Te - What is it, how does it work? Need Help understanding static vs. dynamic.

[VorticalFlow]

I am LII and am still having problms grasping exactly what Te is and how it works. I am not even sure exactly where / how to start asking questions. I have similar problem with Fe.

My problem is understanding dynamic information elements in general. I don't understand how an element can be dynamic and rational at the same time, don't understand how Te is using logic when things are not clearly defined, black or white definitions.

Is Te like attempting to use logic while not paying full attention to things, so bypassing things quickly? How does this work? How does this even "acheive results" and "be efficient" if not all the details are taken into consideration and things are not fully understood for exactly what they are?

How is Te logic?

I would find it very helpful if I could be given exact definitions explanations for this and plenty of good relatable examples.

Very important, how is Te experienced in consciousness? What is the experience of it?

What are the best words for describing it?

How true are my following statements regarding Te and dynamic information elements in general?

- Te is like having smooth transitions between things. But my question here is what are those things in and of themselves? How can you pay attention and not pay attention at the same time?

- Te is a lose of boundaries. But again, my question is if things don't have boundaries, then how do they exist/get noticed? How do you know what you're working with? How do you understand things through Te?

- Does Te require a time element to it to be able to wrok?

- Te and other dynamic elements are like not payign full attention to things.

- Te blends things together without understnanding their properties, the things they are built from.

I made a similar post about trying to get a handle on dynamic elements earlier today, link below.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...e-of-Te-and-Fe

Thanks for the Help

[Adam Strange]

Dude, get to the point.

[VorticalFlow]

Dude, get to the point.

Are you not able to see my point? Is this part of how Te works? Not able to go through things and collect what's relevant while discarding what isn't? Not able to break things down and give relevant answers to each of the pieces?

I'll try re writing this in a more easy to understand way later.

Here,s another post I made. Perhaps you might want to have a look at this?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...of-Te-and-Febe able to answer this?

[Adam Strange]

Are you not able to see my point? Is this part of how Te works? Not able to go through things and collect what's relevant while discarding what isn't? Not able to break things down and give relevant answers to each of the pieces?

I'll try re writing this in a more easy to understand way later.

Here,s another post I made. Perhaps you might want to have a look at this?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...of-Te-and-Febe able to answer this?

I was demonstrating Te in the face of Ti.

[Computer Loser]

I was demonstrating Te in the face of Ti.

LOL

I felt like I was the ONLY person that got your joke.

Oh sorry, it wasn't a joke, it was Te

[Exodus]

I am LII and am still having problms grasping exactly what Te is and how it works. I am not even sure exactly where / how to start asking questions. I have similar problem with Fe.

My problem is understanding dynamic information elements in general. I don't understand how an element can be dynamic and rational at the same time, don't understand how Te is using logic when things are not clearly defined, black or white definitions.

If you're trying to understand the IM elements starting from the dichotomies, you're gonna have a bad time. They just aren't that well-defined yet.

But Te is logic generally because it's about factual information.

[COLOR=#333333]Is Te like attempting to use logic while not paying full attention to things, so bypassing things quickly?

No. It may seem less detailed or careful than Ti though.

How is Te logic?

I would find it very helpful if I could be given exact definitions explanations for this and plenty of good relatable examples.

Logic is about impersonal things and facts are impersonal. If you want more of a detailed theoretical explanation, try here: https://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com...mation-Domains

Very important, how is Te experienced in consciousness? What is the experience of it?

What are the best words for describing it?

I suppose it's experienced as a focus on work and productivity and doing things in an efficient and effective manner.

How true are my following statements regarding Te and dynamic information elements in general?

- Te is like having smooth transitions between things. But my question here is what are those things in and of themselves?

Yeah, good question. This is one reason why the abstract definitions aren't clear.

How can you pay attention and not pay attention at the same time?

You can pay attention to one aspect and ignore another. (What is the relevance though?)

- Te is a lose of boundaries. But again, my question is if things don't have boundaries, then how do they exist/get noticed? How do you know what you're working with? How do you understand things through Te?

Where did you get "Te is a lose of boundaries" from?

- Does Te require a time element to it to be able to wrok?

