Printable View
What (in simple terms) is :Te: ?
There are a few people here who think they have strong :Te: when others think it might be their polr or another weak function. Perhaps we need to re-look at what :Te: really is and what it is not to clarify issues a bit?
Can we also have some examples of how the :Te: polr manifests itself in INFps/ISFps?
P.S this is a general topic about :Te: so that we can share our understanding of this function, please do not turn it into a what's XYZ's type thing.
.
From Rick's site:
Then from here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Augusta herself
Te is about what works.Quote:
Jung's function: Extraverted Thinking
Socionics function: black logic - profit - business logic
external activity of object - actions, events (what, how, where), facts, activity or work, algorithms, procedures, logic of objects’ measurable outward behavior
Positive(short range):
Advantage, benefit, profitability, technology, the facts, purchases, accumulation, the purchase, savings, putting in order, a practicality;
Negative (long range):
Uselessness, unprofitableness, use, application, deterioration, charges, expenditure, risk, experiment, sale, trade, actions in conditions of chaos, an ingenuity.
If you look at the information elements, Te is the external dynamics of objects. External pretty much means "big picture". Dynamics vs. Statics has been compared to a video clip vs. a photo (the photo allowing one to see more of the details and the video allowing one to see events). As for Objects vs. Fields:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick's site
Diana, to be clear, are you saying (in reverse) that an INFp for instance would have difficulties with understanding data/information, and have difficulties fitting the pieces of the whole together by your understanding of :Te: ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
More details please.
I like the other stuff you have written on :Ni: and :Si: and their connection to :Te: .
Yes, that seems to be the view of some socionists anyway, for example Sergei Ganin. That is indeed how INFps are sometimes described. I don't know whether it is true or not, but it makes some sense from a theoretical socionic perspective. We should not ignore the fact that INFps/INFPs are said to have problems with how to "connect the dots" Ganin) or "have difficulty thinkng in conditional 'if-then' terms" (Keirsey). Similar phrases can be found in MBTT material on INFPs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan
If that is an incorrect description of INFps relative strenght in these areas in comparison with other types, we should try to correct that view and understand what is wrong with it and why. If it is not an incorrect view, then we simply have to accept it as true and try to make the best of it.
.
The Te as data thing, and the Te as methods, what works, etc. (from Joy's post and Rick's quote) are two separate views of what Te is. Although they can go together, they're different strands and lead to different conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana
Personally, I don't like it when people identify Te too much with raw data, because then it becomes a perceiving function rather than a judging function. Further, if Ni is understanding or deciding how to fit the pieces together and Te is the pieces of raw data, then Ni becomes the judging function and Te is the perceiving one.
Something that has never been clarified:
Are if-then causation chains Te or Ti?
.
if-then are abstract statements of explicit rules of relationshipsQuote:
Originally Posted by FDG
i'd say Ti
Although look here:Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
If John goes to the supermarket, he will buy me chicken.
If you graduate with a 3.70 gpa, you will get the scolarship, and then you will be able to access X Y Z universities, if X university has availability.
Aren't those external dynamics?
dynamics would be something that say......keeps going or is cyclic.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
john going to the supermarket, are you saying that every time john goes to the supermarket he buys you chicken?
or is it a one shot deal?
graduation from high school (or equivalent) usually only happens once
in summary, the examples you gave are static relationships, imo
Ni and Si deal with continuous relationships and interdependencies;
Fi and Ti deal with discrete relationships and interdependencies.
Quote:
"
fdg scrive:
ops
kisanji scrive:
hehehe
fdg scrive:
Ok so a dynamic if then chain would be...
fdg scrive:
if i kick a ball the ball moves
fdg scrive:
right
kisanji scrive:
still starting from a static point
fdg scrive:
damn, but
fdg scrive:
that happens every time
kisanji scrive:
true
kisanji scrive:
that might be a gray area i'm unable to answer
fdg scrive:
Ahh ok np
kisanji scrive:
the thing is....it's T and S that are explicit functions
fdg scrive:
The Te Ti st is bound to remain messy imho if we try to look at it from the point of view of people that have BOTH Te and Ti as strong
kisanji scrive:
Te is defining the object/concept/person/whatever
kisanji scrive:
Ti is defining the relationship and interdependencies
fdg scrive:
But wouldn't defining the object be also Se
kisanji scrive:
so even if Ni or Si noticed a continuous relationship, the process of defining it would be Ti
kisanji scrive:
yes, Se, if one is using the senses to define it instead of say...math
kisanji scrive:
a mathematical graphing formula would be an example of Ti'd Ni/Si info
fdg scrive:
Ohhh I understand now
fdg scrive:
external dynamics vs external statics
fdg scrive:
uhm
fdg scrive:
Could you make an example
fdg scrive:
If you can
kisanji scrive:
an example of external dynamics vs external statics?
