What is it about Te that gives you IEIs and SEIs fits?
What the Te devil?
What is it about Te that gives you IEIs and SEIs fits?
An SEI once got mad, because I said something like, if someone doesn't make education they have proven to be bad at what they tried to learn. She found it to be to harsh.
So I guess the bluntness and directness of Te.
So basically, it makes them mad?
well she clearly showed that she didn't like it how I put it. She became sort of between irritated and angry.Originally Posted by tcaudilllg
yeah, how something is said can be just as important as what is being said. but it's not just the harshness, she may also have felt like "how do i know that's true?" i can be suspicious or wary of new information; it can be hard for me to sort through it and decide what's useful or relevant or correct. i'm not interested in information for the sake of having more information.
Feeling insecure about lack of work ethic/seemingly inability to mobilise self unless in a serious crisis/at the eleventh hour before a deadline. Other people reminding us of this HURTS. We know, and if we could fix it, we bloody well would have by now
Chronic uncertainty about efficacy. Always doubting ability to perform tasks and get the intended results (true to PoLR this is an on/off thing: I can either be neurotic and paralysed and mentally prepare the task for way too long so I don't screw up, or I can just charge into a task and start assembling the pieces around me as I go, hoping for the best).
Mmm... uncertainty about appropriate level of detail. Can swing to extremes of parsimony or... whatever the opposite of parsimony is(That could be Ti HA though).
EDIT
Also, maybe more Ti HA again, but having an inclination for listening to internal logic > external reality. I'm slowly maturing out of this but I still make errors time to time.
Im not XEI, but I always found that my ideas on things which were highly subjective, and highly subjective ideas in general(like Goethe's theory of colors) are usually wrong when faced and tried with objective evidence. I dont have a problem taking this kind of criticism though sometimes I think it would be nice if we could think subjectively, then those subjective ideas get proven right by objective evidence, which like I said almost never happens either because they cant be(like Freud's theories or the existence of God) or because they have been proven wrong by science(Goethe's theory of colors).
Of course I am not Te polr but Te role, so sorry to be intrusive with my comment but I wanted to give my opinion on it.
"An SEI once got mad, because I said something like, if someone doesn't make education they have proven to be bad at what they tried to learn. She found it to be to harsh.
So I guess the bluntness and directness of Te. "
This doesn't make sense grammatically. How does one "make education".
I will assume you mean succeed at getting an education?
Here's the problem with that statement. Why did you make it? It's just a unhelpful statement to make.
That is really biased in favor of merry types.
Te seems unnecessarily regimented and practical to me. It seems as though it irons out all the randomness and uncertainty from things, and tries to make everything work in a certain way. And then the focus on "facts" seems to me to be a lack of imagination. And they don't tend to like my "everything is subjetive" mentality (this is worse with Delta STs who also devalue Ni). Above all, I just feel like Te egos have a bunch of unnecessary proceedures for doing everything the "best" way. I'm not interested in the "best" way, I'm interested in getting it done in the way in which I have to think about it the least. So yeah, that's what I think bothers me about Te.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Silver I don't think that's a universal sentiment among IEIs or even Te PoLR types in general. "I don't care about the best way, just show me the way that requires the least thinking."
Would you prefer that we disabled your T function completely?
Maybe that didn't come out the way you intended.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 10-06-2010 at 11:29 AM.
I get the impression Te types are just stating the obvious and oversimplifying to keep things organized. And they kind of cram the obvious down your throat like you're retarded, then they act like they're superior cuz they stated the obvious.
Also there's the appeal to authority through official sources which is usually dismissiveness disguised as insightfulness. It's just like they hold back investigations with excessive constraints. Also they don't look for underlying meaning so much when you speak.. they're more surface oriented so if your semantics aren't incredibly developed they can just reduce the whole conversation to pure relativism. I've had them pull this a number of times and it's infuriating. Te also translates into rigid hangups.
It depends alot on the type too though. Like ILIs have the relativism and stating the obvious, but not so much some of the others.
See this is stupid, but it's a good example of Te and how it could feasibly piss me off.
