# Thread: Te vs Ti test question

1. ## Te vs. Ti test question

Do you prefer to
-know facts about something (what, how, where), determine its usefulness, and decide how to implement the information to maximize efficiency, or
-explore the details of something, examining the related system of laws/rules (scientific, mathematic, organizational, or structural)?

2. know facts about something (what, how, where), determine its usefulness, and decide how to implement the information to maximize efficiency

3. looks like that question needs to be re-written lol

4. Originally Posted by Joy

looks like that question needs to be re-written lol
O_o

5. it does sound a little bit like Se now that I look at it from that angle

(btw, I said that because you answered Te, which is your PoLR)

6. Originally Posted by Joy
it does sound a little bit like Se now that I look at it from that angle

(btw, I said that because you answered Te, which is your PoLR)
ohhhhh, maybe thats me trying to be like my dual?

7. ESTps are Ti though, not Te

8. Originally Posted by Joy
ESTps are Ti though, not Te

oic, nvmd then

10. I see no way in which that could be confused for . Just seems like a bad question to me.

11. Ti

12. it does sound a little bit like Se now that I look at it from that angle
Yeah, I agree. A lot of people on this forum say Te is about knowing the facts. For that matter, saying that Ti is about exploring the details sounds like Si.

13. Facts are a function of logic.

14. Originally Posted by Rocky
Facts are a function of logic.
Please explain. I see facts as raw material. Logic is the structure that puts them together. You perceive "facts." For example, you see something, and perceive that as a "fact." Then you can make a logical deduction about that fact.

15. Do I really have to explain myself? EVERY definition of logic deals with facts. It's not even a question.

16. The questions asks which of two arbitrary steps of understanding we prefer.

17. Originally Posted by Rocky
Facts are a function of logic.
Nah. Let's suppose R = reality f= facts l=logic, then

R=l(f)

18. Originally Posted by Rocky
Do I really have to explain myself? EVERY definition of logic deals with facts. It's not even a question.
Yes, they mention facts because logic is a method of processing facts. Logic is a function operated upon facts to achieve a result, just as a meat processor is a machine that operates upon meat to produce sausage. What you are trying to say is that the meat operates upon the machine.

19. No, I said logic deals with facts, I never said that facts define logic. Though using facts is very logical... probably to a fault though. You can often use logical reasoning to make a good case for something that isn't true in reality, which is why it's dangerous and shouldn't be trusted too much.

20. It appears to just have been a semantic misunderstanding then - what you originally wrote ("logic is a function of facts") seems to come off as (to use FDG's notation) f(l), whereas what you just said is l(f).

21. I'm Ti, I love to take things appart to model the system in my head. The later I can recognize similar structures and mechanisms around me. Things at low level seem to appear every where. Atoms are everywhere, screws are everywhere, standardized components are everywhere. Socionics types are everywhere. With Ti I can make and remember true statements about systems and then derive new truths from them using unconscious ven diagrams and by visualizing the system and eliminating/activating parts of it.

Ie. Premise: The light turns on when I flip switch 1 on
Premise: The light turns off when I flip switch 2 off
Premise: The light does not turn on when Switch 3 is off

From this we can deduce that both switches are most likely in series in the closest most simplified version of the results. Of course it might be more complex in reality, but usually things are found in simplified form, and even if they are not, thats fine because the Ti person would learn a simpler version of the system anyways and implement it elsewhere.

22. Originally Posted by dreikin
It appears to just have been a semantic misunderstanding then - what you originally wrote ("logic is a function of facts") seems to come off as (to use FDG's notation) f(l), whereas what you just said is l(f).
Not even that. Using my notation, "Logic is a function of facts" would be l=R(f), since the facts would be forced in the indipendent variable position.

23. http://www.understandingcalculus.com...erentials.htm:
"if f is a function of x, f(x), then its value changes as x changes"

I think we should stop "is a function of" in this context. Logic's more like an operation or algorithm (or set of them) than a function.

24. That's probably not the best definition of a function. I remember I once had a math teacher who hated when people used the word "changes" like that.

I don't remember the technical definition of a function, but I think it's something like this:

...a mapping (F) of one set (we'll call set X) into another such that if j and k are members of set X and F(j) = F(k), then j=k.

In any case, at least we have consensus that T isn't the same as facts; and the idea that it is the same (at least in the case of ) is a misconception that I've seen a bit on this forum, in people's personality "tests," etc.

25. Originally Posted by Slava
Ie. Premise: The light turns on when I flip switch 1 on
Premise: The light turns off when I flip switch 2 off
Premise: The light does not turn on when Switch 3 is off
that sounds like some fucked up wiring... beyond just having the line and the load reversed

26. haha oops... switch 2 off should be switch 1 and switch 3 should be 2 :-), i had to fix some wiring in my head first,.

27. ## Re: Te vs. Ti test question

seems like in most every socionics website, Te/Ti difference is pretty much defined like:

-know facts about something (what, how, where), determine its usefulness, and decide how to implement the information to maximize efficiency, or

-explore the details of something, examining the related system of laws/rules (scientific, mathematic, organizational, or structural)?
INTp can get hung up in the details of something. ISTp departs from any fruitless activity.

raw unprocessed information sounds like / to me.

28. i prefer both of these things. sometimes i am a bit cursory but i will eventually see the need to look in depth at something when i feel it is vital to my understanding of it. i need more Se.

29. I don't.

30. Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Rocky
Facts are a function of logic.
Nah. Let's suppose R = reality f= facts l=logic, then

R=l(f)
Ever read Wittgenstein? Sounds like you've pretty much got it already. The Tractatus part of it anyway. What a concise summary though! Brilliant.

31. Option one. I'd say this is more of a test to tell Result thinkers apart from Process thinkers. Process thinking is the kind of thinking that investigates issues deeply and cares about connections that aren't immediately relevant from the viewpoint of utility.

37. First one.