What exactly is the difference? What are they? I've yet to get a good grasp of how each function operates, and I've been meaning to post this for a while but I get distracted.
Printable View
What exactly is the difference? What are they? I've yet to get a good grasp of how each function operates, and I've been meaning to post this for a while but I get distracted.
Removed at User Request
A couple of ways of viewing the differences between Ti and Te is to think of them in terms of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Name
static T vs dynamic T
or
T context vs T content
Ti is static (relatively stable and consistent) as well as dealing with context (connections, the relationships between objects, ideas, symbols, etc). Ti is often referred to as "logical connections".
It refers to explicit yet abstract connections. It itself doesn't look for the inner meaning of connections. But it does explicitly state how those things are connected. These aren't connections we can actually use our senses to see, it refers to abstract connections. However, it can be used to code for us what connections we are seeing (or supposed to be looking for).
Te is dynamic (changes, moves, and interacts) as well as dealing with content (the things, objects, ideas, topic, 'nouns'). This latter part is partly why Te is often referred to as "facts". (Funnily enough though, it's a dynamic function, does this mean that the facts change depending upon the situation or viewer??)
It refers to explicit yet abstract content. It itself doesn't look for the inner meaning of the content. But it does explicitly state what the content/object/idea/details are. These aren't content we can actually touch and manipulate, per se, because it refers to abstract content. However, it can be used to code for us what content, objects, ideas, details we are seeing (or supposed to be looking for).
In the process of coding (putting into language) the content, we get the idea that we are referring to "facts". This is Te.
In the process of coding (putting into language) the context, we get the idea that we are referring to "logic". This is Ti.
Ti is about breaking structures apart to understand the inner workings and then reordering them. It's also about following a structure or law.
Te is about steadiness, efficiency, and productivity. Always getting the facts and figures and basing decisions on them.
Typical quality vs quantity based difference. It's just about the same idea for all introverted vs extroverted functions. Ti digs deeper to the source, Te looks to trust the accumulation of facts early on.
this is a really good description, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I don't believe the facts change often, for them to change it would mean they are disproved and are therefore not facts. But I think situations change, problems based on the situations change and the facts relavence to solving a problem change too. So that is where I believe the dynamicness comes from.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
The logic of Te actually says that facts help :Te: valuers get a grip of the changes, either by knowing them ahead of time or by learning them for the first time. There is no way facts could have static use, even being static themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by leckysupport
Remember that Ti and Te work hand in hand. That's why if one has strength in logic, they'll have both strong static and dynamic, objective and subjective versions of logic. Same goes with ethics, sensing and intution. They work hand in hand objectively. The two ego functions rather work hand in hand by preference of the primary function and are independent of each other, where as both logics are dependent of each other.
Removed at User Request
mine too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirena
before i saw this, i was going to comment on it, and say it's good as well. i wonder what their type is.
mine too :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirena
before i saw this, i was going to comment on it, and say it's good as well. i wonder what their type is. (the explainer)
Correct me if I'm wrong (and trust me, I'm still fuzzy so this can be way off), but what I gather so far is that Te is more concerned with "the outcome" and Ti is more concerned about "the process". By this I mean that a Te valuer cares more about the final product, be it something observable or just an idea. "The meaning may be important, but the results are more important". The Te valuer can then manipulate the results of these products to culminate something greater than the individual parts gathered (or is that more Ti?).
Ti cares less about the final product but more about the process itself. It cares less about what happens at the end, but focuses more on why it is happening. By observing this, a set of rules can be established from which a Ti valuer can assume what might happen or explain why something happens based on the existing rule set.
Basically, Te says what happens when Ti says why it happens?
didn't realize you'd posted one too. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by pluie
I think she types herself as ENFp if I remember correctly.Quote:
before i saw this, i was going to comment on it, and say it's good as well. i wonder what their type is.
Removed at User Request
Let me try something...
Behaviour characteristics in types:
Te vs Ti =
Effecient vs Thoroughness
Activity vs Analysing
Business vs Science
"Find some new, better way of doing things."
"Having a set way of doing things? That's just ridiculous."
"We need to make a program that isolates quantum events and selects pleasant-sounding intervals. Then record it to CDs and sell it as The Music of the Universe. The only problem? There's nobody else as evilly capitalistic as me..."
"What I find really funny is that, once the scheme is in play, we could probably announce how we did it, and some idiot will inevitably still insist that it really is The Music of the Universe. Lol."
-My LII friend
In that case I'm Ti>Te. I could be mistyped so I'm not saying you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
Nice and concise Jarno.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
I'm definitely more interested in most efficient way of doing things, and I typically find thoroughness to be overly cumbersome.
In work related issues i'm more of a do-er than an analyser. What's important to me is to get it done, rather than create and keep systems which don't always apply (I know an LSI who to me can't seem to see past the system rather than the achieving).