Jarno says the comment is "harsh". The comment is not harsh it's hastey. It's a hastey conclusion. To describe this as harsh is dismissive. It makes it sound like it's correct, but just needs to be restated "nicer". But the statement is actually incorrect.
Reading it, it seems like it organizes reality nicely in Jarnos mind. But only by cutting off a ton of exceptions. It is obvious there could be a variety of reasons a person fails their education. Education doesn't even reflect the real experience of working a profession..
But we're not considering any of this further than the statement "They have been proven to fail at what they wanted to learn".
It gives this added air of snobbishness and condescension which makes me want to retaliate against it.
Last edited by crazedrat; 10-06-2010 at 12:16 PM.
Nope, that's exactly what I mean. I don't intend it for everything. But out of all the things that I am obligated to do, there is a very small subset that I care about. All of those things deserve my mental energy. All other tasks, regardless of how necessary they are, should be done with as little mental engagement as possible. Te types seem, to me, to expect engagement in tasks I consider mundane. I think they try to 'maximize efficiency' in little things that I think don't deserve that much of my energy. There was a quote about this from some old thread I posted in delta. Maybe I'll try to dredge it up. But I would accept that that sentiment is not necessarily tied to Te-polr-in-general, except as a general IP-EJ conflict: EJs expend energy wantonly, because they are constantly seeing things that can be moved, changed, nudged, altered for the better (dynamics of objects). IPs conserve energy, because they are constantly sensing this sort of internal motion, or the motion between things that occurs without our intervention (dynamics of fields). So in that sense, I would prefer to focus on these waves of invisible change than constantly expend energy (mental energy) chasing external improvements/motion.
I would agree with this, but in every quadra it is thought that the opposing quadra is "leaving things out," or "oversimplifying." I mean, I've certainly (certainly) felt that way about deltas, quite often. But then they're also felt that way about me. That's certainly a complaint made about Ni (vs. Ne), that Ni comes to a solution too quickly and does not consider all of the alternatives. So there must be something about the information omitted that makes the difference, and I want to know what that is.See this is stupid, but it's a good example of Te and how it could feasibly piss me off.
Jarno says the comment is "harsh". The comment is not harsh it's hastey. It's a hastey conclusion. To describe this as harsh is dismissive. It makes it sound like it's correct, but just needs to be restated "nicer". But the statement is actually incorrect.
Reading it, it seems like it organizes reality nicely in Jarnos mind. But only by cutting off a ton of exceptions. It is obvious there could be a variety of reasons a person fails their education. Education doesn't even reflect the real experience of working a profession..
But we're not considering any of this further than the statement "They have been proven to fail at what they wanted to learn".
It gives this added air of snobbishness and condescension which makes me want to retaliate against it.
Last edited by silverchris9; 10-06-2010 at 01:15 PM.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.+1000, and awesome-hat off to you.
Know an IEI who would be in bits working in a place where there was no set rules, things changed on a case by case basis.
She'd try to apply rules to things and get stuff really wrong.
There is nothing about it. It is just the fact that it is my polr, and I automatically react in a negative way to it. If I try to explain it I just start rationalizing and I miss the point.
I think you need to realize that Te-PoLR is a weakness. Maybe what has been stated is incorrect, but for you to say that Te types just have it wrong is just trying to make yourself out to have no weakness. You're just taking regular stupidity and saying its Te to make yourself superior.
Other people do it a lot too, but I think think people need to realize what a PoLR is. The whole idea of a PoLR is that it is compatible with your main way of looking at things which is why it so hard to cope with.
I agree. The statement is patently wrong. What is hard to accept is only the fact that it is also succesful. That there are people in the world that can profit from an act that is principally stupid.See this is stupid, but it's a good example of Te and how it could feasibly piss me off.
Jarno says the comment is "harsh". The comment is not harsh it's hastey. It's a hastey conclusion. To describe this as harsh is dismissive. It makes it sound like it's correct, but just needs to be restated "nicer". But the statement is actually incorrect.
