria for judgment? That is a judgment of feeling, isn't it?

I never said it was objective?

[Aramas]

yes I think this "leveling" of ethics in terms of "all people are self interested" is kind of how Ti types can get into Fe relationships. It sort of simply assumes people are self interested and represses it, but its how they can end up in relationships that are little more than hate-contests-of-will to see who will crack first and call it a marriage. its like they don't even expect more of their partners, they simply only care about maintaining the appearance of rule following, the inner content of the relationship is hand waved as existentially impossible (or some form of illusory ideal) at the onset. romance then becomes the expression of emotions, and the official status, and not the inner life or attachments of the partners, because its already been decided humans are already scum and all we have are these institutions. in essence its asking way too much for your partner to genuinely like you, since people are by definition incapable of selflessness, instead what you look for is them to act as if--and if that's in place its as close as you can get; in its charitable form its actually quite beautiful, its a form of willpower to constrain oneself to an artificial mode of existence for the "benefit" of the other person and the maintenance of the vow. but from the Fi point of view it is an abomination, with nothing but resentment fomenting under the surface

So this is how Barbie and Ken stay together without killing each other, despite looking like they want to. Fascinating.

[Bertrand]

yeah the main thing is how it comes across on facebook. people will suffer a lot for a great facebook

[Aramas]

yeah the main thing is how it comes across on facebook. people will suffer a lot for a great facebook

Oh what a world! With me it would be Ken and Frankenstein's monster. Nobody could say anything about me though otherwise the SJWs would swarm them.

Of course the ESIs would be shaking their heads and muttering "I'll be damned" under their breath.

[Tigerfadder]

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?

Actually, probably yes! Te lead will have an accepting Te so I think they are more fluid with their Te and naturally place things in the way in a natural efficient way. If we move down in dimension but still on the "value" spectrum we might see more forced efficiency. Te suggestive might even place themselves in a position that is bad for anything else but efficiency?

And yes Te 1D do have this 2D Ti that make a tree or structure where it place Te dots... So since they have a stronger Ti that can accept a strong Ti as long it do not interfere with the integrity of Te. IME

[Singu]

I never said it was objective?

Well for one, Te is supposed to be objective, and two, without this objective standard, there wouldn't be any information being exchanged between individuals, so this wouldn't make sense even Socionically.

[Shining]

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.

What is a non-physical or psychological objects ?

Depends how you define enrichment i guess. Enrichment can allow to gain more physical space for example, that's mostly Se.

I don't know, all IE relates to matter/physic, psychological aspects are a consequence i think.

[Bertrand]

pretty much anything can be an object. like as soon as someone says "Godel's incompleteness theorem" it becomes an object of my thinking. I think for an LII this is harder to understand because they don't value Te so when they think of Godel's incompleteness theorem they completely subordinate it to their subjective understanding, in other words, its only real inasmuch as they understand it, thus for them there is no such "objects of thinking" that stand outside themselves, but this is a product of Ti base and not because these objects don't exist for other minds. its much like saying what is Se for an Si base type, they can deny till the cows come home objective sensory perception even exists (in the sense of letting it leverage force upon them, in a theoretical sense they can admit it exists), simply because for them it doesn't. all control functions are kind of like this where they exhibit generally intractable ways of destroying the ignoring function without harm to themselves if they wish. its almost pointless to try to leverage someone according to their ignoring or get them to concede ground on it since it is so well ensconced by other strong functions. if Ti base wants to deny objects as anything other than physical ones as a matter of subjective rationality it can do so because its their subjective rationality itself that counts. its precisely this "feature" of the types that gives them a lot of their distinctive flavor. it says essentially, the only thing I cannot deny is pain (the painful function), but I can deny (ignoring function)

[Vespertine]

There is this thing I see about socionics, that no matter how precise the definitions are, they are still understandings and perspectives of human stuff.
As I comprehend it, it is a base of how a person goes to point A to B in their head, not personality traits, nor values. That might be more "introverted" thinking here. Hmm...Anyhow, not the point.

I seem more ethical than logical on first look, and that is because I have focused on the goal of becoming a "normal" person, where normal means sort of "Fe" (stupid interpretation of stupid kid).
Being ILI, I focused on looking for "universal laws" of how "good people"(don't ask me to define that) interact in order to create a patern, a way to answer to every social situations appropriately, to which I fail miserably and often... hah.
("I have made this company in 19xx, he said, "Oh, that's the year I was born, I had the brillant idea of replying. -w-b)
I have just recently realized how f...ed up it is and also, not possible.
I did work for its own sake before (including school work) which drove me into a burn out and a depression. No goal, no reason, just endlessly doing stuff without knowing why, without thinking of tomorrow. Just a lot of stress.
Relating functions to certain spheres of life, (Te=work, Fe=people, Ni=WTF, etc) seems quite limitating.

