Te base description

[Ezra]

Can someone like Expat or Joy please do what Herzy did, and write what it's like to have Te base. The reason I'm asking these people and not UDP, FDG or Salawa is because they're people who haven't had people express radically different types. Expat's being an LIE is pretty much unanimous, and besides Ashton, neither he nor Joy have come up against any resistance for LIE. But lots of people are split on Fabio's type; some say SEE, some SLE, and many completely disagree with UDP's LSE typing, and Salawa has even expressed doubts about her being an LIE (she thought SEE if I'm not mistaken). So, essentially, Joy or Expat, please write from your point of view, in first person, like Herzy, what it's like to have Te as a leading function.

Greatly appreciated.

[meatburger]

another good source may be Wikisocion.

as a base (1st) function (LIE and LSE)

The individual evaluates external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. He is inclined to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, and his sense of self-worth is connected to being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that he knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible. Thus the individual has a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives him confidence in being well-informed on the same matters, which enables him to enter arguments related to them with confidence in his knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...roverted_logic

[Expat]

Can someone like Expat or Joy please do what Herzy did, and write what it's like to have Te base. The reason I'm asking these people and not UDP, FDG or Salawa is because they're people who haven't had people express radically different types. Expat's being an LIE is pretty much unanimous, and besides Ashton, neither he nor Joy have come up against any resistance for LIE. But lots of people are split on Fabio's type; some say SEE, some SLE, and many completely disagree with UDP's LSE typing, and Salawa has even expressed doubts about her being an LIE (she thought SEE if I'm not mistaken). So, essentially, Joy or Expat, please write from your point of view, in first person, like Herzy, what it's like to have Te as a leading function.

I wrote the initial version of the Te and LIE descriptions in the wiki; they were later changed by others, but they still reflect my views, on the whole.

An earlier attempt is here:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ead.php?t=7305

What I find amusing is that a lot of the people who think that they are Te-ego types, if they could really enter into a Te-ego person's mind, would recoil in contempt and disgust.

Te is about what works in reality, and in order to affect reality or to properly evaluate if something is working, it's necessary to understand reality in its own terms - not the way it's "supposed" to be, or how we wish it would be, or how it can make people happy or unhappy, flattered or offended.

Te is about facts, in the sense that a continuous observation of ever-changing facts is the way to observe reality. Reality is dynamic. If I aim at doing something based on, say, the price of bananas, the only way to check if I'm successful is to continually get information on the price of bananas. I may have a mathematical model as to how the price of bananas might develop, or even a grand idea as to what the prices of bananas should be in a properly run world. That does not change the fact that, at the end of the day, I still have to check what the price of bananas is doing to see if I'm being effective.

And in that case, all I care about is having as accurate information on the price of bananas as possible. I don't care about people packaging it with thoughts like, "oh the prices are a bit low, he'll be upset, I'll tell him they are a bit higher to make him happier". That is precisely the way to annoy me. It just shows me that I can't trust such people to give me accurate information, so I mark them down as unreliable sources.

The example I'm using is trivial, but hopefully it gives you an idea.

[snegledmaca]

another good source may be Wikisocion.

as a base (1st) function (LIE and LSE)

The individual evaluates external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. He is inclined to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, and his sense of self-worth is connected to being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that he knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible. Thus the individual has a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives him confidence in being well-informed on the same matters, which enables him to enter arguments related to them with confidence in his knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others.

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...roverted_logic

Hmm, how bizarre, I completely identify with that description. In fact, that's precisely the thing that I clash on with my mother, and with some other people, like my SLE (Or LSI) roommate. For example today I was bewildered when he acted all defensive and insulted when I tried to verify whether something he said was true.

He said something works to a certain hour. I doubted it. He said he read it on the door. I said I didn't believe him and am going to check. He then acted all insulted, claiming I'm making him look like a fool, that he goes there regularly, he saw it works to that hour, what the hell am I trying to pull. I was really bewildered by this response of his and "backed off" as my next response would've have been that I'm sure he did see what he saw, but it still doesn't mean a thing and I'm going to check it.

[Joy]

Basically (for me) it mostly centers around two things:

• What are you (or am I) trying to accomplish?
• What is the most efficient and (even more so) effective way to accomplish it?

There's also an aspect of it which involves finding a lot of information on a subject and sorting through it relatively quickly to determine which information is most useful for the purpose of effectively accomplishing whatever it is a person is trying to accomplish. If nothing else I can usually make recommendations regarding which information a person should obtain and the best places to start looking for that information.

