Te creative?

[Cone]

Hey guys,

Part of the definition of Te as a creative function as given over on the wikisocion says this:

The individual works with the goal of producing dynamic objects and/or conditions. These objects may be physical or mental so long as they are in motion. If conditions do not allow this function to work, the individual will become bored and increasingly engage in base function activities in complete disregard of the objective facts suggesting otherwise action.

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what this actually means and how it pans out in reality. Like, does this mean that information from the leading function needs to be applied in a way that creates a situation which works towards a goal? Or...well, I'm throughly confused...

[crazedrat]

First of all .. the definition is incomplete. The functions behave differently for both subtypes of INTp. That description is for INTp-Te. For the function (Te), if you think of a fact without an underlying context; with no connections to other facts.. just an isolated fact, having the potential to combine with other facts and form structures.. the fact itself is an object (Te). That potential it has to form structures, which it possesses due to its isolation, is its dynamic potential.

For (INTp-Te) the information processing works towards producing (Te) through exertions from the base (Ni); which are influenced by the HA function (Fi); all in the name of constructing a coherent working plan of action (Se) which arbitrarily reinforms the function (Fi) of its stability or instability, and the cycle repeats.

For (INTp-Ni), they seek out objects of (Te) for perception as a way of feeding the base (Ni), in the name of the perfection of a personal (Fi) structure; which, vaguely, indicates the coherence of the base. This Fi function informs the INTp-Ni of a course of action or inaction (Se), guiding the individual toward further information (Te) in the name of seeking out coherence.
A perceptive person will notice that at this point it is only a small step between INTp-Ni and INFp-Ni.

Vaguely.. with the Te subtype, the input on whether to refine their current understanding comes from an understanding of the incoherence of facts.. With the Ni subtype, it comes from inclinations and whimsical perceptions from within their mind; a general feeling their work is incomplete, that not everything is done. This is the difference between Se accepting input from Te vs. Se accepting input from Fi. On the same line of thought, Se producing Fi shows the INTp-Tes tendency to make personal remarks on situations and their flaws .. Se producing Te will make logical remarks and observations on the flaws of situations. You can see the difference alot in their senses of humor.
Could keep elaborating .. but you get the general idea.

[krieger]

If you want my opinion, that definition is total crap. It takes a litteral interpretation of "producing", "dynamic" and "object" and puts them together in a way that is supposed to make sense but doesn't in any practical way. None of the three terms should be interpreted in the naive, litteral way as is being done here.

[Creepy-male]

So, what is a good way to understand Te-creative then?

I agree, though. The creative function should be an individual's most socially noticeable trait (as I understand it), and I don't notice either of my SLI friends doing this at all.

[The Exception]

Can't say more than it reads like a type wrote it and I can't make heads or tails of it.

Or maybe its a subtype thing. I can't make any sense out of it either and I am LII.

[Jarno]

Can't say more than it reads like a type wrote it and I can't make heads or tails of it.

Yes I was thinking the same.

Also socionics is simple, but it's because of that speculative abstract crap that people start to think that socionics is difficult. And before you know someone changes his selftyping again because he can relate himself more to a producing dynamic object, then a motion mental condition.

[krieger]

So, what is a good way to understand Te-creative then?

I've got a few opinions on it.

Creating or Producing means perfectionistic, idealistic, not satisfied with surface appearances.

Dynamic means exactly that last thing: concerned with surface appearances. It's more shallow than Static (however, also broader). It's about gathering information, observing things and trying to find out where to look to find the information you need; navigating a world composed of information sources.

When you put Creating and Dynamic together you get something that has a superficial knowledge of things but wants a deeper knowledge. It's a function of wonder, amazement, the sense of lacking knowledge that begs to be pondered upon. (I'm using the word "knowledge" in this paragraphs mainly because we are concerned with a J function; in the description of a P function, knowlegde would be switched for understanding)

In a T function this kind of feeling is applied to the articulatable details of a situation, that which is expressed in language about a subject rather than the wholistic concepts that can only be denoted. It concerns matters of knowledge rather than understanding.

