Originally Posted by
squark
Well no, that's not actually true. Gulenko didn't mention Te at all. He used contact + terminal to determine subtype rather than the accentuations. Both of those qualites are present in psychosophy will.
I wish Timur had given more reasoning in his response to see how he'd come to his conclusions. I'm not so sure whether he considered rationality, or even uses dichotomies. It sounds more like he leans heavily on element descriptions and looking for how they show up.
In that light, I understand why he thought Te. It's based on how he defines Te I imagine my description of a trip or event - where I described Teotihuacan and its physical characteristics, changes through time, history and how they're still learning more about it, plus my answer to the mayor question - where I described the practical steps I'd take in that position, and the information I'd gather to better inform myself both could be described with that definition. Probably other of my answers as well could be described as dealing with objective reality.
In contrast he defines Ti as something abstract, divorced from the objective So, it's partially also a difference in definition of the terms themselves.