kisanji scrive:
or of a mathematical graphing formula?
kisanji scrive:
i really suck at coming up with examples...hehe
fdg scrive:
Oh external dynamics vs extenrla statics
fdg scrive:
I can give you some
fdg scrive:
and you classify them
kisanji scrive:
(that is asking me to define something)...it's easier for me to just point something out
kisanji scrive:
ok, that i can try doing
fdg scrive:
Car:
fdg scrive:
external statics
fdg scrive:
Red color
fdg scrive:
shape of the car
fdg scrive:
brightness of the lights
kisanji scrive:
hmmm, brightness.....that one is a hard one
fdg scrive:
eheheh
fdg scrive:
it could be Si
kisanji scrive:
i think so
kisanji scrive:
engine as it's running would be a dynamic i think
fdg scrive:
Yes exactly
fdg scrive:
Like
fdg scrive:
this car can reach 120 mph
fdg scrive:
that is Te
fdg scrive:
(imh)
kisanji scrive:
let's see..(thinking out loud)...
kisanji scrive:
it's not relating/comparing two concepts/objects, so it's not Xe
kisanji scrive:
opps, not Xi
kisanji scrive:
making it an Xe
kisanji scrive:
it's not utilizing the senses so it's not Se
kisanji scrive:
it's not utilizing involvement at all....it's abstract...so it's not Se nor Fe
kisanji scrive:
that leaves us with...Ne and Te as possiblities
kisanji scrive:
and since it's defined...yes, Te
fdg scrive:
Ooook, I got a better picture now
kisanji scrive:
should we past this conversation into that thread?
fdg scrive:
Good idea
kisanji scrive:
you wanna do it or me?
fdg scrive:
Do you have chat logs on trillian?
kisanji scrive:
i can save it to file ...is that what you mean?
kisanji scrive:
or just copy paste
fdg scrive:
I'll copy paste myself
kisanji scrive:
"
Te looks at the environmental context of an object in the current moment (i.e. now) - e.g. the spatial position of an object in relation to other objects - in order to determine the relevance of objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
Se is similar, but focuses on the details of the actual objects themselves, without assesing their value. Se sees objects in high detail, but with less of a focus on the relevance of the object to its surrounding environment.
So Te is about useful information about objects in their environment (because it knows how the objects operate together), while Se isn't information, it's simply unprocessed data (i.e. objects without context or relevance). (That's in their extreme forms of course).
If there was a photograph of two statues, the Se type would describe the fact there was two statues and then list the features of the statues in great detail. A Te type would possibly give a brief overview of each statue + its spatial context e.g. 'the bronze statue is to the left of the copper statue' as well as give environmental details e.g. where the statues are.
This is Ti - really, it's the definition of Ti. You are comparing distances, distances are relationships, relationships are the domain of introverted functions, you are dealing with well-definied stuff so it's Thinking, therefore it is Ti.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
any time you are comparing two objects, or focusing on how one object relates to another object, you are Xi-ing. why? because in the process of comparing, you have to mention both objects. In the process of relating objects, you have to mention both objects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
This fits in with the definition of 'field'.
is anybody else totally lost in these discussions? It's been what, 2 years? and this sort of thing still sounds like "Blablablabla.. blabla :Te: blababla? blabla :Ti: ! blaaaaaa.... blablabla bla :lol: " to me
I don't think Ti operates in the current moment though - it operates over time. Also, a Ti type manipulates their internal environment, whereas a Te types' external environment is already determined. I think a Ti type sees pieces of information as being in a web and determines their positions by relevance - they assess these positions through mental experiments (i.e. they think :) ) - this happens internally, and over a period of time. A Te obviously can't manipulate the exteranl world in the moment of evaluation in the same way.
(IMO).
Ti is a static functionQuote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
Te is a dynamic function
which is more likely to operate in the current moment (now)? a static function or a dynamic function?
I think Te types focus on the environment the objects are in, rather than object X is bigger than object Y. It's more like 'this statue is in the environs of this other statue', rather than 'this statue is physically different to this other statue'.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
now, see if you can reword it in such a way that you are not having to mention anything other than the one statue you are talking aboutQuote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
Dynamic types see their external environment as changing over a period of time, static types see external objects as being a snapshot in the current moment, ready for them to manipulate. (methinks - it's painful to think this hard :) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
Because Static types have spent a long time analysing things, they have already decided what to do with objects in the current moment - so Ti operates over a long period of time when analysing external objects (but not the external environment), whereas Te types (or rather their secondary function) evaluate changes in the external environment over time, so they are good at assessing the spatial relevance of objects in the current moment. Statics types are masters of their internal environment (they can manipulate it), but not their external environment.