Business vs science. I'd say i'm more interested in what it can achieve rather than the study of a science just for the sake of it.
So if i'm anything to go by, I relate to the Te ones over the Ti ones.
This is quite good, although I think it's more valid for ENTp vs ENTj than for, say, ENTp vs INTp (the latter being a process type too, which smooths the difference). DarkAngelFireWolf69 places ENTps inside the linear-logical thinking style group, while ENTjs are in the synergistic set; this is fully compatible (actually, mostly equivalent) to what you have written above.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephemeros
Ti has to do with relations between facts in a set of facts; Te has to do with the facts inherent potential to form relations. Both are present in science, business, and all these other crappy examples I see here.
Sounds like me on a good day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulanzon
Shoot.
Mind if I move over to Gamma then?
I see it like ephemeros was describing,
:Te: -> integration of elements
:Ti: -> focus on each element as indivisible units
:Te: with :Si: is directed toward efficiency.
:Te: with :Ni: is directed towards productivity.
:Ti: with :Ne: is directed toward the relationship between indivisible elements.
:Ti: with :Se: is directed toward...? Not sure about this one.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
I think it means that it observes the external and changeable properties (dynamic states) of things. Te focuses on gathering 'facts' and learning how things work and function, observing their external activity independently. Ti focuses on recognizing the consistency and systematically organizing the facts it gathers, creating understandings (concepts) and rules about why things occur and how they relate to each other. Te is dynamic because it constantly updates information about external reality it observes (facts, processes, events, temporary states...), whereas Ti focuses on the logical structure of things and the way they connect and correlate to each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Hmm, yes, there is an aspect of "purity" that I associate with :Ti:, as in working with indivisible elements. So refinement might be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by ephemeros
Then call me Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarno
I think he's wrong. Those words alone could not describe anything, especially when you mix in temperament and other socionic properties in their connotation. Plus all of them are about equally applicable to both Te and Ti by their common dictionary definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Name
Is this true?Quote:
Philosophy Section of Wikisocion
* When :Te: dominates, attention is primarily focused on accurately describing facts, developing an empirical foundation, and testing hypotheses.
* When :Ti: dominates, attention is primarily focused on structuring information, analyzing methodology, and producing theoretical explanations.
not necessarily due to the vagueness and the way Te is described there is pretty static.
I'm not so sure it has static means though. Testing hypothesis can be pretty dynamic, and accurately describing facts as well as developing an emperical foundation seems more like an ongoing preparation for the upcoming dynamics.
I think being dynamic is in the means behind whatever they're really referring to with Te.
Testing hypotheses is Ti though.Quote:
Originally Posted by polikujm
At least, I associate it with LIIs more than ILEs.
Te doesn't care about the Hidden Internal Why of things, nor does it care about anything other than the continuous stream of outspits (if I've got it right, since it seems to be a process function?)
TroofQuote:
Originally Posted by Gulanzon
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isha
.
How would you describe some noticeable differences for Te and Ti in action?Quote:
Originally Posted by Isha
This is what the general attitude toward Te seems to be. The problem is I'm supposed to be heavy on the Te but I DO care about the Hidden Internal Why of things. Usually if I know that Hidden Internal Why, I don't have to memorize a ton of facts, so long as the Hidden Internal Why can lead me to them when applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulanzon
Dude, read some articles...Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Name
You can start with wikisocion.org and head to socionics.us or Rick's blog, or anywhere (like e.g. Articles - the16types.info Socionics Forums) really.
Memorizing facts is not a product of Te.
Every quadra and every type has their own 'hidden internal why' of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Name
However, they each differ on what specifically constitutes 'hidden internal why'.
For Alpha, the content, objects, ideas, people, etc are the 'hidden internal', which are connected by explicit structures. This is how they get their "why" answered.
For Gamma, it's the context, the connections and relationships between objects, ideas, people, etc, which are 'hidden internal'. This is how they get their "why" answered.
For Delta, it's the internal statics...those 'hidden internal' content and contexts that are relatively stable and/or consistent which answers their "why".
And for Beta, it's the internal dynamics....those 'hidden internal' content and contexts that change which answers their "why".
And Te isn't about memorizing a ton of facts.
Especially if those facts are treated as static things.
Winterpark's description of Te was pretty damned good. (though I still like to tease Te types who think they are dealing with "facts" as in "absolute truths")
The biggest problem with the quote above, is that this thread was an attempt to separate Te from Ti, to give an idea of the differences between them.
But then the OP turned around and applied it to an overall type. Te isn't a type. It's an element...or function..whatever the heck you want to call it. But it's not a type in and of itself. It's a piece of information that we process. But we don't only process that one piece. We include other information in our processing. Te isn't a goal either. It's information. What we, as individuals, do with that information is personal, and not necessarily type related.
