Originally Posted by
Medusa
It looks like many people on this forum assume that all weak Te is Te PoLR.
Both Te PoLR and Te Seeking have identical issues, actually.
Both their Te is 1D, weak. So, they are both going to suck at Te equally.
Particularly xEI-Fe and ExI-Fi are going to suck at Te.
Many assume that valuing an IE means that that IE is going to be stronger and more obvious, but this is false.
Because their main program is Fi, which is opposed to using Te (you cannot use Te when you are using Fi at the same time), ExI-Fi individuals can have just as bad Te as a Te PoLR person, if not worse.
In both cases, the person won't use Te much and require help in that area. Both EII and IEI will be the most "impractical" types in the Socion, for both their Te and Se is weak.
The only way to truly gauge whether someone is Te PoLR or Te Seeking is, besides gauging whether they value Te or not (which can be tricky, because their Te is rather unconscious and weak), is to see whether they value Ti or not.
At least that is how I can tell the difference. Te seeking types may accept Ti from a Ti lead to some extent, but generally they do not care for it. On a superficial level, their Ti Role will be used, but there is no deeper personal investment. Whereas with Ti HA, there will be a much more obvious investment in Ti, which is connected to Te PoLR. If you care about Ti, you don't care about Te.
Anyhow, like others before me I could mention the ways in which my weak Te manifests itself, but that wouldn't really be any different from Te Seeking problems.
The one example that might be able to show the difference, is my aversion to unfamiliar, large bodies of information, especially if they contradict a theoretical system I deem to be true and making logical sense. My first impulse is to reject such information. I also do not care for "authorities" of certain information; as in, for me the information or theory behind something is of more significance than whether it is factually "backed up" by science or any kind of authority. When something makes logical sense to me, I am more inclined to believe it than if someone showed me a poll or study of something that is supposed to be "factually correct", especially if said poll or study opposes my logical system of thought. Simply, it is theory > facts for me. Just because someone has more "experience" than me, doesn't mean that they have to be "right" on a particular issue. Whether something is true or correct or not depends on logic, and not on whether someone is considered more "qualified" to know said information. I always question and analyze the validity of someone's ideas, and again, if they do not fit into a particular system or contradict certain information or systems, I am quick to ignore them, no matter how "qualified" or "knowledgable" they are supposed to be. You may call it arrogance, but I feel like it is up to me to decide whether something is "true" or not, not any kind of authority or "facts". Etc etc.