Accuracy doesn't necessarily depend on time but yes, you could say that Te is very much temporal in how it deals with changing information and observable phenomena (which are constantly fluctuating). Plus any IM element naturally "works" in time as a cognitive process.

- Te and other dynamic elements are like not payign full attention to things.

Um, no.

- Te blends things together without understnanding their properties, the things they are built from.

Like what?

[Adam Strange]

To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.

[ouronis]

To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.

I experience this a lot at work. My boss typically is interested in a line of thought insofar as we can make use of it. I spit out lines of justification that work with what we've said in the past and usually he is aware of the need to maintain that system but we are always adding thin caveats to justify accepting anomalies into the system.

I have met people who just somehow decide something and then settle on it very quickly and that always bothers me because I want to make sure it won't fuck something else up first. Sometimes that "gap" has inconsequential risks associated with it, sometimes it's symptomatic of a blind spot that will and has caused significant problems.

I have no idea what this means in regard to Ti/Te but I wanted to throw it out there since it seems related.

[Exodus]

To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.

I like the Gordian knot as an example but it's more like TeSe vs. Ti (or SEE vs LII if you will). Similarly "get to the point" is a kind of impatient Se response, typically to Ne information.

I experience this a lot at work. My boss typically is interested in a line of thought insofar as we can make use of it. I spit out lines of justification that work with what we've said in the past and usually he is aware of the need to maintain that system but we are always adding thin caveats to justify accepting anomalies into the system.

I have met people who just somehow decide something and then settle on it very quickly and that always bothers me because I want to make sure it won't fuck something else up first. Sometimes that "gap" has inconsequential risks associated with it, sometimes it's symptomatic of a blind spot that will and has caused significant problems.

I have no idea what this means in regard to Ti/Te but I wanted to throw it out there since it seems related.

You seem to be focusing on the Se part and how it means having a lack of Ni.

[Computer Loser]

To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.

This is a good definition.

Te people care about the bottom line, what works, they have no time to discuss cute-sy theoretical stuff

This can make them excellent CEOs and supervisors, but sometimes at a cost of human FEELS. This is where the INFj leaps into the rescue and tells them "its all good bro!!" and everyone walks away happy

[Aeris]

To me, Te is very dynamic. It is “thinking as a process, not a place”.

Te-users move through the environment and take only what they need to achieve their goal, and then they drop it all in a heap and move on to accomplishing the next goal. It doesn’t matter to a Te user if every logical thought fits together or not. It only matters if it can be used effectively.

I should add the fact that I was amazed and happy when I first encountered the concept of a "proof", in 7th grade geometry class. I thought it was amazing. However, attempting to "prove" things rigorously is not my preferred approach.

Gordian knot = Ti.
Alexander = Te.

That's a nice description as it does not limit Te to "making money" stuff. What would you say about a Te ego moving in a feeling environment and needing empathy and social grace as skills to get by? Beside "run" I mean.

[Adam Strange]

That's a nice description as it does not limit Te to "making money" stuff. What would you say about a Te ego moving in a feeling environment and needing empathy and social grace as skills to get by? Beside "run" I mean.

Lol. “Run”. At first, your suggestion of being in a feeling environment scared me silly. However....
@wonderland, we all have some of each of the functions, so we’re not entirely helpless. But as thinking-doms, we just appear much less capable to feeling-doms, like a young kid would appear to an adult.

I once asked an artistically talented 19-year old ESI to look at my guest bedroom and make suggestions on how it could be redecorated to make guests feel more welcome. (I had seen her own bedroom when she was showing me examples of her artwork, and it was the kind of place that just exuded beauty and comfort.) I explained that I wasn’t really capable of designing comfortable spaces, because I don’t have any feelings.
She (a feeling dom) replied that everyone has feelings, but not everyone shows them.
To me, her words seemed to be written in the air in flaming letters. What? I have feelings? To this feeling moron, her statement seemed so wise.
But notice: To her, this was just an offhand remark, expressed with utter confidence, as if she’d spent a lot of time already thinking about it.
Feeling-wise, she was the adult with power and control and I was the child.

However, this was an in-Quadra interaction, where I got automatic support. I’ve been in Alpha-dominated feeling environments, and there, instead of getting automatic support, I was made to feel completely wrong in every way.