I don't think any function can do "work for the sake of work". We are humans, we need a reason, we need meaning, we need to know/feel our contribution benefits people, science, math, the world...
The number one regret of people on their deathbed is "worked too much, forgot what's important". A "work function" is a robot's function.

[Vespertine]

The result of the process a person takes creates personality traits and values.

I don't think the whole complexity of personality developpement can be summed up so shortly. Then again, it depends on how one defines personality.

You know, peeps be seeing me as IEI, ILI, and now EII. Infernal retyping cycle.
Little precision, I never said I "know" (not sure it's the right word) what is good and bad, I find those concept confusing as they differ in definition depending who is talking.
... wait, are you calling me an effing sage?

[Vespertine]

@domr
Sweetness, did I really say I tried to invent laws?
Okay, let me try again.
I grew up with people who could do "peopleling", and I could not.
It was like a normal skill everyone in my suroundings pocessed, and I was just too dumb to do it properly.
I was stupid and thought I could study my way into proper "peopleling".
I tried reading and asking question to get to the proper "rules"everyone else seemed to know.
I failled and thought I was retarded.
I tried harder.
I tried to find the "unwritten rules of social interations" written down somewhere.
All I found was contradictions, and I thought I must be serioulsy retarded, or maybe a psychopath(I was 15, give me a chance), because all around me were these socialy graceful people.
Turns out I likely barely ever crossed any logical types in my life.
I just tried to learn a skill that's not even skill.
Now I do social with this in mind : I hope I don't murder someone's self-esteem today, I hope I don't weird out anyone toda... oh sh*t.
And by "good people", I ment those socialy graceful people around me who would complain about anyone who was too direct or cold... which I am.

You know, I don't even fit that well in any type, I picked one because it can make sense and I am tired of this "typing" bullshit... going on for the third time.
Perhaps I should have just gone with IEI, as people argue more for it than against it, even though the above kills it a bit, hum.

[Adam Strange]

@NorthernRose, it is interesting to hear your impressions of growing up among what sound like Extroverted Feelers, when you yourself seem both intuitive and logical. I agree that this kind of environment can make a person doubt themselves.

I'm TeNi, and in my family there were no feelers. We were LSE, SLI, LIE, LSE, LII, and the dog. Although I lived in a monoculture, I differed from you in the sense that I had the same thing that everyone else had. This led to a sense of confidence in my ability to interpret feelings that was entirely false (because it wasn't tested against actual feelers).

Where I started to doubt myself and my "feeling" skills was when I started to meet (and value) actual Feelers, and found that I was woefully unprepared for competing with them on their turf.

[timber]

Came into thread looking for some Te didnt see a whole helav a lot.

[Vespertine]

There is this thing that bothers me about any typing system really, it's the point where it becomes just a bunch of observation stereotypes.
Sure, Te users can be more inclined to looking for power in society so they can actually manage to use Te more. Money often times mean power, though, people's trust is also a power. It takes "work" regardless.
I think the individual must be considered before stereotypes.
People are right that they can't see Te in me, as I hide it and use it when I am alone. This situation continues as most people around me being likely Fe and demonizing Te's object, competences before people's feelings kind of vision... and I am pretty sure if I dared to use Te in their face too much, they would build a stake to burn me alive like a witch. (lol)

Te is the main way my brain filters my perception of life.
I use Te to make abstract paintings, not giving an eff about result or the "feelings" it might bring to others. It's a thing I can plan, control, see the developpement of and see it becoming something... also fun to throw paint.
I used to write songs for the same reason in highschool. Controling sounds instead of colors.
I draw and write with Ni more though.

I'm tired of the stereotypes that NiTe equals cold assholery, this and that, mostly because beside "being cold assholes", the stereotypes change from people to people.
(My favorite is TeNi > all work and no play gives him an erection. I'm an immature idiot, thehe.)
There is this phenomenon that people who gets typed as, let's use ILI, can want to live up to the stereotypes and be big assholes to prove themselves as ILI.
There is also the stagnation of "it's in my type, can't help it".

I am not a NiTe, I am a NiTe-SiFe-SeFi-NeTi. And more.
And I will use my Te however I see fit. I will use all my functions however I see fit.
I will be kind as it is a logical choice I made.
I will have fun and be the life of a party if I wish.

