Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
There's nothing complex about reinin dichotomies. Solving a 2nd order system of pdes is complex. Reinin dichotomies are simple descriptions, their only complex facet is observational (i.e. isolating traits which pertain to a single dichotomy, eliminating any other influence).
This isn't overtly complex? http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ted-edits.html

Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
Smilingeyes started out just using the reinin dichotomies by applying a very straightforward, practical, face-value interpretation of them and typing simply by matching the existing descriptions with what he observed. It was only when that approach led to imperfections that he started expanding his theories with regard to them.
No one claims Te types never use Ti to complement their base function.
You're still describing Ti, Ti with no Ne to be specific. That entire process of removing structural ambiguity to create a more logically consistent one has nothing to do with how Te works, at least I have never read anything that suggests so

That initial practical approach really has very little to do with Ti. It doesn't even involve much thinking. More like deciding for it's own sake.
This is where I must strongly agree to disagree, because I don't see anything practical in taking a bunch of theoretical information from a system and than revamping it into yet another theoretical system that can only be measured for accuracy by your own subjectivity
Well actually I think I'm being biased, since Ti can use that type of mental organization for productive purposes