.
I'm not sure this a good example, but: imagine a chess board with pieces on it - you could give each a piece a grid number without referring to any other piece - Te types see the whole chess board in detail, seeing the pieces only in their relative environmental positions. A Se type would see the physical details of the pieces in great detail, but not so much the chess board - e.g. the environment the objects appear in.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
this sounds good, and could easily be one manifestatin of Te polrQuote:
Originally Posted by Diana
see below for another possible manifestation
imo, Se dual-seeking helps in defining the Fe creative. They are both functions of involvement, but the Se helps to get the Fe to focus on the objects that are real. (much easier to have someone who's a natural at Se to help out with this) This may suggest another Te polr manifestation. If the Se is helping to get the Fe to focus on the objects that are real, how annoying would it be to have someone come along and suggest/mention objects that aren't real but are instead abstractions?Quote:
Looking at Ni as a path (a continuation) someone with Ni leading and Ti hidden agenda would be looking for defining how things relate to each other along the projected path? Se dual-seeking and Fe creative, how would those fit in.Quote:
fdg scrive:
But wouldn't defining the object be also Se
kisanji scrive:
so even if Ni or Si noticed a continuous relationship, the process of defining it would be Ti
but another way of looking at it could be that the accepting Ni subconsciously senses the real world objects (Se) and adapts/adjusts to them by using Fe. Like, instead of actually seeing the objects in the path, gets more of a sense that something is in the way. To ask them to define that something that is in the way takes up time that could be better spent just moving around it. I mean, why stop along the path to define the damned thing when one could just side-step it? (this also suggests how Te polr might manifest)
.
yeah, my thoughts afterwards were that the only way to do my challenge would be to use a grid of some sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
but that it'd be too easy to mistake the grid as being Te...when instead the grid would be Ni/Si (continuous relationships)
so again, the object is Te...but where the object is located would be Ni/Si
So when you (subterranean) describe Te, you're including Ni/Si with the description
(nothing wrong with that, as long as it's kept in mind that you are comparing {Ti} to {Te w/ Ni/Si})
Hmm, yeah - but it's difficult to describe an environment without any objects to define that environment - even if you said a statue was 1m away from the edge of an environment, the edge is an object of sorts :) .
.
"a statue was 1m away from the edge" is a defined relationship... and staticQuote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
you're still Ti-ing :wink:
"a statue was near the edge" is less defined, but it's still more defined than
"a statue was somewhere in the vicinity of the edge", which is also more defined than
"there is a statue and an edge"
"the statue was unfinished"
I have no idea what this discussion is about... :oops:
"unfinished" is not well-defined (at all..hehe) so this doesn't apply to Ti nor Te nor this thread :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
(who needs drugs when you've got me around?..except to maybe block me out and maintain sanity...heheh)
Well, at the extreme, dynamic types would focus on how the environment changes over time, while static types would focus on objects in the current moment. A dynamic type would stand on a mountain top and 'see' how the landscape has change over time as they looked beloe them. A static type has little concern of the environmental context objects are in - they manipulate objects in the current moment to do what they want them to do instead. A dynamic type would wait for the right moment before interacting with objects - when they are all in the correct position + conditions are right (in the surrounding environment).
By environment, I mean the place where things happen - e.g. you need oxygen (an environmental condition) in order to burn something, and the thing you are burning is at a particular location. Dynamic types focus on where or when things happen (e.g. time is an environmental variable), Static types focus on the object which they are manipulating\perceiving. So, the environment of an object is important, and the objects are important too - it's just different types have different focuses + priorities.
The physical properties of the statue in the present moment would be Se. Ni would be the opposite of that - it would refer to the time + location of the statue (more abstract + invisible things). Si is probably more to do with hidden physical properties of things, e.g. the warmth of a fire, or in the statue example, the impression the statue makes in your face when you walk into it.
Dammit :) - I really hope I haven't confused anyone - I'm not really sure myself. If you say a chess piece is at A1, and another is at B2, while having an overview of the whole chess board, you must have a vague sense of the relationships between the pieces distance wise, though? I think you're right - a static type would have a better understanding of relationships between things (they are 1m apart...), while a dynamic type would be more vague.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
a lot of this is similar to what i've been sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
something about it though seems slightly off
it's too hard for me to go through each connection one by one to figure out where that offness is coming from
so i'll just leave it at this
I've probably exaggerated in some places and missed out vital parts in some of those analogies - I'm not too good on making things consistent :oops: .
