Results 1 to 40 of 43

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,595
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    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.

  2. #2
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    .........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
    Last edited by Rebelondeck; 03-17-2019 at 10:48 AM.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    871
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,595
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    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
    Do you think that you could analyze how the computer hardware works, by categorizing the entire library of softwares in existence? We can't look at its "source-code", let alone know what kind of programming languages it's programmed in. And we can only understand its code, because we have theories of programming languages, theories of mathematics, theories of logic, etc. that can make sense out of it.

    So if we were to ever understand how the human mind works, then we'd need to understand the programming language, which will be psychology. And the theory of how the hardware works will be understood by neuroscience. And they're both going to be understood in completely different ways that will work from two separate theories.

    The current observable human behavior is only a very small fraction of what the human mind is capable of. Just as the current entire library of softwares in existence is only a small fraction of what can potentially be programmed into a computer, which is unlimited.

    We can't say that the entire category of softwares in existence is the totality of all possible softwares, or that we can "derive" the most basic foundation of all softwares, which the softwares are based on, from it. Because then obviously, completely new kind of softwares will be written in the future. We can't figure that out until we can understand what the "programming language" it's written in.

    We can say that the human mind is the software. And our software is what has evolved over thousands of years within the human culture, because it was useful in some ways and it helped us survive. So if we were to make a theory of human behavior from current observations, then it's only going to be limited to behaviors of the specific culture. It can hardly be considered to be the most basic and the most fundamental building blocks of how the human mind works.

    If the human brain evolved in a completely different, alien environment, then it will likely evolve in different ways. However, there could be things that are universal, if there are universal laws of how a society functions, how emotions work, etc.

  5. #5
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Do you think that you could analyze how the computer hardware works, by categorizing the entire library of softwares in existence?......... And they're both going to be understood in completely different ways that will work from two separate theories.........a very small fraction of what the human mind is capable of.........
    I doubt it because there are characteristics of computer hardware that don't show up in any software so it's up to neuroscience; one would not be able to distinguish one field-effect transistor from another. Although brain functioning is largely irrelevant to information processing at a temperament/type level, actual processing (information flow) structures do need to be defined at the least grosso modo rather than working from the current classification formats.

    Even the most intelligent human brains aren't limitless; there are physical constraints such as power delivery and heat dissipation, so choices have to be made about how information is processed and what aspects of information is processed so that the brain can cope. Although humans are capable of great things, words like limitless means that their egos are talking.......

    a.k.a. I/O

  6. #6
    Smilex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    295
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Te is a function of fixation on things that are important. How are they important? They are focal points in the community and they also have capacity. Te is the border between Ni-fields transforming into Si fields - conceptual abstraction turning into concrete works.

    For Ej Te is something that requires that you have to take action, the fear of lost opportunity, the fear of missing out, the feeling of misery and miserliness.
    When Bill Gates writes " We focus on only a few issues because we think that’s the best way to have great impact, and we focus on these issues in particular because we think they are the biggest barriers that prevent people from making the most of their lives." He is describing Te.


    For Ip Te is greed, being enchanted by something so great you want to throw yourself at it. The opportunity found, the moment when you're strong while others are weak.
    When Buffett says "only when the tide goes out do you discover who has been swimming naked"

    He is describing his understanding of Te.

  7. #7
    Adam Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    TIM
    ENTJ-1Te 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    16,842
    Mentioned
    1604 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smilex View Post
    Te is a function of fixation on things that are important. How are they important? They are focal points in the community and they also have capacity. Te is the border between Ni-fields transforming into Si fields - conceptual abstraction turning into concrete works.

    For Ej Te is something that requires that you have to take action, the fear of lost opportunity, the fear of missing out, the feeling of misery and miserliness.
    When Bill Gates writes " We focus on only a few issues because we think that’s the best way to have great impact, and we focus on these issues in particular because we think they are the biggest barriers that prevent people from making the most of their lives." He is describing Te.


    For Ip Te is greed, being enchanted by something so great you want to throw yourself at it. The opportunity found, the moment when you're strong while others are weak.
    When Buffett says "only when the tide goes out do you discover who has been swimming naked"

    He is describing his understanding of Te.
    That quotation by Bill Gates perfectly sums up a well-directed life.