So you just have to be aware of what kind of ethical and feeling environment you are in.
And if you need empathy and social grace to get by, you need a feeling-dom at your side as an advisor. Otherwise, you are going to be a monkey trying to work on a jet engine.

[Lord Pixel]

Lol. “Run”. At first, your suggestion of being in a feeling environment scared me silly. However....
@wonderland, we all have some of each of the functions, so we’re not entirely helpless. But as thinking-doms, we just appear much less capable to feeling-doms, like a young kid would appear to an adult.

I once asked an artistically talented 19-year old ESI to look at my guest bedroom and make suggestions on how it could be redecorated to make guests feel more welcome. (I had seen her own bedroom when she was showing me examples of her artwork, and it was the kind of place that just exuded beauty and comfort.) I explained that I wasn’t really capable of designing comfortable spaces, because I don’t have any feelings.
She (a feeling dom) replied that everyone has feelings, but not everyone shows them.
To me, her words seemed to be written in the air in flaming letters. What? I have feelings? To this feeling moron, her statement seemed so wise.
But notice: To her, this was just an offhand remark, expressed with utter confidence, as if she’d spent a lot of time already thinking about it.
Feeling-wise, she was the adult with power and control and I was the child.

However, this was an in-Quadra interaction, where I got automatic support. I’ve been in Alpha-dominated feeling environments, and there, instead of getting automatic support, I was made to feel completely wrong in every way.

So you just have to be aware of what kind of ethical and feeling environment you are in.
And if you need empathy and social grace to get by, you need a feeling-dom at your side as an advisor. Otherwise, you are going to be a monkey trying to work on a jet engine.

I thought Role Fe comes out at this point.

[Adam Strange]

I thought Role Fe comes out at this point.

Well, yeah, it does. And I can do role Fe pretty well for a short time. (But long enough for an LSI to mistake me for her dual - - -) When I'm moving through a crowd of strangers, I'm looking friendly, open, focused, optimistic, like someone who hasn't a care in the world, who has it together and wants to meet you. That's not easy to maintain.

Privately, I'm more like the guy in Joni Mitchell's song "Raised on Robbery":

He was sitting in the lounge of the Empire Hotel
He was drinking for diversion
He was thinking for himself
A little money riding on the Maple Leafs....

But if I were immersed in a feeling or an ethical environment for any length of time, it would be tough for me. The role Fe is mostly to disarm my audience until I can wrap them up in my nefarious plans, which are entirely Te/Ni and mostly bereft of emotion.

[Adam Strange]

@ouronis, the thing to do is to keep track of how many times those initial guesses of those people turned out to be right. This will give you a way to assess how much you can count on their guesses in the future.

When I did this, about 20 years ago, I was at about 40%. But I know an LIE who is closer to 80%. Only one, though.

[Lord Pixel]

Te - I want to know what works.

Ti - I need to know everything about it from every single possible angle and read every published written book about it so that I can come to understand with absolute certainty and accuracy how it works.



Ti- Do the math in your head.

Te- Get a calculator.



Ti- I like to read to learn (read understand things)

Te - I like to read to learn (read know how to do things)



Ti- E = mc2

Te - what does E = mc2 do?



Ti- What is the diameter of the earth?

Te- Google it.



Ti- I want to study physics so I can understand the world.

Te- I want to study business so I can make money.



Ti -wants to consume knowledge

Te- wants to apply knowledge

[Tallmo]

Te assigns meaning to reality. Like what something is and what it does etc. Sensing seems more "primitive", it just experiences. I see this a lot at work with Te people (often LSE). For them reality has labels and meaning. For me reality is just impressions, and I sometimes don't even understand what I see right in front of me. (When I take in things in my natural state of mind)

This sounds strange, but in real life / real time situations at work the contrasts between different functional processing can be amazingly clear.

[Adam Strange]

Te assigns meaning to reality. Like what something is and what it does etc. Sensing seems more "primitive", it just experiences. I see this a lot at work with Te people (often LSE). For them reality has labels and meaning. For me reality is just impressions, and I sometimes don't even understand what I see right in front of me. (When I take in things in my natural state of mind)

This sounds strange, but in real life / real time situations at work the contrasts between different functional processing can be amazingly clear.