Reading it, it seems like it organizes reality nicely in Jarnos mind. But only by cutting off a ton of exceptions. It is obvious there could be a variety of reasons a person fails their education. Education doesn't even reflect the real experience of working a profession..
But we're not considering any of this further than the statement "They have been proven to fail at what they wanted to learn".
It gives this added air of snobbishness and condescension which makes me want to retaliate against it.
Honestly, if you just wrote more mature, analytical posts like this instead of causing drama and creating havoc, you'd be liked by 95% of the forum.
I just think you're saying that cuz Ian owned ya. =)I think you need to realize that Te-PoLR is a weakness. Maybe what has been stated is incorrect, but for you to say that Te types just have it wrong is just trying to make yourself out to have no weakness. You're just taking regular stupidity and saying its Te to make yourself superior.
Yeah! I like this, I think it's accurate.But I would accept that that sentiment is not necessarily tied to Te-polr-in-general, except as a general IP-EJ conflict: EJs expend energy wantonly, because they are constantly seeing things that can be moved, changed, nudged, altered for the better (dynamics of objects). IPs conserve energy, because they are constantly sensing this sort of internal motion, or the motion between things that occurs without our intervention (dynamics of fields). So in that sense, I would prefer to focus on these waves of invisible change than constantly expend energy (mental energy) chasing external improvements/motion.
It's more exactly like Ian said, they think they are 'right' when the 'right answer' always depends on the circumstance. Yes math is 'always right' but on the same token, how often does one truly use math in their daily lives? They are correct to the point of being interpersonally/autistically weird. The only issue I have with being proven wrong with evidence, is I'm too aware of how important people's perceptions are about everything. But really it's a matter of they expend energy very fast, and they arrive at very hasty conclusions. INFps are naturally slower. (I'll talk about this in another thread)Do xEI have issues with being proven wrong with evidence? (blow to Ti-HA?)
Oh don't be so sensitive. IEI males will always know how to successfully troll people. It's not like Te-egos aren't doing the same thing to us by thinking they're always 'one upping us' cause that's our polr. *roll eyes*Honestly, if you just wrote more mature, analytical posts like this instead of causing drama and creating havoc, you'd be liked by 95% of the forum.
"I get the impression Te types are just stating the obvious and oversimplifying to keep things organized. And they kind of cram the obvious down your throat like you're retarded, then they act like they're superior cuz they stated the obvious.
Also there's the appeal to authority through official sources which is usually dismissiveness disguised as insightfulness. It's just like they hold back investigations with excessive constraints. Also they don't look for underlying meaning so much when you speak.. they're more surface oriented so if your semantics aren't incredibly developed they can just reduce the whole conversation to pure relativism. I've had them pull this a number of times and it's infuriating. Te also translates into rigid hangups.
It depends alot on the type too though. Like ILIs have the relativism and stating the obvious, but not so much some of the others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
An SEI once got mad, because I said something like, if someone doesn't make education they have proven to be bad at what they tried to learn. She found it to be to harsh.
So I guess the bluntness and directness of Te.
See this is stupid, but it's a good example of Te and how it could feasibly piss me off.
Jarno says the comment is "harsh". The comment is not harsh it's hastey. It's a hastey conclusion. To describe this as harsh is dismissive. It makes it sound like it's correct, but just needs to be restated "nicer". But the statement is actually incorrect.
Reading it, it seems like it organizes reality nicely in Jarnos mind. But only by cutting off a ton of exceptions. It is obvious there could be a variety of reasons a person fails their education. Education doesn't even reflect the real experience of working a profession..
But we're not considering any of this further than the statement "They have been proven to fail at what they wanted to learn".
It gives this added air of snobbishness and condescension which makes me want to retaliate against it. "
Pretty good.
Te types I see as overly concerned with competence and the lack thereof in others. Say if you didn't do the dishes exactly to optimum procedure they will harass you. (Te as logical aggressor, hitting a polr, a psychological painful spot)
As for ILIs and LSE's they will point out things that are logically possible to say but nobody should say them because they are retarded in conversation and just mean spirited. Extinuating circumstances (aka life) doesn't exist in their statements.