I believe this to be a trademark Creating/Dynamic sentence, possibly Creating Te:

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out what this actually means and how it pans out in reality. Like, does this mean that information from the leading function needs to be applied in a way that creates a situation which works towards a goal? Or...well, I'm throughly confused...

[Gilly]

I agree the presented definition is total shit. Jarno or Jonathan or Niffweed should rewrite it.

[Park]

I've got a few opinions on it.

Creating or Producing means perfectionistic, idealistic, not satisfied with surface appearances.

Dynamic means exactly that last thing: concerned with surface appearances. It's more shallow than Static (however, also broader). It's about gathering information, observing things and trying to find out where to look to find the information you need; navigating a world composed of information sources.

When you put Creating and Dynamic together you get something that has a superficial knowledge of things but wants a deeper knowledge. It's a function of wonder, amazement, the sense of lacking knowledge that begs to be pondered upon. (I'm using the word "knowledge" in this paragraphs mainly because we are concerned with a J function; in the description of a P function, knowlegde would be switched for understanding)

In a T function this kind of feeling is applied to the articulatable details of a situation, that which is expressed in language about a subject rather than the wholistic concepts that can only be denoted. It concerns matters of knowledge rather than understanding.

I believe this to be a trademark Creating/Dynamic sentence, possibly Creating Te:

+365

[Cone]

Ok, thanks...I guess.

Oh well, I guess some parts of Socionics can only be speculated about. Cool responses so far.

[Ave]

If you want my opinion, that definition is total crap. It takes a litteral interpretation of "producing", "dynamic" and "object" and puts them together in a way that is supposed to make sense but doesn't in any practical way. None of the three terms should be interpreted in the naive, litteral way as is being done here.

agreed

[717495]

The way I would see Te creative is in that Te creatives are adept at gathering information relevant to their interests or objectives and are able to find an efficient manner in pursuing their interests and objectives though the focus will not be on the information gathering nor the efficiency but the focus will be to use those aspects to serve interests which cater to the base function of Ni or Si. When the use of Te becomes trite and unstimulating, it is likely that one will withdraw into a mode of behavior which engages the base function while neglecting the creative function in this case.

A potentially common way for Te creative to manifest itself is by having an interest generated by your leading function. Something might strike your fancy. In my case, this idea/interest is formulated the more I mentally visualize what it is I am after or interested in. In order to purse this, I immediately use informational channels to find sources of information which can help develop my mental visualization. I gather information and the more good information I gather, the more detailed the mental picture is. However, with dealing with a lot of information, I naturally begin separating the information from good and bad, vague and specific, and try to take certain bits of info with a grain of salt.

It's sort of complicated to explain because this process is naturally a fluid one since we're talking about the nature of human cognition, but I would say my focus is on the mental image I possess and whatever functions I utilize to expand and define that picture is taken for granted. It's much like painting a picture. The picture I am painting is my focus though to paint it, I have a lot of tools to work with but the tools exist for the sake of the picture and not the other way around. Similarly, the other functions I possess such as my creative function, concrete act, etc certainly is essential for me to work towards what my focus is on, but the functions outside of the base function do not stimulate my concern or interest to any large degree in comparison to the base function.

This is generally a good perspective that I can agree upon for the most part.

[Logos]

Can't say more than it reads like a type wrote it and I can't make heads or tails of it.

Wasn't niffweed responsible for writing this?

[717495]

Wasn't niffweed responsible for writing this?

I've never seen niffweed explain things in terms like "dynamic objects and/or conditions" or "objects in motion" when it comes to his understanding of creative Te. This kind of language has more than often been trivial.

[Logos]

I've never seen niffweed explain things in terms like "dynamic objects and/or conditions" or "objects in motion" when it comes to his understanding of creative Te. This kind of language has more than often been trivial.

Trivial is putting it mildly.