I would say that Te NAMES parts of reality, and by doing so, separates them from each other and from the self.

[Rebelondeck]

To regurgitate my techie view:

Socionics is nothing more than a classification system; all components of behaviour are assigned to one of the eight tags but not without controversy. There are no dynamic bins and there should be no bin labeled dynamic because all information processing is dynamic. Te-classification comprises observations of a closed-loop system that rationalizes in realtime -as things happen, which is more analog-like. When Te-processes are on, input is also on and the processes with the highest priority lead the loop. Ti-processes are not in realtime but operate on data that has been collected previously, which is more discrete-like. When Ti-processes are on, input is off, and vice versa (a sort of daisy-chain controlled by the set of processes with the highest priority). Type should be all about process and information flow - not outcomes.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tterns-by-I-O?

a.k.a. I/O

[Singu]

To regurgitate my techie view:

Socionics is nothing more than a classification system; all components of behaviour are assigned to one of the eight tags but not without controversy. There are no dynamic bins and there should be no bin labeled dynamic because all information processing is dynamic. Te-classification comprises observations of a closed-loop system that rationalizes in realtime -as things happen, which is more analog-like. When Te-processes are on, input is also on and the processes with the highest priority lead the loop. Ti-processes are not in realtime but operate on data that has been collected previously, which is more discrete-like. When Ti-processes are on, input is off, and vice versa (a sort of daisy-chain controlled by the set of processes with the highest priority). Type should be all about process and information flow - not outcomes.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tterns-by-I-O?

a.k.a. I/O

Well. There are obviously two approaches, one is correlational, and the other is causational, or explanatory. The explanatory approach is obviously superior to correlational approach, but the only problem is that finding causations or explanations is very difficult.

Making correlations can't explain the reason why. It's not much use correlating behavior X with a certain region of the brain, unless you're a brain surgeon or something who is physically messing with the brain. In the same way, saying behavior X is correlated with Fe isn't much help, and the only "solution" that you can give is that you need the dual function Ti or something. But that also doesn't explain exactly how Ti helps Fe.

So weaknesses are revealed when you are asked to explain something, and if you can't explain it, then you don't know if the correlation is valid or not. It could be caused by something else, or you could be missing a whole bunch of other important information.

Or the only other logical conclusion that you can make is that a Fe person will ALWAYS act in a certain way. But that is refuted by the fact that the human brain is plastic, behavior is malleable, and humans seemingly are capable of making a choice. The real cause of the vast majority of social human behavior is likely rooted in one's cognition. And the innate property of the human brain can't possibly be the cause of something, because you'd need the environment in order to give virtually any kind of expression. So our cognition is likely the result of the brain PLUS the environment.

[Rebelondeck]

...........Or the only other logical conclusion that you can make is that a Fe person will ALWAYS act in a certain way. But that is refuted by the fact that the human brain is plastic, behavior is malleable, and humans seemingly are capable of making a choice. The real cause of the vast majority of social human behavior is likely rooted in one's cognition. And the innate property of the human brain can't possibly be the cause of something, because you'd need the environment in order to give virtually any kind of expression. So our cognition is likely the result of the brain PLUS the environment.

The brain may be plastic but cognition and ego needs structure - a stable kernel. Observable behaviour may be alterable but information processing structure is more likely not, and most of who we are resides in software below the surface. Brain functioning is irrelevant to Socionics like computer algorithms are to word processing. Information processing certainly does exist so that we can operate in and on the environment; therefore, environment does greatly affect who we become but not so much how we process. I agree that finding causation is difficult; we still don't really know what gravity is but we're not stuck at observing different varieties of apples falling from trees.......

a.k.a. I/O

[Singu]

The brain may be plastic but cognition and ego needs structure - a stable kernel. Observable behaviour may be alterable but information processing structure is more likely not, and most of who we are resides in software below the surface. Brain functioning is irrelevant to Socionics like computer algorithms are to word processing. Information processing certainly does exist so that we can operate in and on the environment; therefore, environment does greatly affect who we become but not so much how we process. I agree that finding causation is difficult; we still don't really know what gravity is but we're not stuck at observing different varieties of apples falling from trees.......

a.k.a. I/O

Well we're going to need answers to the question of "why?", because only explanations are capable of generating universal answers, while observations are only local information.