I also have a tendency to try to get more information about situations for the purpose of simplifying them. I look for the root causes and underlying cause and effect relationships. That's probably got more to do with Ni than Te though I suppose. The reason I look for those underlying cause and effect relationships though is because it aids in simplifying both the situation and the solutions to whatever problems/obstacles may be present.

When people tell me about their problems or something complicated that's going on in their lives, I often ask questions designed to get to the root of problem/situation, find out what it is the person wants, and then offer possible solutions. Like if someone's telling me about some health problem they're having, the first thing that comes to mind is which supplements or treatments may help that person. If someone's having a problem with their boss, I ask questions about the situation and then ask them what they think would happen if they did this or that. If someone's telling me about a big project they need to get done I make suggestions on ways to make it easier or accomplish it more quickly and effectively.

There's more to Te dominance than this stuff, of course, and there are other reasons I do these things like positivism, Ni, Se valuing, being result oriented (in the process vs. result dichotomy), EJ temperament, and so on, but the aspects of myself that I described here are the ones that first come to mind when I think of how Te dominance manifests in my behavior.

[Expat]

I agree with Joy.

[Ezra]

What I find amusing is that a lot of the people who think that they are Te-ego types, if they could really enter into a Te-ego person's mind, would recoil in contempt and disgust.

Yeah, Joy was laughing at how people wanted to be Te base when they weren't a few months ago; why is this? Why would a non-Te-ego type recoil in contempy and disgust at their mind? What is it about the Te-ego that makes them shiver and retract; that conflicts with their own state of mind?

Te is about what works in reality, and in order to affect reality or to properly evaluate if something is working, it's necessary to understand reality in its own terms - not the way it's "supposed" to be, or how we wish it would be, or how it can make people happy or unhappy, flattered or offended.

Te is about facts, in the sense that a continuous observation of ever-changing facts is the way to observe reality. Reality is dynamic. If I aim at doing something based on, say, the price of bananas, the only way to check if I'm successful is to continually get information on the price of bananas. I may have a mathematical model as to how the price of bananas might develop, or even a grand idea as to what the prices of bananas should be in a properly run world. That does not change the fact that, at the end of the day, I still have to check what the price of bananas is doing to see if I'm being effective.

And in that case, all I care about is having as accurate information on the price of bananas as possible. I don't care about people packaging it with thoughts like, "oh the prices are a bit low, he'll be upset, I'll tell him they are a bit higher to make him happier". That is precisely the way to annoy me. It just shows me that I can't trust such people to give me accurate information, so I mark them down as unreliable sources.

This is quite good. I think it resonates quite well with Se in MBTT too. For example, Se in MBTT is about taking in the world 'as it is'; in all its objective facts, colours, numbers, patterns, etc.

Hmm, how bizarre, I completely identify with that description. In fact, that's precisely the thing that I clash on with my mother, and with some other people, like my SLE (Or LSI) roommate. For example today I was bewildered when he acted all defensive and insulted when I tried to verify whether something he said was true.

He said something works to a certain hour. I doubted it. He said he read it on the door. I said I didn't believe him and am going to check. He then acted all insulted, claiming I'm making him look like a fool, that he goes there regularly, he saw it works to that hour, what the hell am I trying to pull. I was really bewildered by this response of his and "backed off" as my next response would've have been that I'm sure he did see what he saw, but it still doesn't mean a thing and I'm going to check it.

You think you have Te base? Seriously?

[leckysupport]

He said something works to a certain hour. I doubted it. He said he read it on the door. I said I didn't believe him and am going to check. He then acted all insulted, claiming I'm making him look like a fool, that he goes there regularly, he saw it works to that hour, what the hell am I trying to pull. I was really bewildered by this response of his and "backed off" as my next response would've have been that I'm sure he did see what he saw, but it still doesn't mean a thing and I'm going to check it.

Almost everyone gets offended by this, probably more so Te leading types.

[FlameReborn]

What makes the mind of a Te ego scary? Easy.

It weighs you on a set of scales. It looks at you and coldly, precisely estimates your value as a human being. It may have feelings and sentiments of its own, but if you're in the way, it will calculate how best to remove you. not to say it would act on the calculatos, but it would mark you an inconvenience to its goal. Because, regardless of anything, you are.

like the spartans. if, at birth, you had any kind of disability, ou were not likely to grow up to be a great warrior. logic of business: If you're not an asset, you're a liability. so you'd be left to die on a mountainside.