E.g. I used oxygen as an environmental condition because it is all over the place + invisible, and so seemingly has no fixed position, whereas the combusting object would be the site of the event in the environment. But oxygen is an object too - it's kind of like trying to explain the concept of time to children without using objects. Also, if I talk about a mountainous terrain as being an environment, then talk about objects in that environment, the mountain is an object too, just larger + more inert to change. So, I guess the definition of environment is something large which is inert to change, but isn't something :8* . (It's a bit like describing :Ni: but without words :P ).
So, in their extremes:
Environment\field = infinite + inert
Object = local + volatile
um..i dunno about that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Subterranean
you can have continuous fields (Ni; Si) or discrete fields (Ti; Fi)
you can have continuous objects (Ne; Se) or discrete objects (Te; Fe)
i don't kow how infinite/local and inert/volatile fit in with this
"it's kind of like trying to explain the concept of time to children without using objects. "
time is changes that occur relative to something else, so yes, in order to explain the concept of time, you have to use objects.
Time is an abstract concept (as opposed to requiring involvement);
Time requires the use of fields (changes that occur relative to an object);
Time is generally considered continuous (as opposed to discrete);
Ni has been defined as abstract continuous fields
this is why Ni and Time are attributed to each other.
(but Ni isn't limited to focusing on time, time is just one example of Ni)
But break up that time into discrete changes that occurred relevant to something else, and you've moving into the realm of Ti/Fi.
Try to define those discrete changes and you've moved into Ti.
so really...anytime we try to define Ni using worded examples, we're pretty much forced into Ti-ing it.
I'm not sure if this will answer the middle first question or not (or maybe just add to confusion)Quote:
Originally Posted by snp7901
a static type is capable of building up a concept/object by combining discrete relationships (fields)
a static type is capable of breaking down a concept/object by pulling out discrete relationships (fields)
a dynamic type is capable of building up a...(i don't know what term should be here...system?) by combining discrete concepts/objects
a dynamic type is capable of breaking down a (system?) by pulling out discrete concepts/objects
so really, both static and dynamic can claim to see the "big picture"
it just depends on what you mean by "big picture"... the big concept or the big (system?)
"time is changes in the environment in relation to something else". Does anyone want to talk more about this? When I think of time I think of something continuous yes,, and I don't think about objects. You get a feel for the meaning through examples, which don't have to explicitly define the concept. What would this -ing be?Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
As a side note, an INFj told me about a test she was given in which to describe time and she said she wrote a page and and her xSTj friend gave the same answer as I did: "a measurement" (more or less words), even though I know it is an explanation that makes life easier. Could we have an Ni person describe it? The quintessential way I think about Ni people explaining things is with implicating examples. The way Fi concepts like loyalty could be described with examples of events where someone was loyal. Or love, or a non-scientific explanation of wind.
msk,
maybe you could copy your question and start a thread with it so that Ni people who aren't particularly interested in Ti vs Te would be more likely to read it and maybe answer it?
snp7901,
I'll be honest, I didn't understand your post before this, and i don't understand most of this one....sorry, nothing to do with your writing or anything like that. But I'll comment on parts I did understand.
yepQuote:
Originally Posted by snp7901
elsewhere the perceiving functions have been defined as "continual", "continuous", "integrity"...pretty much the idea is of cohesiveness, fitting in together, something like that. the whole, the big picture
the judging functions have been defined as "discretion", "divisibility", "discrete"...pretty much the idea of individual and/or separated units, the parts...or something like that
the static types have continual objects with discrete fields
the dynamic types have discrete objects with continual fields
I didn't quite understand this (and it references parts of your previous post which I didn't understand...again, through no fault of your own).Quote:
-my "time series" data, once it's been measured and recorded, doesn't actually change during the time you spend analyzing it. so that seems like an object given what's been said of those. and this was my example of "static data."
-meanwhile joy's "videotape" form of knowledge seems in motion as you perceive it. so this seems like a field. it's what i had in mind when i said "dynamic data"
The closest thing I can think of that might be aligned with the last part...about the videotape...is that in previous attempts a number of us have attempted to describe static as being like individual snapshots while dynamic is more like video. I've been coming to an idea that the video is slightly misleading, in that it suggests something on the linear side (as does restricting Ni to "time"). In reality, it wouldn't necessarily be linear nor sequential, it could be diverging as well.
admittedly, I wasn't too keen on using "system" to fill in the blank, but my vocabulary is limited and I just needed something to help point any readers into a direction of what I mean. Flow could be acceptable, but it'd be easy to misinterpret that as linear or sequential as well.Quote:
i like what you said in your next post, except maybe the term "system" isn’t the best way to fill in that blank. like joy's word use i think that portrays dynamics and their "objects" or "concepts" too restrictively. can't concepts be systems, like of several sub-concepts? maxwell's electromagnetism can be thought of as one unchanging object or concept, but it's also a "system" of several equations.