So yes, regardless of what your type is, you are fully capable of seeking out the 'hidden internal why', but how you go about it (or how you know you found it) will likely be type specific.
Any person who is capable of learning through exploration is involved in the process of creating and testing hypotheses. "Oh, that's a door. If I turn the knob, the door should open." *turns knob* "Hey, I was right!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulanzon
Ok, so the example is extremely simplistic. But the point is as well. We ALL create and test hypotheses. However, not all of us formalize those hypotheses, nor do we do formalized testings. Nor do we all create rules or measured connections/relationships between the objects/ideas we hypothesize about.
As for the last part about the "Hidden Internal Why" of things, see my previous post (the one just before this).
Wow, nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
I really like and agree with this description. Good thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Isha
That's more what I was looking for (at this point anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterpark
I just want to clarify that "facts" can be changeable - which is why they are dynamic. For instance, the exchange rate between the US dollar and the pound sterling is a "fact" today, but it will be different tomorrow. The total mass of Mars is supposedly a "static" fact, but if more accurate measurements correct it by 5.344% tomorrow, then it's also a "dynamic" fact.
Ti can also be a bit off topic if you ask me.
My ESFj grandma was explaining to me why I shouldn't have parties because things could get stolen.
And I agreed with her, but I was wondering just why she was telling me this, since I know she knows that I'm not the type who would invite hundreds of people over to my house for a party. I figured she was just using her Ti, because obviously not having random parties, spur of the moment when parents leave the house is not a good idea unless you know exactly what will go down and if you have control of the situation.
I doesn't matter how weird the comment really was, I could tell she was trying to tap into her or my Ti because it was something she valued.
I might say to one of my kids one day, "don't fucking do cocaine."
And he'd probably say, "what the crap? I don't do drugs. When did I ever mention drugs."
And I'd say, "I'm just sayin'," and then explain to him the logical reason why cocaine is bad. Hypathetically, if cocaine were bad.
You know, one day the event behind this logic could actualize, and you're already prepared with the solution.
Since when is a static function unable to prepare you for the future?
Removed at User Request
That's a weird correlation to make. But an hour ago I shouted at my dog in all kinds of pitches. I was really excited to seem him. I must be merry.
Then again, if I really am an IEE, than I am serious, and your theory wouldn't necessarily apply to me.
This smells like bullshit to me, and it really makes Te sounds like it's just plain better than Ti. I think our American bias for 'extroversion business ethics' or whatever is simply clouding any true perception we can get from Te. (The cultural preferences for certain functions cannot be ignored IMO) Life itself is naturally adaptive and versatile. A Ti type would always fail if we thought that our solutions could be applied under any circumstance. And I guess I do 'fail' if you hold me up to typical standards of western success, but I do not buy into that gimmick in the first place soooo.Quote:
Te-preferring types often approach specific problems as they arise (or anticipate specific problems) and apply solutions based on that particular problem in that particular situation at that particular time with the particular resources available. This is really an approach based on "what works", as Joy would say, and consistency between solutions is not guaranteed.
Ti-preferring types tend to instead develop overarching solutions with the intention that they will be applicable under "any" circumstance, and that you can apply them in a consistent way -- or that if you apply them consistently you will avoid problems.
I seem to constantly realize that life is a play by ear basis and you really can't take one solution and roll with it.
It doesn't make Te sound better in my opinion. Ti doesn't need to just have "one way" of doing everything, like it sounds like you're presuming. There is "one way" of doing this, and "one way" of doing this, but these are simply preferences. Everyone has the capability to discern and adapt. Ti types are just trying to perfect their system logic, where as Te types perceive logical skills as finding the best solution at that time. They would be types most proud to problem solve.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
Te takes facts/objects from a given situation and makes them work together.
Ti takes facts/objects and uses it's knowledge base to see what has worked best.
Te works on something and moves on.
Ti incorporates everything it works on together.
Te is quick and productive.
Ti is slow but thorough and structured.
Te goes from A to B to C to...
Ti looks at how A B and C relate.
Te doubts what is untrustworthy.
Ti doubts what doesn't fit.
You'll find Te ego's value understanding by feel(Fi/Te - I know this will work better I can't explain why) over understanding through logical connection regardless of their stronger ability to use Ti.
IMO, Ti is more concerned with logical relations - classifications, structures, hierarchies, systems, etc. Ti often understands the logical connections amongst the parts. For example, in looking at an argument, Ti types will try to understand the underlying logic that connects the sentences. (Clarity might also be an aspect of Ti. In the example of analyzing an argument, it might be the case that the premises should be intuitively clear.) Practically, Ti shows itself more in fields like physics, mathematics, formal logic, and philosophy - any field that deals with logical relations (perhaps these fields are more Alpha than Beta, but they should give you the idea).