[Kristiina]

Can someone like Expat or Joy please do what Herzy did, and write what it's like to have Te base. The reason I'm asking these people and not UDP, FDG or Salawa is because they're people who haven't had people express radically different types. Expat's being an LIE is pretty much unanimous, and besides Ashton, neither he nor Joy have come up against any resistance for LIE. But lots of people are split on Fabio's type; some say SEE, some SLE, and many completely disagree with UDP's LSE typing, and Salawa has even expressed doubts about her being an LIE (she thought SEE if I'm not mistaken). So, essentially, Joy or Expat, please write from your point of view, in first person, like Herzy, what it's like to have Te as a leading function.

Greatly appreciated.

lol. you're not even joking!

[Kristiina]

What makes the mind of a Te ego scary? Easy.

It weighs you on a set of scales. It looks at you and coldly, precisely estimates your value as a human being. It may have feelings and sentiments of its own, but if you're in the way, it will calculate how best to remove you. not to say it would act on the calculatos, but it would mark you an inconvenience to its goal. Because, regardless of anything, you are.

like the spartans. if, at birth, you had any kind of disability, ou were not likely to grow up to be a great warrior. logic of business: If you're not an asset, you're a liability. so you'd be left to die on a mountainside.

this is a very good post.

[Jonathan]

If we say that Te is about facts, and checking facts, don't we still have to distinguish it from facts related to other information elements?

It seems that there are certain "facts" of an Se nature. If we observe the objects around us, through our senses, we are making sensory observations of facts. It would appear that this is still Se, even though it concerns facts.

A similar issue comes in saying that Te is about "what works." In the movie directors thread, I suggested that Hitchcock may be a Te-ego-block type because he was so focused on "what works" (what works dramatically; what works to affect the audience and keep its interest). If, instead, he was SEI, that may suggest that his singular emphasis on what works dramatically is perhaps not an expression of super-ego Te but rather something else.

In my observation, it appears that what Expat and other LIE types do, rather than focus on "facts," is to evaluate which facts are relevant to making a specific logical case. That is, Te is more about relating facts logically for some specific purpose. Te, it seems to me, is not expressed by someone simply knowing and memorizing lots of facts, or spending a lot of time checking up on raw facts. Rather, it is a logical skill, related to Ti except in the dynamic rather than static context. It involves understanding which facts would most effectively and efficiently solve your problem, make your case, etc. This also may cause a shift of one's position, based on the facts one has discovered; but it is not actually the facts, but the facts as logically connected.

As to checking the validity or the "reality checking" that I think Gamma NTs do, I'm not as sure that this applies to Delta STs in the same way. It appears that Gamma NT involves a Ni conceptualization that must be constantly be updated to reflect Se reality, as mediated through Te. This may be seen by the following process:

Information -> Ni idea of what may be going on -> Te ideas on how to test the idea and make it work -> Se results of the experiement -> Te interprets whether the results really contain substantially different information that would require altering one's idea.

However, Te with Si may not involve as much of a "revision" process, as Si might possibly tend to lead to focus on more concrete, "settled" information.

One other issue: While it seems fairly clear to people what acc-Te looks like, at least in LIEs, there have been some divergent views on what crea-Te looks like. It seems that with crea-Te, there is an emphasis on finding out what reality is like, and (especially with ILI), a certain continual "revision" process to reflect reality. However, it may not involve as much actual external effort in being involved in checking facts. That is, I would expect an LIE to be be more energetically involved in activities that would be used to understand the world around one, whereas an ILI would still be oriented to the same goals but would spend relatively less time and effort on external activities for gathering information, and more time conceptualizing the information.

The challenge, in that case, is distinguishing between "Ti > Te" and "Ni > Te."

[Phaedrus]

A clear difference in behaviour between acc-Te types and crea-Te types is that the former ones are strongly proactive, whereas the latter are often strongly reactive.

It is a matter of temperament of course. LIEs and ILIs may both be checking facts, and ILIs can even spend more time gathering information than LIEs sometimes due to the fact that LIEs, as pointed out by Jonathan, evaluate which facts are relevant at an earlier stage in the information gathering process.

But it is also true that ILIs spend more time conceptualizing the information. And all this together results in the obvious observable differences in behaviours between these two types.

LIEs are busy doing things, being proactive and time effective in order to get practical results that would benefit them financially and in other ways. They have a need to be productive.