For example, we don't just observe a bird flying and say, "Only birds, or only something like birds are capable of flying". Only someone who was curious enough to find the answer to "Why do birds fly?" was capable of coming up with the theory of aerodynamics. We could correlate many traits of birds with flying, such as 1. It must have feathers. 2. It must be light and small 3. It must flap its wings... etc, in order to fly. And it is true that all of those things are included in the theory of aerodynamics of what can cause flight, but they're only a very small part of many other things that could fly, like the Boeing 747 that is made of steel, weighs 300 tons and does not flap its wings. So the theory of aerodynamics is a universal theory, because it's a theory that contains universal, abstract explanations to the questions of "why?", and not observations. It contains every possible things that can cause flight, even things that have never been observed or categorized. It also tells us what's not possible.

If there are observable differences among Ti vs. Te types, and it's true that there are differences, then... why? Why would they be different? Perhaps it is likely, like the theory of aerodynamics, that once some underlining theory has been found, the "source" of Ti and Te are going to be the same, but they're just slightly different expressions of it.

[Rebelondeck]

.........If there are observable differences among Ti vs. Te types, and it's true that there are differences, then... why? Why would they be different? Perhaps it is likely, like the theory of aerodynamics, that once some underlining theory has been found, the "source" of Ti and Te are going to be the same, but they're just slightly different expressions of it.

Like I've said in other posts, we're simply observing T in each of the only two information processing configurations, which have differences in data flow that have profound effects on behaviour. Humans have basically the same brain structures, configurations and preferences; it's just that we have limited processing capacity so, early on, choices have to be made in order to build and maintain a stable ego.

a.k.a. I/O

[Finaplex]

Well we're going to need answers to the question of "why?", because only explanations are capable of generating universal answers, while observations are only local information.

For example, we don't just observe a bird flying and say, "Only birds, or only something like birds are capable of flying". Only someone who was curious enough to find the answer to "Why do birds fly?" was capable of coming up with the theory of aerodynamics. We could correlate many traits of birds with flying, such as 1. It must have feathers. 2. It must be light and small 3. It must flap its wings... etc, in order to fly. And it is true that all of those things are included in the theory of aerodynamics of what can cause flight, but they're only a very small part of many other things that could fly, like the Boeing 747 that is made of steel, weighs 300 tons and does not flap its wings. So the theory of aerodynamics is a universal theory, because it's a theory that contains universal, abstract explanations to the questions of "why?", and not observations. It contains every possible things that can cause flight, even things that have never been observed or categorized. It also tells us what's not possible.

If there are observable differences among Ti vs. Te types, and it's true that there are differences, then... why? Why would they be different? Perhaps it is likely, like the theory of aerodynamics, that once some underlining theory has been found, the "source" of Ti and Te are going to be the same, but they're just slightly different expressions of it.

This post is Ti.

Underlying Universal Principles that explain the relation between variables of flight-> Ti.

I’ve said it before Ti serves Te.

Te would be: I’ll meet you at the Tarmac at 8:30 while there is time to unload the airplane from the hanger. It was fueled by Trimac on tuesday. We have been cleared for take off at 9:00 and according to the weather should be a smooth flight.

[Finaplex]

I am LII and am still having problms grasping exactly what Te is and how it works. I am not even sure exactly where / how to start asking questions. I have similar problem with Fe.

My problem is understanding dynamic information elements in general. I don't understand how an element can be dynamic and rational at the same time, don't understand how Te is using logic when things are not clearly defined, black or white definitions.

The world of things is called dynamic, because it is in constant state of changes. Everything is an evolving situation. The Te is dynamic, because the sitations of actions is always changing to adapt to the new reality. So, you are building a house, Te is refered to as dynamic in this sense, because the building of that house is a changing evolving situation. Te is taking the pieces of information: where to buy the lumber material - well the BEST place is at Home Hardware, because they have 10% of 2x4s; how to get the roof on - well on Monday, thursday, friday the roofing contractors can't make it, so it will have to be on the other days...