The logic of Te is based more on usefulness as opposed to the underlying logic. This makes Te focused on efficiency, effectiveness, well-accepted facts, etc. In examining an argument, Te types look more at external justifications (valid sources, etc.) and the practicality of what is being stated. Therefore, Te shows itself more in fields like business, politics, engineering, etc.
Finally, note that there will be Ti types in predominantly Te fields (and vice versa), but the approaches will be different - Ti types focusing on the underlying logic and Te types focusing on usefulness.
Jason
You have to be more specific. I am not looking to feel slighted, however, what you described makes Te sound *inherently* all-around better due to the naturally adaptive nature of human beings.
You need to give specific examples of circumstances where Te is more useful, and Ti is more useful.
Te = system administration, Ti = programming?
And why would you make a better system administrator than me? And why would I be a better programmer? What about our personality quirks suggests that, in details please.
This makes so much better sense if you leave out the dynamic and static dichotomy, which I think doesn't actually exist. I like this definition of Ti, because I DEFINITELY behave this way. However the Te one is still confusing as I don't think you really are actually explaining it. What the hell is content? Content is in everything equally. Content is content.Quote:
Ti is static (relatively stable and consistent) as well as dealing with context (connections, the relationships between objects, ideas, symbols, etc). Ti is often referred to as "logical connections".
It refers to explicit yet abstract connections. It itself doesn't look for the inner meaning of connections. But it does explicitly state how those things are connected. These aren't connections we can actually use our senses to see, it refers to abstract connections. However, it can be used to code for us what connections we are seeing (or supposed to be looking for).
Te is dynamic (changes, moves, and interacts) as well as dealing with content (the things, objects, ideas, topic, 'nouns'). This latter part is partly why Te is often referred to as "facts". (Funnily enough though, it's a dynamic function, does this mean that the facts change depending upon the situation or viewer??)
System administrator = boss of the programmers usually though, right?
That's rich.
There is content, and then there is context that the content is in. They are not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
It has to do with something akin to nodes and links.
Xe - nodes
Xi - links between nodes (how they are connected to each other, how they relate to each other, how they influence or interact with each other, etc)
Every language that I'm aware of includes words/symbols for objects (nodes) and how those objects connect/relate (links). Processing information requires both nodes and links of some kind.
If Ti was dynamic..if the connections between things constantly moved or changed, then it would be hard to create an explicit structure of how things are connected. It wouldn't really be a structure since the links would be connecting and disconnecting constantly. However, Ni and Si are dynamic links. Ti is basically defining the connections that were observed via Ni/Si. In the process of defining the connections, the connections appear to be static, unless Ti places it into a formula. In which case, the formula is describing how things are changing/moving/interacting with each other, but it's still dealing with those Ni/Si changes/interactions that are relatively stable or consistent. Thus giving the formula a static feel.
If Te was static…if the nodes never changed, never moved, never interacted with anything else, we'd actually be talking about Ne/Se nodes. The thing with nodes is that we can jump from node to node to node to node, without ever specifying how those nodes are connected. This is why Te deals so easily with lists. You can create lists quickly simply by writing a symbol or label for the nodes. When dealing with a complex object, however, Te breaks that object down into smaller more easily to deal with nodes. (For a poor example, think of trying to describe an elephant…we can list off features such as trunk, grey skin, large ears, tusks, heavy, etc. With nodes, we list those in rapid fire progression. The order that we list them in doesn't particularly matter. We can go from head to butt to left to head to right to feet to head again and still be talking about the same elephant.)
Now, admittedly, the example given deals with static nodes. But in the process of communicating them, there's a feel of movement from one node to another node.
imo, I think that what gives Te the actual "dynamics" is the Ni/Si links. These links aren't made explicit. So Te types don't feel a need to make those connections, relationships, interactions specific, that's Ti's job.
So in the case that isha provided of systems admin vs programmer,
The programmer specifies how nodes connect, how to connect them, how they relate to other nodes, and how one node would interact with another node.
The systems admin doesn't have to specify all that, they just have to be able to utilize all that.
In both cases, it's Ni/Si that's the real information providers.
Te defines the nodes being used.
Ti defines the links between those nodes.
I posted a new article on Wikisocion that could possibly clarify my idea of Te and Ti.
Although does anyone know how to make an article? I typed this in user talk.
User talk:Polikujm - Wikisocion
didn't read thru this entire thread, just wanted to say that Catch-22 by Joseph Heller is an excellent book. You should all read it.
How confusing. Heh, not really. I didn't know that every page was available like that. I'm not used to such a database. Thanks glam-zilla!
Here is the new page for it:
Introversion-Extroversion and Internal-External Mathematical Equation of the Elements - Wikisocion