ILIs are mostly passive, contemplating different options, hesitating, waiting for the right moment to act (which may never come ...) theorizing, philosophizing, occasionally pointing out logical mistakes, criticizing the hasty products of the LIEs and other types, taking a nap, start all over again collecting new information and analyzing the old information in case some important detail was missed ...

The thinking processes of LIEs and ILIs are not too different; they usually understand each others arguments and they often reach the same or similar conclusions. But their behaviourial differences are huge and obvious. People who misunderstand the quadras can miss that, and how important it is.

Temperaments are fundamental, and it is impossible to understand the types correctly if you only focus on functions (as for example hitta does).

[aestrivex]

If we say that Te is about facts, and checking facts, don't we still have to distinguish it from facts related to other information elements?

It seems that there are certain "facts" of an Se nature. If we observe the objects around us, through our senses, we are making sensory observations of facts. It would appear that this is still Se, even though it concerns facts.

A similar issue comes in saying that Te is about "what works." In the movie directors thread, I suggested that Hitchcock may be a Te-ego-block type because he was so focused on "what works" (what works dramatically; what works to affect the audience and keep its interest). If, instead, he was SEI, that may suggest that his singular emphasis on what works dramatically is perhaps not an expression of super-ego Te but rather something else.

In my observation, it appears that what Expat and other LIE types do, rather than focus on "facts," is to evaluate which facts are relevant to making a specific logical case. That is, Te is more about relating facts logically for some specific purpose. Te, it seems to me, is not expressed by someone simply knowing and memorizing lots of facts, or spending a lot of time checking up on raw facts. Rather, it is a logical skill, related to Ti except in the dynamic rather than static context. It involves understanding which facts would most effectively and efficiently solve your problem, make your case, etc. This also may cause a shift of one's position, based on the facts one has discovered; but it is not actually the facts, but the facts as logically connected.

As to checking the validity or the "reality checking" that I think Gamma NTs do, I'm not as sure that this applies to Delta STs in the same way. It appears that Gamma NT involves a Ni conceptualization that must be constantly be updated to reflect Se reality, as mediated through Te. This may be seen by the following process:

Information -> Ni idea of what may be going on -> Te ideas on how to test the idea and make it work -> Se results of the experiement -> Te interprets whether the results really contain substantially different information that would require altering one's idea.

However, Te with Si may not involve as much of a "revision" process, as Si might possibly tend to lead to focus on more concrete, "settled" information.

One other issue: While it seems fairly clear to people what acc-Te looks like, at least in LIEs, there have been some divergent views on what crea-Te looks like. It seems that with crea-Te, there is an emphasis on finding out what reality is like, and (especially with ILI), a certain continual "revision" process to reflect reality. However, it may not involve as much actual external effort in being involved in checking facts. That is, I would expect an LIE to be be more energetically involved in activities that would be used to understand the world around one, whereas an ILI would still be oriented to the same goals but would spend relatively less time and effort on external activities for gathering information, and more time conceptualizing the information.

The challenge, in that case, is distinguishing between "Ti > Te" and "Ni > Te."

i think this is actually a very concise description of the issue. the only issue i have with it is the influence of Se, which i think is present in Ni on a much more instinctual level, and is not something that Ni rigorously uses to make sure that Te is functioning appropriately with respect to reality; i think Te does that by itself. the Ni comes in i think much more closely in the purpose of or way that the Te component is used, much what you were describing.

but it's definitely true that "facts" to try to make something productive (or, in the case of ILI/SLI, appropriately correspondent to the outside world through the guise of Ni/Si, although Ni works better for this example because the accumulated Te is more abstractly intangible and conceptual in nature) are very different from facts about "this tennis ball is green." actually, the fact that the tennis ball is green might be considered a Te tidbit, but such a factoid is so meaningless that it might be confused with the Se-related perception of the tennis ball, which has a less describably coherent method of evaluating what the tennis ball is.

[UDP]

And in that case, all I care about is having as accurate information on the price of bananas as possible. I don't care about people packaging it with thoughts like, "oh the prices are a bit low, he'll be upset, I'll tell him they are a bit higher to make him happier". That is precisely the way to annoy me. It just shows me that I can't trust such people to give me accurate information, so I mark them down as unreliable sources.

The example I'm using is trivial, but hopefully it gives you an idea.

Indeed



Maybe later in the week I'll go into detail about why my room mate (hardcore ESE male), up and left swiftly. He didn't even tell me what was going on, because he didn't want any "bad feelings".

Talk about valuing different functions and "communication problems"



PS: also, I see a lot of E8 in these descriptions, in regard to finding out the truth, whatever the costs or implications.