Stupid metaphor...a yellojacket buzzes you and is annoying looking for openings...it pisses many people off and they kill the fucker. A bee doesn't warn you it just comes straight for you, aggressive style. But I'm not a fucking bee, and you don't mess with me. We speak different languages. EII would be grateful at LSE's logical aggresion because it gets them moving and working. To me its just plain arrogrant asshole behavior and stupid.
"I agree. The statement is patently wrong. What is hard to accept is only the fact that it is also successful. That there are people in the world that can profit from an act that is principally stupid. "
Yes and it happens ALL THE TIME and its painful to expirience.
Even though we're correct though, America is unfortunately a very Te-valuing society. So unless we have a huge revolution (not likely), they are always going to value fake bullshit like that. So they always will value rigid, formal education and straight male external institutions like that over the ****** purity of true romantic art. I'm not playing the victim I'm just being real, we're not going to change a whole civilization and a natural inborn function of an entire society.
I really just need to move, I never been one with that culture. Way too Te-valuing, just gets on my nerves too much naturally and not much to change it other than simply removing myself from the bullshit.
No I just don't think this has anything to do with Te-PoLR. Some of the things he stated are things that Te types do, but it's simply a Te bashing without getting to what xEI is missing. He's not even making an attempt to see how he is missing something.
This part I agree with actually. It has nothing to do with Te, and as he said, it's a blatantly wrong conclusion. When I read it, I had the same feeling.See this is stupid, but it's a good example of Te and how it could feasibly piss me off.
Jarno says the comment is "harsh". The comment is not harsh it's hastey. It's a hastey conclusion. To describe this as harsh is dismissive. It makes it sound like it's correct, but just needs to be restated "nicer". But the statement is actually incorrect.
Reading it, it seems like it organizes reality nicely in Jarnos mind. But only by cutting off a ton of exceptions. It is obvious there could be a variety of reasons a person fails their education. Education doesn't even reflect the real experience of working a profession..
But we're not considering any of this further than the statement "They have been proven to fail at what they wanted to learn".
It gives this added air of snobbishness and condescension which makes me want to retaliate against it.
If you can tell me how you're lacking something, I'll be able to trust what you're saying, but you're just making out to be 'they're wrong and I'm right' which clearly indicates that you're missing something, and that more likely than not you're rationalizing you superiority.It's more exactly like Ian said, they think they are 'right' when the 'right answer' always depends on the circumstance. Yes math is 'always right' but on the same token, how often does one truly use math in their daily lives? They are correct to the point of being interpersonally/autistically weird. The only issue I have with being proven wrong with evidence, is I'm too aware of how important people's perceptions are about everything. But really it's a matter of they expend energy very fast, and they arrive at very hasty conclusions. INFps are naturally slower. (I'll talk about this in another thread)
Feeling insecure about lack of work ethic/seemingly inability to mobilise self unless in a serious crisis/at the eleventh hour before a deadline. Other people reminding us of this HURTS. We know, and if we could fix it, we bloody well would have by now
Chronic uncertainty about efficacy. Always doubting ability to perform tasks and get the intended results (true to PoLR this is an on/off thing: I can either be neurotic and paralysed and mentally prepare the task for way too long so I don't screw up, or I can just charge into a task and start assembling the pieces around me as I go, hoping for the best).
Mmm... uncertainty about appropriate level of detail. Can swing to extremes of parsimony or... whatever the opposite of parsimony is
EDIT
Also, maybe more Ti HA again, but having an inclination for listening to internal logic > external reality. I'm slowly maturing out of this but I still make errors time to time.
This has been the most insightful post here, but still there are parts I'm not sure are really related to Te.