in expat's descriptions of gamma Ni, i think he used terms like "river" or "flow" to describe continuous fields. maybe a dynamic's relationship with "systems" is expressed by easily imaging how the system once practiced will change or progress? not to say Te can only apply systems. sometimes the purpose of one system is to create another (so maybe this is where Te and Ti talents overlap?)
as for concepts being systems as well...
this is one area where there is misunderstanding of the term "object" (as opposed to "field). concepts are objects, people are objects, ideas are objects, etc. so yes, a system could be an object too.
one way of checking if someone is referring to a system as an object or a field is if they are treating the system as some thing, or are focusing on the relationships brought together as .....ugh, a whole (my static viewpoint is showing through, I can't help it).
I don't quite get the last part of the quote, either. (again due to my own limitations and nothing to do with what/how you wrote)
I understand what you are saying :lol: . I think we need a few INFps to present an understanding of :Te: in its simplest form and with some clarity to add to what as already been written which is quite insightful especially if you are attentive to the details of it. I hear that INFps are really good at making complex info rather simple and accessible once they understand the idea themselves. One might eventually come around and "translate" for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bionicgoat
Although it might be a bit painful :) , I wonder if one of the INFps could also express how they see their polr and how it affects them in a more practical real life way.
that would be nice... I find I grasp this stuff imediately when somebody explains it with metaphors and analogies instead of technical/philosophical jargon. When it gets all wordy with the objects/fields/dymamics/etc... stuff my mind just blanks out. (it's interresting though that I sort of do the same thing with my friends, try to explain things with technical words but then resort to the metaphors and analogies when they look at me like :8* . usually then they'll actually grasp what I'm saying)
if/then statements are only one type of relationship objects/concepts/etc can have with each otherQuote:
Originally Posted by snp7901
so fields aren't consequences, but consequences can be fields
(kind of like birds aren't ducks, but ducks are birds :D )
(My head hurts with all this continuous + discrete stuff - I think I get the gist of it though :) ).Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
I think dynamic functions such as Si and Ni see objects as inconsequential, they see them as temporary with minor changes over time - the environment is more versatile (and out of their control?), and they picture the same object (with changes) in many different time states. So time + an object's environment to them is the means by which objects change. Static types see themselves as the means by which objects change - it is the envionment which is inconsequential (the progress of time does not matter so much to them).
Dynamic types see time + the environment as an important factor in change, the objects are merely actors destined to end up a certain way.
Static types see time + environment as insignificant, objects are made useful in the current moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by this thread
:lol:
It's ok, I don't get it either. Like Bionicgoat, I find these theoretical discussions largely pointless.
BTW I like the optical illusion. :)
I'd probably get it if I actually put forth the time and effort to read it all, but once a thread goes too far off the Ti end I lose interest. :lol: I find it rather ironic that a thread that was asking about Te specifically ended up straying so far from the point, but I suppose that's to be expected.
Yeah.
.
It is a path - it sees change over time e.g. object A becomes object B then object C as it changes over time, but Ni ego types don't see it like this - instead the object remains as 'object A' for the whole duration, regardless of changes - they don't call the object by a different name as it changes (they have an end goal in sight of what the object should be like):
object A -------TIME--------> object A'
While Statics see things as being of the current moment - each object is what they make of it at that time.
Hmm, well I'll give it a shot, here is how I understand :Te:Quote:
Originally Posted by Megan
Imagine that you are watching television or a theater performance or a video game or even an EKG monitor. What is happening, though you may not be aware of it, is a constant flow of new information. Every new moment in time brings a new development but yet it is a continuation of the last moment, and it is of the moment before it and so on. Simply put, the plot thickens. And now as you watch the action unfold you are aware of the plot and slowly as you get into the action the plot takes first place, you're not just looking at the pictures, the actors and so on anymore, you start observing the plot "Oh no! Jimmy cheated on Marisa!". In the end all that you are left form the experience is an awareness of the plot and everything else is subordinate to the plot "It's an epic tale of friendship and betrayal in the little town of whatever some time ago". Now imagine that this plot is unfolding every day of your life right in front of your eyes.
:Te: would be the plots of objects, the story of the light bulb, the perils of the new piece of code, the controversy of the homosexual bolt in a homogenous small town engine block and so on. :Te: sees all of these stories and it can change and shape them. It can for example determine how to approach an object so that it's external dynamics or it's plot it is observing doesn't thicken "Oh no! the gay bolt moved to the KKK neighborhood!!!", that is, so that the plot unravels positively "And the project requirements and project accomplishments lived happily ever after".