Objectivity is a rarity in our social world. Sure, people need a sort of functional body to live, gravity, nutriments... and we talk of "being fat", "tasty, pretty food", subjective stuff about those facts.
Unless you work in physics or something, you don't get much objectivity.
Even the word "work" is subjective. Some people work to support their passion, some equals work to passion, some think if you do what you love, then you will never work a single day of your life.
I am more of the last kind, not a very Te mindset, huh?
Funny though, how, about ten years ago, I prided myself on my "objectivity".

I used to gather experiences in hope to find how to "fix" my flaws, but now I do as a collection. A sort of big reference book in my head, that gets confusing often. Hah.
What I got often go against the stereotypelical expectation:
Last year, around this time, I heard a person, I would see as an Fe user, speak up her opinion of men, sexist stuff, you know the drill. I forgot her exact word, but it was the speech that gave "condescendance" a meaning in my mind.
The comment above by @Adam Strange is the one that made "compassion" find a meaning for me.
(Thank you for the support and sorry for tagging you in such a long post for this little piece.)
That sums up my perception of life, contradictions.

I keep wondering if I should try to be a part of this forum, or any place really, as I never quite fit anywhere.
Maybe, I am fooling myself and should erase this comment I spent two hours on...
People seem more "expert" here while I am more of a "jack of all trades".
I find many things around classification of people's mind interesting, socionics being one of them, but also MBTI, enneagram, the big five, comparing those to people, and being Gandalf in a random internet quiz. : 3

[chemical]

In general, things like this (that Te values just working for its own sake) are ways of overly rendering concrete the theory.

I think over time, I realized the following: while socionics, mbti, and Jung are all separate in the sense that they formulate things quite differently in terms of both models and even definitions of the 8 IE, function-attitudes, blah blah, ultimately I've never found a good reason to say "this is Te in this system, and this is Ti in that system" except to book-keep what different authors said. At the end of the day, I think either each is an instance of Te or Ti or whatever, or the given system needs revision (i.e. one of the other ones simply got, in some particular sense, Te or Ti better).

A great example is all the 'force/Se' stuff. At the end of the day, I think that's making the same mistake. Se is generally associated with the physics concept 'force' really because that breaks inertia, and gives the sense that the object interacted with something outside.
The idea that socionics has this greater focus on 'force' than mbti to me is just going the wrong direction.

So really the same comment applies here for Te.

[Exodus]

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?

The thing that needs to be understood here is that "work" involves both Te and Se. Te does not place value on accomplishments or goals per se, it places value on achieving them in the most effective or efficient manner. Se is the one that values doing and getting things done for their own sake. So, being "hardworking" is somewhat closer to Se than Te and Se leading types are more likely to devote long hours to their work, and definitely more likely to criticize someone for being lazy. But of course LSEs and LIEs both have relatively decent access to Se and are also typically hardworking. But when it comes to SLIs again I think that no, they don't seek out work for its own sake at all, rather they only do what is necessary and are typically inactive rather than active.

Thanks goes to @Azeroffs for making this very important distinction clear to me many years ago:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post763824

[timber]

The thing that needs to be understood here is that "work" involves both Te and Se. Te does not place value on accomplishments or goals per se, it places value on achieving them in the most effective or efficient manner. Se is the one that values doing and getting things done for their own sake. So, being "hardworking" is somewhat closer to Se than Te and Se leading types are more likely to devote long hours to their work, and definitely more likely to criticize someone for being lazy. But of course LSEs and LIEs both have relatively decent access to Se and are also typically hardworking. But when it comes to SLIs again I think that no, they don't seek out work for its own sake at all, rather they only do what is necessary and are typically inactive rather than active.

Thanks goes to @Azeroffs for making this very important distinction clear to me many years ago:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post763824

[Hope]

Plus Gamma is the most workaholic quadra according complex.

[Starvish]

I want to be able to be productive and work hard for myself, and while it is something I value I often find myself without the proper motivation to work. I feel like I need somebody reminding me to be more productive, so I don't lapse into being all lazy and stuff. It bothers me when I've not been doing anything for a solid while, but it's hard to go back into something without encouragement or a burst of inspiration.

[Singu]

You know in the real world, people who are callously selfish and see others only in terms of "costs and benefits" and "what's in it for me", are called psychopaths.

This study suggests that most people are naturally cooperative and seek mutual benefits (that can "only be overcome with effortful cognitive control"), while people who score high on psychopathy will only see things in terms of what's beneficial for them (and so they "defect" in the Prisoner's Dilemma game).

Neural correlates of social cooperation and non-cooperation as a function of psychopathy

CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that whereas subjects scoring low on psychopathy have emotional biases toward cooperation that can only be overcome with effortful cognitive control, subjects scoring high on psychopathy have an opposing bias toward defection that likewise can only be overcome with cognitive effort.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17046722

The so-called "Te types" are then, likely simply high on psychopathic traits.