Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Words View Post
Te - the information

Ti - the explanation of what it means, perhaps backed up with the names.

Ti is good at explaining things.
This is one of the biggest misconceptions in Socionics, but it's not your fault. Even the big name Socionists tend to disagree on the types of lots of famous people by flipping Ti and Te around relative to other Socionists. Jung made the distinction sound so simple, but then Socionics kind of messed it up.

Te is not raw data. Everything thinks it is. It's interesting though when Joy switched from self-typing as LIE to SLE...Although I didn't follow that transition, I suspect it's related to recognizing that being good at taking in the raw data around you and responding to it is Se, not Te.

Te is a rational function; to make it about perceiving data doesn't make any sense. You can define it as such, but then you have a sort of crummy system, in my opinion.

I think a better definition to use (and let's be realistic: We're simply deciding to use definitions for things; there is nothing intrinsic...it's a matter of choice) for Te is that is the dynamic and extraverted aspect of thinking.

That is, Ti and Te are basically the same thing, but Ti is static (about a fixed timeless reality) and more concerned with the extent of systems and how everything relates, whereas Te is dynamic (about a progression, such a series of steps, ways to accomplish something, for example) and tends to relate more immediately to the specific external objects under discussion.

There are, interestingly, a number of people whom other's have typed LIE who seem to be good explaining things. When Expat was on the forum, people used think he was good at explaining things. A lot of Socionists think Richard Feynman is LIE (although the MBTI folk usually type him as ENTP). He was great at explaining things.

And a lot of the people on the forum who are typed by others as LII may have great ideas and make interesting statements, but I wouldn't say that they excel above others at explaining things.

No, actually most people are confused by Ti vs. Te, but it's not surprising and one can't really blame them.
Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts, and Ti as skirting round facts.

Ones to know, ones to understand. I stand by my post, it works for me, cheers.

And I don't use the forum members for my typing purposes, I covered the why in my second last post (which isn't exhaustive).