Also notable mentioning is that it is merely an observant, it uses the rules that govern the relationships between the objects it observes but does not study them. And really when your watch your TV show you don't care how the television works, how the picture is formed and explanation of why the things work, you just want to see your show.
Also notable mentioning is that it doesn't perceive the internal dynamics of the objects it observes, the "internal" plot. How should it know if the actors have gas, are drowsy and so on if they don't show it externally? It can only observe what's on screen, is visible. Also this is why for example :Te: sees a lot of :Fe: as "drama" because :Fe: is the internal dynamics of objects, the thing :Te: cannot see. All it can see is the external expressions of :Fe: and it just doesn't make sense in the context of external dynamics, it doesn't fit the plot "Why are you being so unnecessarily emotionally expressive?".
Bad :Te: is an inability to see this external plot of objects. To the untrained eye using objects looks something like this "Hmm, I'll try to use this thing to solve my problem" while to :Te: it's "Hmm, so I'll just take this mouse that posses the antidote to the illness that I have in this meat grinder in an attempt to extract the cure".
Hmm, I did something like that a while agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Megan
http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5268
try to combine that with the above description.
agreed. the thread is completely senseless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
interesting how you've managed to talk about Te in a way which, i think, is so antithetical to Te itself.
I think its like ann was saying, once you start describing things specifically, you can't really not Ti it. The way to describe something dynamic wouldn't be description of Te as an object.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
EDIT: i see Niffweed beat me to the punch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
personally, i find this thread, and these sorts of discussions to be extremely confusing. by "these sorts of discussions" i mean the sorts of threads that keep being made with lists like:
:Ne: = static intangibles of objects
:Ni: = dynamic intangibles of fields
:Se: = static tangibles of objects
:Si: = static tangibles of fields
:Fe: = dynamic relations of objects
etc.
these sorts of lists just don't make any sense to me. theoretically, they're sensible enough, but it's not at all obvious where the names come from or what they mean, and at face value it's extremely difficult to figure out what all of this means. in the end, none of this actually means anything; this kind of definition doesn't actually lead anywhere.
i notice that all of these discussions are highly populated with Ne types and very little else.
I dunno about all of this tangible and intangible stuff, but the information elements make sense to me. However, they make sense in an abstract way that's difficult to precisely pin down in words.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffweed17
According to this, Te would be seeing the big picture of events that are outside of oneself. Or perhaps... detachedly seeing of big picture of events. (Granted, "events" isn't a true synonym for "dynamics". That said... ) I suppose Ni would then be the specifics/details of events as they relate to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
hmmmmm.....
don't pay too much attention to my diction; i just made up some plausible sounding words. i don't really understand what any of it means well enough to make a correct model.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
.
That sounds like a static view of it. :P
Te also seems to be related to language (unless that's more of a type specific thing, such as being more specific to Te dominants for example). Not languages themselves, but premises, definitions, semantics, etc. It's about efficient communication, and impatience with those who can't (or won't) do it. This doesn't mean that Te types can't be talkative or that it's always easy for them to communicate effectively, in fact, sometimes it's the just opposite because of the aforementioned impatience. The main idea here is that Te types try to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing because miscommunication resulting from poorly defined premises or meanings of words is frustrating and makes the conversation (or at least the parts where people had to needlessly, in their eyes, explain their wording and meanings over and over again) seem pointless. As stated before, Te is about what works. It's about what works, what doesn't work, and how something could be working better.
Te isn't nearly the universal language you seem to make it out to be... In fact it's sort of funny the way you describe it. If you care about what works so much when it comes to language you'd think you'd be able to grasp that Te doesn't work for everybody. There's a certain self centered aspect to your last post as if anybody who doesn't speak your language is deficient or something when the problem and miscommunication is as much on your end as the other.
A very good point, and definitely true. As I have tried to point out many times the main focus is on the same thing, that is, the referent. As long as we know that we are talking about the same referent, we don't have to quarrel so much about exactly which definition is the correct one to use, or which exact language expression is the most accurate in order to pinpoint that we have the same thing in mind. We can use whatever language expression, or preliminary definition (even vague ones) that works, that is, makes it possible for us to communicate effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
:lol: No, it just wishes there was one.Quote:
Te isn't nearly the universal language you seem to make it out to be...
As I said in my post, sometimes communication problems arise as a result of a tendency to be (what some people would consider) too concise at times. Peter once described it as leaving things out because of assuming that someone else understands the details and reasoning behind the statement. I've heard a few people refer to some Te types as skipping steps. If A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D which leads to E, they may communicate it as "E, A, C" or "A, B, D", etc. Teachers might complain about them not showing their work. For example, an Algebra teacher may ask to speak with a student, and then go over the student's answers, asking how the student came up with some of the answers because there were steps missing. "I just knew it" or "I did it in my head" aren't always acceptable answers. On occasion the student may even solve the problem in a different way that what was taught because it seems more efficient.