And so on.

Is Te like attempting to use logic while not paying full attention to things, so bypassing things quickly? How does this work? How does this even "acheive results" and "be efficient" if not all the details are taken into consideration and things are not fully understood for exactly what they are?

Because you don't really need to understand the principles of things in order to do them, unless that is your job to know the principles, in an effort to do the best version of that job possible. W

How is Te logic?

Do this, that results. A=B Its actually cave man logic, not in the sense that it is primitive, but in the sense that its sequentialized thinking through reality in order to achieve an outcome, usually best use of time. Which is why efficiency is associated with Te.

Very important, how is Te experienced in consciousness? What is the experience of it?

Simply put: it is the capacity for a human being to experience the *alert, problem solving-mind* The alert problem solving mind is the prominent modality in the current Western Civilization.

What are the best words for describing it?

Refer to the wiki.

How true are my following statements regarding Te and dynamic information elements in general?

- Te is like having smooth transitions between things.

Yes, it can be. Si and Ni "flow" gives this different characters.

But my question here is what are those things in and of themselves?

Have you ever tried to do something and looked up a youtube video to show you how? That youtube video is a kind of Te, as well as the act of youlooking up the video, is Te in and of itself. You wanted a way to do a thing and in order to do that the fastest way, you went and watched a how to video. Logic of your actions. Need to do a thing + watch a how to video + doing it = getting it done.

How can you pay attention and not pay attention at the same time?

Are you referring to the ignoring Ti while still doing Te? Its all about dimensionally. When a IE is 4d dimensional, it means that individual has being preforming that IE since childhood. Do something that long and you don't really need to consciously pay attention to it with some self conscious effort, it means its just effortless.

With Te, maybe they have done something a thousand times by now and they have the whole process licked, there is no longer any need to deeply understand the underlying principles of how to do said thing, or why to do it, or how this effects that.

- Te is a lose of boundaries. But again, my question is if things don't have boundaries, then how do they exist/get noticed? How do you know what you're working with? How do you understand things through Te?

Not sure what you mean.

- Does Te require a time element to it to be able to wrok?

Yes. All things in reality require a time element.

- Te and other dynamic elements are like not payign full attention to things.

The opposite. Te is fully paying attention to things. Might be, though, that they are on auto pilot. See what I said about childhood onwards. Se is static, because its looking at things as discreet objects, even though they are in flux, it still seems them as separate from each other. Ne is also static, because it is looking at discreet objects of another kind, even though they might be in flux, it still seems them as snap shots. Te is dynamic, because events are moving from one to another, things to do are moving from one to another. First this, then that, type of perception.

- Te blends things together without understnanding their properties, the things they are built from.

Very possible this could happen. They might piece together tons of information: specifications, real world applications, methods, ect, science, how I saw my Grandpa do it, how my Daddy done' taught me, how I did it last year, this year..And so on.

You have to step away from thinking of Te as logical in a debating Socrates sense. It's not intellectual logic, although it can be, IF that is the application the user is doing at the time. Its more simple.

Thanks for the Help

No problem.

[VorticalFlow]

@Finaplex Thanks! thats one of the most helpful responses I've received, and thanks for everyone else for helping also.

[Rebelondeck]

@Smilex Ejs and Ips are closed-loop thinkers; their filters narrow down data input (focus) so that rationalization processes can widen - hence, your first sentence is somewhat correct. One process has to be limited in order to allow another to run concurrently. Focus, which is essentially selective filtering, is important because the brain has limited processing capacity. However, I would propose that Ips are better at focus though they may often be less productive.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Smilex]

@Smilex Ejs and Ips are closed-loop thinkers; their filters narrow down data input (focus) so that rationalization processes can widen - hence, your first sentence is somewhat correct. One process has to be limited in order to allow another to run concurrently. Focus, which is essentially selective filtering, is important because the brain has limited processing capacity. However, I would propose that Ips are better at focus though they may often be less productive.....


a.k.a. I/O

It would be more correct to say that EJs and IPs are preferentially closed-loop thinkers.
THe filter thing... for IPs and EJs every function works as the mirror opposite of how it works for the other so lumping these temperaments together is usually a mistake. Great care should be taken when discussing them as a combination.
As for focus, it all depends on how you define focus. Focus is a necessity for productiveness and if we take that into consideration it seems like Ejs are more focused than Ips. But it's all how you define it.

