Originally Posted by
implied
so why would you use the pathological description? at this point i can barely, if at all, see Te described in that and it only reminds me vaguely of ashton's tendency to type sick & possessive men who beat their wives senseless as ESTj heh.
i'm probably not in your quadra and i really don't know where the pizza hut account is, only the posts that tereg has linked.
The non-pathological description is on the wiki, which I'm sure you know.
The thing with leading Te-types who are not pathological (as any other type) is that they are difficult to recognize by beginners in typing. As Prokofieva says:
Those, who have superficial knowledge of socionics, very often have vague understanding of the fact that there is normally little difference between strong and weak functions. Speaking about strong and weak functions socionics does not state that there are very few weak functions or that they are much weaker than strong ones. With a harmoniously developed person the balance of strong and weak functions remains approximately at the level of 60:40 which reminds of the proportion of golden section (about 62:38) and can correspond to it.
This is why it can be difficult to type balanced people (and on the basis of Attachment Theory, I hypothesize that about 70% of all people are balanced). This I why I propose the pathological version of Te: blow it up poster-size and it will be easier to see. Then, after a while you can start to understand how each maladapative schema (as they are called) has a counterpart in healthy personality, as also men like John Oldham and Theodore Millon (who speaks of 'normal extreme behavior' and 'abnormal extreme behavior') have explained and which does not contradict Jung or Socionics.
You say you are probably not in my quadra. Can't you be more specific about it?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote