Ti vs Te

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Joy]

you can all come visit me. i live in the midwest.

[Raver]

I like you Joy, but I'm getting frustrated by you now. All these threads do is cause more confusion and complication than is necessary. There's a lot written here, but nothing that could clarify your type. It may not be, but it's almost as if your purposely deliberately to transforming yourself into an "XXXX". I could attempt to type you, but it would be a complete waste of time, since there is no information or behaviour patterns described.

[Joy]

yeah, I didn't want this thread to be about me, just the poll. I know my type. Thanks though. (:

[Raver]

yeah, I didn't want this thread to be about me, just the poll. I know my type. Thanks though. (:

Okay, I understand. :wink:

[Gilly]

yeah, I didn't want this thread to be about me, just the poll. I know my type. Thanks though. (:

See, at least I never claim to KNOW my type. This shit is just embarassing.

[Joy]

good grief, how many times do I have to say to automatically insert "IMO" into every one of my sentences?

[Joy]

I was saying that I currently don't have any doubts as to what my type is.

[Gilly]

I was saying that I currently don't have any doubts as to what my type is.

Yes, I realize that. However, this is stupid, as you will, just like me, try to change your type at some point in the next month or so. You used to be SO sure that you were ENTp, then you were DOUBTLESSLY an ISFp, now you're CERTAIN of your ENTj-ness. Stop pretending to be certain. You're not fooling anyone.

[Ms. Kensington]

it would be cool to have a convention so we can all meet and talk shit about eachother on the forums with justification. I call using FDG's house as the rally point.

yay italy! DD

[Joy]

I was saying that I currently don't have any doubts as to what my type is.

Yes, I realize that. However, this is stupid, as you will, just like me, try to change your type at some point in the next month or so. You used to be SO sure that you were ENTp, then you were DOUBTLESSLY an ISFp, now you're CERTAIN of your ENTj-ness. Stop pretending to be certain. You're not fooling anyone.

*shrugs* my type doesn't change no matter what I or anyone else thinks it is

[Ezra]

Let's talk about how you can recognize the difference in these two functions when typing others. And while you're at it, feel free to vote.

There's a saying about missing the forrest for the trees or something like that, and I tend to see Te people as the ones who see the forrest and Ti people as the ones who see the trees. Te people are more about the main point of whatever is going on, while Ti people are interested in diving deeper into things, learning more of the specifics. If the subject is interesting, it doesn't matter that much whether they'll be able to apply the knowledge or not.

What do you think?

Bullshit. In MBTT, it's the difference between intuitive and sensing. In socionics, what you've described is a Te bias that apparently, Te types are more adept at seeing "the whole picture" which is complete bullshit. What about EIE? ILE? LII? IEI?

[aestrivex]

note that this topic is two years old.

[Lotus]

note that this topic is two years old.

I forget to check.
Ugh, and now I see that the vote is public when I was just planning on voting for not reason.

This sucks.

[theMime.]

I forget to check.
Ugh, and now I see that the vote is public when I was just planning on voting for not reason.

This sucks.

yup.
public poles suck.

[marooned]

Joy is a black box.

[Ezra]

Joy's lover is a white tetris shape.

[marooned]

Ezra is a confederation of three miniature black boxes now, compacted together.

[tcaudilllg]

Te concentrates on communicating with people and with working together on things. Ti asks what it means that X is working with Y to Z which wanted to work with X, but can't because X is already working with Y. This creates structure.

[Joy]

Te concentrates on communicating with people and with working together on things. Ti asks what it means that X is working with Y to Z which wanted to work with X, but can't because X is already working with Y. This creates structure.

Maybe. This sounds a bit dynamic to just be Ti though.

[strrrng]

There's a saying about missing the forrest for the trees or something like that, and I tend to see Te people as the ones who see the forrest and Ti people as the ones who see the trees. Te people are more about the main point of whatever is going on, while Ti people are interested in diving deeper into things, learning more of the specifics. If the subject is interesting, it doesn't matter that much whether they'll be able to apply the knowledge or not.

This inaccurate definition is probably why you think you're ENTj. Ti sees the forest; they want to build a complete system with as little emphasis on specific data as possible. Te sees the trees as separate but connected things, like links in a chain.

When you explain things, you always do it in a Ti way, trying to convey some overall principle concisely rather than just stating it as it is...there's a search for coherence with you.

[strrrng]

the only way in which Ti exhibits a preference for specificity is by splitting hairs. In an effort for precision, it will do this to make sure it has captured the most accurate answer. Nonetheless, it always acts out of a desire to tie everything together into an overall system.

[FDG]

Both thinking fuctions seem to be lacking completely in Joy from my perspective.

[strrrng]

Both thinking fuctions seem to be lacking completely in Joy from my perspective.

which is why a good amount of people think she's ESFj

[Elro]

types that are absolutely out of the question:

ESFj, ISFp, anything beta, INTp, ISFj, ESTj, ISTp, ENFp, and INFj

see, now, a more efficient way to list those would be
"Types I can be: Alpha NT, Gamma extrovert"

[tcaudilllg]

Maybe. This sounds a bit dynamic to just be Ti though.

You're right: it's Ti working through Te's lense.

[Ezra]

This inaccurate definition is probably why you think you're ENTj.

Remember, like I didn't, that this topic is over two years old. Granted, the definition is laughable, but Joy's knowledge of socionics has developed since then.