Here's a description by a Fi type about how they experienced their Ej friends' extrovert function:

Terry looked at me. He said: “Do not underestimate this anger. This anger was the engine that powered Good Omens.” I thought of the driven way that Terry wrote, and of the way that he drove the rest of us with him, and I knew that he was right.
There is a fury to Terry Pratchett’s writing: it’s the fury that was the engine that powered Discworld. It’s also the anger at the headmaster who would decide that six-year-old Terry Pratchett would never be smart enough for the 11-plus; anger at pompous critics, and at those who think serious is the opposite of funny; anger at his early American publishers who could not bring his books out successfully.
The anger is always there, an engine that drives. By the time Terry learned he had a rare, early onset form of Alzheimer’s, the targets of his fury changed: he was angry with his brain and his genetics and, more than these, furious at a country that would not permit him (or others in a similarly intolerable situation) to choose the manner and the time of their passing.
And that anger, it seems to me, is about Terry’s underlying sense of what is fair and what is not. It is that sense of fairness that underlies Terry’s work and his writing, and it’s what drove him from school to journalism to the press office of the SouthWestern Electricity Board to the position of being one of the best-loved and bestselling writers in the world.
It’s the same sense of fairness that means that, sometimes in the cracks, while writing about other things, he takes time to punctiliously acknowledge his influences – Alan Coren, for example, who pioneered so many of the techniques of short humour that Terry and I have filched over the years; or the glorious, overstuffed, heady thing that is Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable and its compiler, the Rev E Cobham Brewer, that most serendipitious of authors. Terry once wrote an introduction to Brewer’s and it made me smile – we would call each other up in delight whenever we discovered a book by Brewer we had not seen before (“’Ere!’ Have you already got a copy of Brewer’s A Dictionary of Miracles: Imitative, Realistic and Dogmatic?”)
Terry’s authorial voice is always Terry’s: genial, informed, sensible, drily amused. I suppose that, if you look quickly and are not paying attention, you might, perhaps, mistake it for jolly. But beneath any jollity there is a foundation of fury. Terry Pratchett is not one to go gentle into any night, good or otherwise.
He will rage, as he leaves, against so many things: stupidity, injustice, human foolishness and shortsightedness, not just the dying of the light. And, hand in hand with the anger, like an angel and a demon walking into the sunset, there is love: for human beings, in all our fallibility; for treasured objects; for stories; and ultimately and in all things, love for human dignity.
Or to put it another way, anger is the engine that drives him, but it is the greatness of spirit that deploys that anger on the side of the angels, or better yet for all of us, the orangutans.
Terry Pratchett is not a jolly old elf at all. Not even close. He’s so much more than that. As Terry walks into the darkness much too soon, I find myself raging too: at the injustice that deprives us of – what? Another 20 or 30 books? Another shelf-full of ideas and glorious phrases and old friends and new, of stories in which people do what they really do best, which is use their heads to get themselves out of the trouble they got into by not thinking? Another book or two of journalism and agitprop? But truly, the loss of these things does not anger me as it should. It saddens me, but I, who have seen some of them being built close-up, understand that any Terry Pratchett book is a small miracle, and we already have more than might be reasonable, and it does not behoove any of us to be greedy.

[Smilex]

Here's another life story about the discovery of Te: (Again, the EJ version)

As a high-school student in Ottawa, Canada, O'Leary took a job at Magoo's Ice Cream Parlour at a mall where girls from his class would hang out. It wasn't a cool job by any means, but he hoped it could get him a chance to work his magic.
The first day went by easily enough, but the next day didn't end so smoothly.
"It was the end of the day of my second day of work, and the woman who owned the ice cream parlor said to me, 'Listen, before you go, scrape all the gum up between the tiles,'" O'Leary tells Business Insider.
He saw two problems with that:


1. It was a Mexican tile floor, the kind that would require some tough maneuvering on his hands and knees.
2. He'd have to do that in front of the cute girl who worked at the shoe store across from him, risking humiliation among her and her friends.
"I said, 'No, I'm not going to do that. You hired me to be an ice cream scooper,'" O'Leary recalls. "She said, 'I hired you for whatever I want. You work for me. Scrape the gum or you're fired.' And I said, 'I'm not doing it,' and so she fired me."
He says he didn't really understand the full weight of what it meant to be fired. He was shocked and embarrassed.


"I realized then that when you work for somebody else, you're basically their slave," he says. "From that day on I swore I'd never work for anyone else. That was the beginning of my journey."
O'Leary writes on LinkedIn that he got home with "tears of hot rage stinging my cheeks." He told his stepfather that he'd never work for anyone again, to which his stepdad replied, "Even if you're self-employed, you'll be serving someone," explaining that business owners have obligations to their customers and shareholders.
O'Leary writes that his stepfather's lesson became clear years later, but he was convinced that he would one day become an entrepreneur

[Smilex]

And here's a few IP quotes on Te...

“Don’t wait for the perfect time, you will wait forever. Always take advantage of the time that you’re given and make it perfect.” Daymond John
“We all want the freedom to make our own decisions.” Daymond John
“The easiest thing to sell is the truth.” Daymond John
“You are born a chooser.” Daymond John
“I believe the last thing I read at night will likely manifest when I’m sleeping. You become what you think about the most.” Daymond John
“I do today what people won’t so I achieve tomorrow what other people can’t.” Daymond John
“Everyone has an idea, but it’s taking those first steps toward turning that idea into a reality that are always the toughest.” Daymond John
“When looking at trends I always ask myself basic and timeless questions about business, and the one I seem to always come back to is, how is this different than anything else in the marketplace?” Daymond John

[Rebelondeck]

.........for IPs and EJs every function works as the mirror opposite of how it works for the other so lumping these temperaments together is usually a mistake.......Focus is a necessity for productiveness and if we take that into consideration it seems like Ejs are more focused than Ips..........

Without quoting someone, why do you think 'functions' are (have to be?) opposite rather than different configurations and process priorities? You seem to talk of processes as if they're defined by their results even when input is undefined and infinitely variable.
Ips do have similar configurations to Ejs but different priorities; their focus is skill honing, surveillance and defense. Your reason for focus seems rather limited unlike the dictionary.....

a.k.a. I/O

[Smilex]

Without quoting someone, why do you think 'functions' are (have to be?) opposite rather than different configurations and process priorities? You seem to talk of processes as if they're defined by their results even when input is undefined and infinitely variable.
Ips do have similar configurations to Ejs but different priorities; their focus is skill honing, surveillance and defense. Your reason for focus seems rather limited unlike the dictionary.....

a.k.a. I/O

Ips and Ejs do not have similar configurations any more than Ejs and Ijs do. You need to start again.

[Adam Strange]

@Smilex, that's a great story. It mirrors my own experience, including my first job as a page (a book reshelver) in a library, then being asked to sweep the floors in front of my female classmates who studied in the public library after school, and the humiliation I felt. I quit shortly after that.

It is absolutely true that working for yourself means having many bosses. The key difference between being an employee and an entrepreneur is that an entrepreneur, having many bosses, can afford to quit working for the bosses who are assholes. You'd be amazed at what a difference this makes.

Of course, this level of business is still only about halfway up the hierarchy of enlightenment. A higher level is to engage in work which enables the greatest number of people (not just your customers) to lead better lives.

[Smilex]

@Smilex, that's a great story. It mirrors my own experience, including my first job in a library, then being asked to sweep the floors in front of my female classmates who studied in the public library after school, and the humiliation I felt. I quit shortly after that.

It is absolutely true that working for yourself means having many bosses. The key difference between being an employee and an entrepreneur is that an entrepreneur, having many bosses, can afford to quit working for the bosses who are assholes. You'd be amazed at what a difference this makes.

Amen.

[Squirrel]

Well, yeah, it does. And I can do role Fe pretty well for a short time. (But long enough for an LSI to mistake me for her dual - - -)

I thought I'm the only one who has this problem