Some people value Te/Fi and some value Ti/Fe. One of the central ideas in socionics is that one isn't better than the other, they're just different.Quote:
If you care about what works so much when it comes to language you'd think you'd be able to grasp that Te doesn't work for everybody. There's a certain self centered aspect to your last post as if anybody who doesn't speak your language is deficient or something when the problem and miscommunication is as much on your end as the other.
that was my point :P your original statement didn't convey your understanding of that at allQuote:
Originally Posted by Joy
According to this, surely a Te type who's "trying to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing" wouldn't bitch at a person who asks them what they meant by [insert term]. Especially if that supposed Te person hadn't defined/explained the term(s) prior to the asking for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
To bitch at them seems to show that they're not really all that interested in "making sure that everyone's talking about the same thing".
Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
as an identified Te type, i can say i am freakin' thrilled when people ask me what i meant X. it's better than just sitting there and freestyling and acting like you know what you're talking about when you have no idea.
One of the reasons why I like INTps is because when I ask them what they meant by something, or what someone else meant by something, they're willing to explain it to me. And usually do so in a way I can easily comprehend.Quote:
Originally Posted by implied
Do you think that Jonathan and XoX are INTps -- or at least one of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
lol there goes this thread... :lol:
I've already stated elsewhere what I perceive regarding XoX. And it's not INTp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
As for Jonathon, I do believe that Jonathon is much clearer for me to read than XoX.
Jonathon does seem willing to take the time to try to explain what he meant when he says something.
His reinterpretations don't change/alter even half as much as XoX's. (hardly much at all I think)
I can more easily see Jonathon as an INTp than XoX.
But this is not to say that I see Jonathon as an INTp.
i dont think this is exclusive to Te at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phaedrus
Maybe not. But there is a clear difference in behaviour between some :Ti: types and some :Te: types here. The described behaviour is linked to :Te: , whereas a :Ti: type might not be aware that there could be a problem with the communication. It's rather typical of INTjs, for example, not to consider it necessary to provide clear examples of what their abstractions refer to. Extreme INTj language use is full of abstractions with very little illustrating examples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
I dunno if it's exclusive to Te, but it does make sense in a way..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
a term, a referent, a concept...each of these would likely fall under an object oriented function (Xe).
these are also abstract things..or symbols referring to a concept, not something we'd use our senses to perceive, so that scratches Se.
and to strive for well-defining the concept/symbol/referent/term would be a Te thing.
Ti would be striving for defining the relationships between at least two things....but in a sense, this can easily be mistaken as Te (or vice versa)...depending on the concept or how it's being defined...as in, "i'm using term x to refer to how Y and Z are related" and/or "term x is related to Y and to Z"
{here I tried going into a difference between a "continous implied concept" (Ne) vs a "discrete defined concept" (Te)...but I'm not yet ready for that}
Based on your being INTj? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
As for clarifying the meanings of things, yes, it's important to do so and that it's a natural part of conversing... as I described... but it's difficult not to lose your patience with someone who's just so ridiculously far off that you don't even know where to begin.
[quote="Joy"]As for clarifying the meanings of things, yes, it's important to do so and that it's a natural part of conversing... as I described... but it's difficult not to lose your patience with someone who's just so ridiculously far off that you don't even know where to begin.[/quote]
The best beginning, imo, is asking them what they mean by something they said.
I generally get it, or at least recognize a lot of the misunderstandings and problems with semantics. It's explaining it so they'll understand that's frustrating. I know I should really learn to be more patient... it's just that when I can tell that it will take hours of frustrating conversation to communicate effectively it doesn't seem like it's work the effort... better to just move on to another topic that won't be frustrating for everyone involved (unless it's something serious that must be discussed).
My view is, an attitudinal stance of a desire to want people to be talking about the same thing-- how is that related to Te over Ti, even Fe? If you already acknowledge that this is just a normal part of conversing, in fact the foundation of it (to an INTj)... why even mention it.Quote:
Originally Posted by anndelise
This seems to be a very different thing than to provide examples. Why should one provide examples if one wants to make sure people are using the same definitions, as opposed to defining terms with more abstract words? The desire to simply communicate about the same thing is not liked to Te or Ti exclusively, though it may be linked with a rational view of the world. I am surprised Phaedrus that you say that Ti forum members do not display behavior that implies great concern for the sameness of definitions. Lastly, it seems that Ti people would be very accepting of using a system of words that works best in the situation at hand, as long as it is not contradictory. Really seems to make no sense that this is described as something not Ti, and, exclusively Te.