Ti sees the forest; they want to build a complete system with as little emphasis on specific data as possible. Te sees the trees as separate but connected things, like links in a chain.

I don't think this is entirely true, but that could just be because I'm not sure this concept is even related to Ti or Te.

When you explain things, you always do it in a Ti way, trying to convey some overall principle concisely rather than just stating it as it is...

This makes absolutely no sense. "As it is" and "conveying some overall principle concisely" go hand in hand with one another. I see what you're trying to do here; separate Ti (which you've explained quite well) and Te (which is a shitty effort on your behalf; Te is not about stating things "as they are". If anything, stating things "as they are" is a trait related to Ti blocked with Se. SLEs are extremely good at seeing what is). And, don't quote me on this, but I suspect you're basing your interpretation of Te on Ashton, who is evidently not an LIE.

Both thinking fuctions seem to be lacking completely in Joy from my perspective.

Explain. I'm interested to know why you think that, and to hear your argument for it.

which is why a good amount of people think she's ESFj

What, you and Ashton? Oh, and that piece of shit... what is it called again? Krae?

[strrrng]

This makes absolutely no sense. "As it is" and "conveying some overall principle concisely" go hand in hand with one another. I see what you're trying to do here; separate Ti (which you've explained quite well) and Te (which is a shitty effort on your behalf; Te is not about stating things "as they are". If anything, stating things "as they are" is a trait related to Ti blocked with Se. SLEs are extremely good at seeing what is). And, don't quote me on this, but I suspect you're basing your interpretation of Te on Ashton, who is evidently not an LIE.

what I meant by "as it is" is that Te doesn't try to make something out of all the facts like Ti; they just observe them, albeit as connected, but not in some subjective system.

If Joy was ENTj, she would be my supervisor. Joy is not my supervisor (if anything, I am hers). Therefore, Joy is not ENTj.

[Expat]

If Joy was ENTj, she would be my supervisor. Joy is not my supervisor (if anything, I am hers).

As your "would-be" supervisor, what is Joy not doing that she "should" be doing? And as her supposed supervisor, what are you doing (to her, or in relation to her, etc) that you "should" be doing?

In other words, how are you deciding whether someone "qualifies" as someone else's supervisor?

[Ezra]

what I meant by "as it is" is that Te doesn't try to make something out of all the facts like Ti; they just observe them, albeit as connected, but not in some subjective system.

Right, okay. But I thought this was an SLE thing. I might be mistaken; I could be conflating the ESTP of MBTT (who I assume might be good at this) and the SLE.

If Joy was ENTj, she would be my supervisor. Joy is not my supervisor (if anything, I am hers). Therefore, Joy is not ENTj.

Bad reasoning. It's logically consistent, but your basis can easily be proven false. What if someone came up with a completely flawless argument for your being a type different to IEI? Would that mean Joy could be LIE? And what about your reasoning vs. hers in terms of who has their type correct?

[strrrng]

As your "would-be" supervisor, what is Joy not doing that she "should" be doing? And as her supposed supervisor, what are you doing (to her, or in relation to her, etc) that you "should" be doing?

In other words, how are you deciding whether someone "qualifies" as someone else's supervisor?

Let's start here: I can say with 100% certainty that ashton is not my dual. Now, that leaves two options: ENTj and ENFj. I have spoken with him on the phone; he is very uncomfortable in an Fe atmosphere (which was clear because Steve and I had an Fe dynamic going on that he didn't participate in). I have read about the supervisor relationship; this is exactly how I feel when I speak with him. On an abstract level, it is almost like getting approval. In reality, I just see him "keeping me in check." With Joy, I feel the opposite - like I'm supervising her. It became more apparent recently when I corrected a few of her posts and observed how she responded. More so, she does not resemble you - and you are, beyond all doubt, Te-leading - in any way in the context of her posts.

Bad reasoning. It's logically consistent, but your basis can easily be proven false. What if someone came up with a completely flawless argument for your being a type different to IEI? Would that mean Joy could be LIE? And what about your reasoning vs. hers in terms of who has their type correct?

I was being somewhat flippant, making a simple logical statement because I'm tired of the bullshit. There is no argument for me being anything other than IEI, so that road is a dead-end. Look, she has provided shitty arguments for her type (without arguing)...by saying what she thought Si polr meant, by the inaccurate definitions of Te and Ti.

[Elro]

Let's start here: I can say with 100% certainty that ashton is not my dual. Now, that leaves two options: ENTj and ENFj.

Wait, what?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[strrrng]

Wait, what?

what...? the three types people have voted this dude are ESTp, ENFj and ENTj. 3-1=2

and Diana, who are you?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[strrrng]

I'm Diana. I've been around here for a couple years or so.

lol, let's not piss on the bush. why did you make that joke?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[strrrng]

It struck me as funny. I wasn't trying to offend you or anything.

o lol, ok

[strrrng]

here is an accurate description, by me of course, of Te and Ti

Te = external dynamics of objects, which can manifest as a focus on the objective activity of external events. The focus is more on concrete logic, comparing things through a prism of externally measurable logic.

Ti = external statics of fields, which can manifest as a focus on the internal logical structure. Instead of noticing activity of events, the focus is on creating a framework through which to view, and correlate, such events.

just so we have a foundation...