I'm pretty sure we need to pay attention to difference between Absolute vs Relative weaknees of a function.
I'm pretty sure we need to pay attention to difference between Absolute vs Relative weaknees of a function.
Well this is Te if it's Te vs Ti, no?Originally Posted by Analyst Trevor
What's Te if it's Te vs Ti, Words?Well this is Te if it's Te vs Ti, no?
It's just a sentence, but hey, you're quoting facts like it's all that's important. Ti types tend to explain what it actually is rather than just the names.What's Te if it's Te vs Ti, Words?
Te - the information
Ti - the explanation of what it means, perhaps backed up with the names.
Ti is good at explaining things.
Easily disputed as it's just a sentence by you, but that sentence was Te.
Lost the will to debate it BTW
Thing is, with this forum, it's full of rather intelligent people, so I'm sure a lot of normal observations don't apply to these internet posts.
Ti is a comparison function; it you look at what you wrote and what you're writing to eliminate contradictions, than you're doing Ti because the end result is that what you said and are about to say match, so you're not being contradictory. You also notice this in others and what they write or say. By eliminating variables or information, they make systems.
When you're Ti PoLR, you can often make contradictory statements, realize that you've done so but ignore in fixing it because you don't want to appear that way to others. Anyone pointing out your contradictory statements is using Ti and offering up information to you through that function and causing you to either feel like they are helping you in strengthening that function, or pressuring your PoLR over time.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
No. Ti does not have a monopoly on explanation of meaning, if I read that correctly. To me, what you are attributing to Ti is how NTs understand how things work over time, given their T and N functions. Both T functions are concerned with how things work and can be equally adept at explaining why.It's just a sentence, but hey, you're quoting facts like it's all that's important. Ti types tend to explain what it actually is rather than just the names.
Te - the information
Ti - the explanation of what it means, perhaps backed up with the names.
Ti is good at explaining things.
Easily disputed as it's just a sentence by you, but that sentence was Te.
Lost the will to debate it BTW
Thing is, with this forum, it's full of rather intelligent people, so I'm sure a lot of normal observations don't apply to these internet posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Well that's well explained....No. Ti does not have a monopoly on explanation of meaning, if I read that correctly. To me, what you are attributing to Ti is how NTs understand how things work over time, given their T and N functions. Both T functions are concerned with how things work and can be equally adept at explaining why.
It's just a sentence, but hey, you're quoting facts like it's all that's important. Ti types tend to explain what it actually is rather than just the names.
Te - the information
Ti - the explanation of what it means, perhaps backed up with the names.
Ti is good at explaining things.
Easily disputed as it's just a sentence by you, but that sentence was Te.
Lost the will to debate it BTW
Thing is, with this forum, it's full of rather intelligent people, so I'm sure a lot of normal observations don't apply to these internet posts.
Do you want justification or something?Well that's well explained....
Intuition; process, change from one state to another. With Ne, objective connection of thoughts, ideas, etc. With Ni, subjective connection of a stream of thoughts or ideas that lead to one another. With either, it is always a change from one to another; N is firmly based in this change in states and paired with T it can understand how states change logically. Te can be employed to achieve something, but independently it understands only that a series of logical steps are necessary for the objective realization of any goal; the irrational process, or the affect of a change in time, is the domain of N.
But I suppose you're more interested in why Te is also concerned with how things work? TBH Your post is far too general to give any specific rebuttal; Ti is concerned with 'explaining things'? This is difficult for me to interpret, especially since under that subsequent model of Te, the Te ego is a machine that cannot make anything of the facts.
I suppose my phrasing was also misleading, though, so I will clarify; Te has different concerns than Ti regarding how things work, but they are equal in that arena. For example, Te is primarily a function concerned with outer demonstration of logical validity; if a model can be shown to be applicable or valid in the outer world, Te is satisfied. It will no doubt accompany this demonstration of outer validity with a logical argument based in how the thing works under a set of real circumstances. In this manner it would be extremely adept at explaining how something works; the best example is found in classical physics, in the areas where we have energy inputs and assured energy outputs that can be proved through measurement and testing.
Ti is conversely concerned with inner logical validity, but that's a whole different topic and going into that would mean actually contributing to this thread and not policing it. But, to contribute minimally, I will say that if you want to talk about Ti POLR we must first speak of Fi, because it is the use of Fi that actively devalues Ti.
@Jonathan I think you're spot on in everything Te related, but your Ti description of 'how things relate' sounds N based to me, could you clarify?
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I am resurrecting this thread bc I found a post on another forum that I think is a great example of Ti PoLR.
This is from a discussion on how different people price their art:
I'm not a mathematician, I'm an artist. Therefore I price my works according to what I FEEL that I choose charge.
It's all about a mix of common sense (I know that good sense is not that common) and flip of the coin.
Besides, it's all relative. What one thinks about charging now, can be something totally different tomorow.
Edit: Now I'm second-guessing myself. Maybe this is Te PoLR :blush: Any thoughts?
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
Yeah, yeah, yeah...
I have recently been pondering the possibility that the saying we do not see things as they are but as we are applies especially strongly to XEEs.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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. 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 it's 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.
When I ask my IEE roomate "why" sort of questions it seems to stall her and throw her into confusion. I like to understand how things work and she apparently doesn't think much of this. I've noticed that asking IEEs to provide their reasoning has a similar effect.
Fi has it's own set of "rules" or "values" which it subjugates the world to. This is not just a Ti conception.
Well of course, but the nature of the rules in question are very different. The "rules" that I find myself creating/noticing about the world are much more based intrinsically, having a more implicit and less tangible staticness and order rather than the order being, uhm, I guess more tangible. The difference here would be perceived externality vs perceived internality, if that makes any sense. Like, the kind of consistency I associate with Fi can't be measured in any real tangible way. It can only be felt, or something.Fi has it's own set of "rules" or "values" which it subjugates the world to. This is not just a Ti conception.
the typical written material about this is basically spot on for me.
I think every polr is a preference for the mobilizing. They misunderstand the polr as the creative or the mobilizing.
I don't acknowledge "authority" on information. The correct authority to me is whoever can give the best explanation for how to do something properly. I completely reject the notion that any logical structure can be proven or taken as true. If I like you, I care about your values. If I don't know you or care about you, I do not care about your values. I'll listen to them but I won't treat it seriously. I'll validate it as correct for you but don't expect me to take that on myself unless it effects you personally, and effects our relationship.
I do build models of thought and compare models but I forget which connections I made and cannot explain them in a sane way. I would never look at a chart that I didn't need for drawing conclusions. I like it if I need it but it saps my energy so I need to find the most important information and leave the rest.
Well if you want to talk about Jung, he mentioned extreme Te as facts, and Ti as skirting round facts.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.
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).
Really? Where does he say this? I'd be curious on the quote. It's clear from the Jung essay that I read that he thinks of extraverted thinking as a form of thinking, not as raw facts.
In fact, he seems to associate facts with extraverted sensing:
I was just using forum members as a convenient example. My argument that Te <> facts does not rely on the typing of any forum members.
Anyhow, I didn't mean to make this into a personal issue; it's just a have a pet peeve with this thing people keep bringing up that "Te = facts." So I guess I automatically come out strongly when people say that. Nothing personal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