I suppose i could compromise and agree with Ann. It would depend on what one's describing. and eh.. you could say one's describing what objects or relationships matter to you according to your quadra values or something. But I don't say this because i believe it currently. I did think about what you said you aren't ready for ann. That's Ne being Xe. I'll wait for that.
I don't see how impatience with one's difference in view would relate to whether concern for talking about the same thing would figure in if Te is in fact something like implied was talking about being super excited to try to get people to understand the same things. I think, it doesn't. (figure in)
As an aside I think the pleasure in educating as I have experienced Te people do is the same kind of masturbatory thing that comes with using one's ego function as one might attribute to Ti people, if it's masturbatory for Ti people to sit around classifying subsets of sets.
Since you have studied philosophy, Ms. Kensington, you know the difference between meaning and reference ("Sinn und Bedeutung," "connotation and denotation," etc.) My point is that it is more natural for :Te: types to focus on reference than on meaning. We want to make sure we are talking about the same thing (the same "object"). In contrast, INTjs tend to focus on word meaning, which is precisely one of the main reasons they are so concerned with definitions. But they almost always try to define terms with more abstract words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms. Kensington
We see that phenomenon all the time on this forum. :Ti: types keep on discussing which words to use to define some abstract concept in Socionics, whereas :Te: types are relatively more interested in discussing real life examples. This difference is also indicated (but not very clearly explained and perhaps easy to misunderstand) in the Reinin dichotomy between Subjectivists and Ojbectivists:
If you don't see clearly the difference between meaning and reference, or don't accept it as very important, that would be an indication that you really are an INTj, because that type has a tendency not to make a clear distinction between language and the world. In a sense, for an INTj everything is a model, even the world itself. Everything is part of our language, our concepts. INTjs view everything through a filter, through a theoretical model -- "bottom-up", and they tend to think that there is no alternative to such a "world view". They tend to think that what the :Te: types attempt to do -- go from direct observations of some "objective reality" and hopefully be able to explain those observations in a theory, to generalize them -- is impossible.Quote:
Subjectivists
4. "Verification of concepts" – the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. They perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")
5. Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions like "Let me present my point of view" "According to my understanding" "personal criteria" "it matches accepted beliefs" "I have concluded" "they insisted" and so on. They in detail describe verbal communication – especially their part in it, their "interventions" in the conversations and what they were (Or were not).
Objectivists
4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".
5. In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give mass of examples (All "correct" and "incorrect" actions are based on examples)
Going back to the beginning for a while --
They necessarily go together, as Diana said. You can't have methods that work without factual data - and you can't check if the data are correct if the methods don't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
That's precisely the kind of thing I meant in your type thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan
First, no, Te does not "become" a perceiving function at all. Obviously, at the end of the day, any use of your senses (like reading) involves Si, so yes, Si "perceives" the raw data. But it is Te that decides that they are data in the first place, so they are judging. The same goes for Fe when "perceiving" people's emotions. Whether someone's facial expression means anything or not is judging, not perceiving.
Second, what Diana said was something else, they fit together in a sequential way, but in a perceiving rather than judging move, a sort of "guessing" if you will.
I think this is excellent - not just the hightlighted bit, but that was particularly good.Quote:
Originally Posted by snegledmaca
The problem is -- the "bad" :Te: is not really aware of what :Te: is seeing, so they attribute :Te: 's views to -- something else.
When I'm talking with Te types (or rather when they are talking), they just seem to keep stating the obvious - e.g. what everyone probably knew half an hour ago. It's like they have to bullshit in order to appear intelligent :) .
O.k., another description of the difference between Statics + Dynamics:
If a static type is in a room, they will see all the objects around them and visualise what they can do with those objects in real-time.
A dynamic type might remember the room 10 years previously or what it might be like in 10 years - the objects in the room might change, but the room stays largely the same.
Si + Ni types wait for the objects in their environment (e.g. the room) to be in particular positions before they act. It's a bit like waiting for the peaks + troughs in a sine wave. They wait for the right snapshot in time out of a series of snapshots before acting.
Static types live their lives in a snapshot (in the moment), rather than wait for it to occur - they put objects into their correct positions\form (in the environment\room).
So, Te types are good at following long term trends, so that at any one moment (a snapshot in time) they know the context of objects (their environment) - this is why Te types are practical in the moment.
Ti types already know how thay are going to act, and act that way - but when an unexpected event occurs (at a particular snapshot) in time, they are inefficient at reprocessing the 'new' information (it isn't new to dynamic types, as they are better able to follow trends). So Ti types might have out of date or irrelvant information in the current moment, but they make up for this by having a greater store of information (observations) built up over a long period of time.
i like the above description subterranean. practical and easy to visualize for sure.