    A lot of supposedly avaricious rich business owners are said to have "converted" or "switched" to philanthropy in their old age. I assert that they never changed. They were always interested in making the best of a system, whether that system was a steel mill, personal computing, or the education and health of the general population.

  8. #8
    Smilex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    295
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Strange View Post
    That quotation by Bill Gates perfectly sums up a well-directed life.

    A lot of supposedly avaricious rich business owners are said to have "converted" or "switched" to philanthropy in their old age. I assert that they never changed. They were always interested in making the best of a system, whether that system was a steel mill, personal computing, or the education and health of the general population.

    I feel that adding to the previous would not be a bad thing.
    For the initiator of the thread I suspect that the confusing thing about Te is how can an object be both abstract and concrete at the same time. Many concepts have immediate practical dimensions. Words like doctor, husband, contract, criminal, entrance, sick leave, christmas tradition and so on are abstract in their origin but define and lead to practical actions and events. They are best understood as Te objects. But any abstract Ne concept can be taken and turned into a Te object though sometimes this leads to absurdity. Let's consider something that is a well known concept though it doesn't exist, like telepathy. Now Te thinking would be.... how to turn that into practical consequences... maybe by trademarking it, or creating a stage magic illusion around it, or by redefining it as reading brain waves with machinery and using those brain waves to guide a program that writes sms messages. Then you can talk about this concept on both the levels of ideas and how it applies and now you're in Te territory.

    ALso, successful Te concepts tend to turn into Se concepts. The first successful light bulb was a symbol as much as a practical tool, now it's just a light bulb.

    Fe works the opposite... by turning a condom or a rifle or stepping into a bus with different coloured people into a symbol.

    Any person who simultaneously understands both the abstract and the concrete dimensions of an object is likely high Te or high Fe. But the point of view is of course the opposite.

    The previous posts focus on the 'absolute' Te, which unites the aspects of -and + or abstract and concrete Te. For many individuals classified as Te types the Te things they handle are only concrete or abstract because they're not actually very focused on Te.

    For a high Ni gamma, Te is mostly theoretical, understood to exist by necessity but not really important. This is how Adam describes the rich investor's connection with money. Te is just the eventual outcome of conduct, just something that accumulates. On the other hand a full on balanced gamma considers the Te as important though still just an output factor. For a balanced delta, Te is usually the most important objects that define their practical life, like a uniform, tool, itinerary, debt, loyalty or whatever. For a high Si- delta Te is whatever is the available materials for their practical abilities, not really important because the focus is on their high personal skill to do anything with anything.

    And so for some Te is a good thing, for some it's bad. For some it's an abstraction, for some a concrete item. But without a mental structure that is built around Te you can't really appreciate it in its fullness because ultimately it's defined by Ni and Si.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,595
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    I doubt it because there are characteristics of computer hardware that don't show up in any software so it's up to neuroscience; one would not be able to distinguish one field-effect transistor from another. Although brain functioning is largely irrelevant to information processing at a temperament/type level, actual processing (information flow) structures do need to be defined at the least grosso modo rather than working from the current classification formats.
    Well on classification, an example of a classification is something like say, AIDS, which is a classification of the observational symptoms, while HIV is the cause. HIV if left untreated, will inevitably lead to AIDS.

    But if we don't know what causes AIDS, then all we can do is make blind correlations, and we can't really do anything about it other than be mystified by this mysterious ailment. And there are many many things that could be correlated with AIDS patients, even if those correlations may not have anything to do with each other. Only by knowing the causation that HIV will lead to AIDS, that we can do something about it.

    A lot of the stuff, if not everything in Socionics is about making correlations between classifications.

    Some people may confuse the 8 functions and Model A as the cause, but it's not, they're classifications. It's like saying AIDS is the cause of AIDS. It's like analyzing the lack of immune system in a patient and saying "This is AIDS! AIDS is real!". Well... yes! But why? What causes it?

    Anyway, I'm sure by keep asking the question "Why?", we will lead to more general theories about why should something be this and not that. In order to know that HIV causes AIDS, we'll need an entire theory of biology to explain it. No such theory that can explain cognitive causality exist in psychology yet. It's difficult to explain why should X -> entrepreneur. That's why so many people remain mystified and not enlightened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    Even the most intelligent human brains aren't limitless; there are physical constraints such as power delivery and heat dissipation, so choices have to be made about how information is processed and what aspects of information is processed so that the brain can cope. Although humans are capable of great things, words like limitless means that their egos are talking.......

    a.k.a. I/O
    What I mean by "limitless" is that, just as you can program virtually any kind of program into a computer, the human mind is capable of virtually any kind of cognition, whether it's flights of fancy, or a scientific theory that can accurately describe reality to a certain extent. There is no limit to what the combination of logic can produce, as that is infinite.

    There are limits to how much information that can be processed, but that can be outsourced or offloaded to something else, like pen and paper or a computer.

  10. #10
    Rebelondeck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,929
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    .....they're classifications. It's like saying AIDS is the cause of AIDS. It's like analyzing the lack of immune system in a patient and saying "This is AIDS! AIDS is real!". Well... yes! But why? What causes it?.......There is no limit to what the combination of logic can produce, as that is infinite.......
    My view of Socionics models certainly does have parallels with your AIDS statement. Although rationalization can produce infinite possibilities, overall behaviour does seem to be confined within some operational boundaries; for example, individuals that produce brilliant work, but regardless of their intellect, never seem to socialize well, or never seem to manage their resources, or never seem to control their temper, etc. Brilliance seems to have more to do with the brain (faster CPUs or memory access) but people of one particular type seem to run (albeit at varying efficiencies) on very similar operating systems......

    Edit: Faster CPU/memory enables wider bandwidth in processing but not so much as to affect type.

    a.k.a. I/O
    Last edited by Rebelondeck; 03-26-2019 at 01:17 PM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,595
    Mentioned
    264 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rebelondeck View Post
    My view of Socionics models certainly does have parallels with your AIDS statement. Although rationalization can produce infinite possibilities, overall behaviour does seem to be confined within some operational boundaries; for example, individuals that produce brilliant work, but regardless of their intellect, never seem to socialize well, or never seem to manage their resources, or never seem to control their temper, etc. Brilliance seems to have more to do with the brain (faster CPUs or memory access) but people of one particular type seem to run (albeit at varying efficiencies) on very similar operating systems......

    Edit: Faster CPU/memory enables wider bandwidth in processing but not so much as to affect type.

    a.k.a. I/O
    Well "not socializing well" for example does seem to have a limit, whether it's hardware or software. But the fact that neuroplasticity takes over unused portions of the brain that was originally intended for some other use, perhaps suggests that those things are more software than hardware.

    I don't think there's anything that suggests say, an SEI can't be an entrepreneur, if he/she chose to. This SEI might have the talent to become a successful entrepreneur, but he/she chooses not to because he's not interested in making money, and instead becomes an artist instead. So the question is... why? I don't think there's anything that physically prevents him from becoming an entrepreneur, as if there's some laws of nature that prevents him from doing so (if there is, then it should be explained).

    And if you say that it puts too much strain on him because being an entrepreneur is too stressful or something, then well, what makes an olympic athlete who deliberately goes through straining and stressful training everyday so that he could become an olympic champion? You might say that well, the difference is in whether one has a striking vision for what he/she wants to achieve and work for that, or not. And again... is this more hardware, or software? Is this inborn, or is it learned? Or a bit of both?

    Another thing is that I don't think you can separate human psychology from history, because our psychology, like our biological organs, are an accumulation of what has gradually evolved over time. So inevitably, they're going to have some evolutionary baggages, like our blind spots, wisdom teeth, tonsils, appendixes and so on that are quite useless and serve no purpose. It should be no different for our psychology, and our psychology is full of evolutionary baggages that serve not much purpose and are even detrimental to us. So it's no wonder that things like love and relationships are so messy, because they're imperfect and because we have so much psychological evolutionary baggages.

    So I don't think that our psychology can be fully understood without considering those reality as well. The classification approach often assumes a kind of a "designer" or "intelligent design" approach, where it assumes our psychology is very neat and streamlined, and it works perfectly well like an orderly mechanical clock. Or that it's just a matter of finding such a perfect order that supposedly exist naturally, perhaps within us, if we only looked harder. But I think that's a mistake, I think the reality is that we are very messy creatures, full of imperfections and disorderliness.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •