Te and Ti

[anndelise]

Testing hypotheses is Ti though.

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?)

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!!!"

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).

[ArchonAlarion]

Every quadra and every type has their own 'hidden internal why' of things.
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.

Wow, nice.

[jimbo]

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 really like and agree with this description. Good thinking.

[Serious Name]

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".


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.

That's more what I was looking for (at this point anyway).

[Expat]

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.

Perfect.

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.

[717495]

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?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[717495]

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.

[Shazaam]

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.

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.

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.

[717495]

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.

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.

[Azeroffs]

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.

[jason_m]

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

[Shazaam]

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.

[Shazaam]

Te = system administration, Ti = programming?

[Shazaam]

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.

[Shazaam]

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??)

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.

[Shazaam]

System administrator = boss of the programmers usually though, right?

That's rich.

[anndelise]

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.

There is content, and then there is context that the content is in. They are not the same.

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.

[717495]

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 talkolikujm - Wikisocion

[redbaron]

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.

[717495]

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