If I was doing a job with gulanzon: (let's say idk ,working at a bakery making cookies or something? I don't know)
(we'd bullshit all day about RPG theory, world of warcraft theory and general geeky shit. We'd get so geeky with it and get super deep with it) Then at the end of the day it would be like:
our boss: YOU STUPID ******S YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT. DON'T YOU SEE THERE'S A REAL OUTSIDE EXTERNAL REAL WORLD TO RUN WHERE IT MOVES FAST AND BRUTAL AND PEOPLE WANT THINGS. YOU TWO ARE FIRED! FAGS!
okay it wouldn't be this exaggerated it would be more like we'd do a 'C+ job' we'd do the bare minimum but it would obviously be sloppy. =D
*sigh* I don't have a superiority complex about much of anything, so you're wrong for thinking that. I don't mean to come across that way though.If you can tell me how you're lacking something, I'll be able to trust what you're saying, but you're just making out to be 'they're wrong and I'm right' which clearly indicates that you're missing something, and that more likely than not you're rationalizing you superiority.
Funny. Just today I had an argument with an ESE about this again. She's often stating the obvious, expects me to applaud it and is upset when I don't. I usually point out it's obvious, and as she just keeps repeating it, that there's no need to repeatedly state the obvious. Then she rants about how "you have to talk of something blah blah blah" and how it doesn't matter how obvious it is or isn't.
Basically Fe seems to me like communicating the obvious for the sake of communicating, i.e. disregarding information being exchanged because what matters to it is exchange itself.
I'm not trying to say that you have a superiority complex, just that you're not explaining yourself objectively as far as I can tell, which may even part of what Te-PoLR is. But idk. That's what I'm trying to get at, but I need a 'real' explanation and not a rant.
Lmao.. well if that's true, this is the wrong context for Fe. I have no problem with their ranting, but do it some where where people won't take it seriously. I can appreciate blurting out stuff just because it makes you feel good, but I hope I'm not the only one here who would like constructive info on the subject.
Besides, somehow I don't think they meant it that way. I really do think they were trying to be informative, but imo they didn't do it very well. Maybe that's Te-polr: trouble expressing one's self objectively. Please correct me if I'm wrong
Te types don't always have it wrong. And I never said they did. The question was: What pisses INFps off about Te? Some Te pisses me off and other Te I ignore.
The real weakness of INFp is Se. Te polr is somewhere in between the ego and there. The DS function is weaker than the polr.
Model As forward moving information metabolism is inherently flawed and it misleads people to think there is an irrevocable imbalance between the id and superego where the id always comes out stronger. But that makes no sense. They have to be balanced around the superid.
There are Ti heavy INFps who have stronger Te than they do Fi on this board.
Last edited by crazedrat; 10-07-2010 at 12:39 AM.
You're right. That's my bad. I was expecting something to the effect of 'how does Te affect you?' and so 'how is it your weakness?' played into it. I got it wrong.
Idk where you're going with that, but that's a topic for a different thread I think.The real weakness of INFp is Se and then Ti. Te polr is somewhere in between the ego and there. The DS function is weaker than the polr. Why would we say the superego is inherently weaker than the id? That makes no sense. They have to be balanced around the superid.
Model As forward moving information metabolism is inherently flawed starting with there only being 8 distinct function blocks where there should be 16.
You can ignore it if you want.
Lol
Well it's pretty much Ti. Ti is really structural. I'm pointing out flaws in a system and then describing the ideal system. If you can't read what I wrote and see the meaning in it then no amount of discussion is going to get us anywhere.
That has nothing to do with this. I think you're unable to hear my explanation. The explanation I gave is actually sufficient if you think with Ti. Would you try to describe the science of time travel to a random person on the internet? That would just overstrain you. You didn't get it the first time.. it was completely meaningless to you. That's as far as my attempt to explain myself goes.
here I'll ask you more specifc questions.
DS weaker than PoLR. I don't want to get into details like the PoLR is stronger than the DS, but weaker than everything else. If thats the case, fine I can accept that, but if not I have to ask why do you think so?
I'm not sure what you mean by forward moving info-metablism.
I think it makes sense that the id comes out stronger than the super-ego for the simple reason that they are somewhat related to the ego. But also, if there is an opposing relationship of strength between dual elements (e.g. base-Se implies DS-Ni) then the id must be stronger than the super-ego since the super-ego is suppressed by the ego.
and you had mentioned there should be 16 instead of 8 blocks, so why do you think so?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote