Is this unvalued Te?

[Shapeless]

Hello everyone,

I wanted your advice on this situation.

At work there is a person that break up with his wife. His wife was someone that liked to live the life fully, opened, lots of parties and really gentle.
Now, this man is with another woman, that is the exactly opposite of his previous wife.

I want your advice on that: I am valuing in a way the situation, trying to understanding his motives and assessing better its personality. Is not the fact itself, but more what the fact is saying to me about this person. What function am I using in this situation? Is not a cut process as thinking one, but more trying to emphasize with the person and deriving my understanding of the person by his actions.

It could be possible is a limited use of TE?

[Armitage]

I do not think that it is Te that you would use for this, because Te focuses either on what is concretely present or a pattern with the goal to changing that in a way that most efficiently achieves the desired result. In this case, you are not trying achieve someone result with this colleague of yours, instead you are trying to understand his motives by weighing what alternative reasons he could have had to do so (Ne). With this Ne information about his potential motives you then attempt to sympathize with him, you try to bridge the gap that resulted between the two of you when he did something that you morally do not comprehend (Fi). In order to thus feel closer to him again, you have to understand his reasons and judge if they are valid according to your principles. You are thus engaging Ne -> Fi, in my perception.

Also, it is sympathizing that you do instead of empathizing, because empathizing you can only do when you have done or gone through a similar thing. A breast cancer patient can empathize with a thyroid cancer patient, because she has experienced herself what it is like to suffer from cancer. A cancer free brother can only sympathize with his sister who suffers from thyroid cancer, because he has no comparable experience. Empathy therefore also feels closer to both the person receiving the empathy and the person empathizing, because it hits closer to home. When sympathizing you always retain a certain distance to the other, because you cannot fully imagine what it is must be like.

[Shapeless]

Thanks a lot!

I still have difficulties in assessing a person in a more 'global' way, even if I understand well motives of others in each single situation, and why they do stuffs (and when they will do that again).

Thinking about what I am lacking here!

[adage]

It's weak valued Te since you're looking at the facts and trying to place yourself in relationship to it, the facts aren't central but they are valued.
In contrast, strong valued Te would care about the facts and how to fix things in a way that would affect how each party relate one other, but it would be a by product of choices based on facts.

Weak unvalued Te would care more that it happens in good spirit, how they relate to the person or the action would be secondary. The facts would be considered an annoyance.
Strong unvalued Te would care more about the logical consistancy of the events, the facts would only support this.

[Armitage]

Good description, @adage. In the end weak valued Te implies strong Fi and vice versa according to the Socionics theory, so we're essentially saying the same in different ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K75g7eRhH9M

What I see is a desire to bridge the gap between how Shapeless would act according to their principles versus how their colleague acts. Even if trying to bridge this gap by trying to deduce the colleague's motivations (Ne) based on the facts (Te), the goal remains reinforcing the bond between Shapeless and this colleague, which is pretty much as Fi as can be.

[adage]

Good description, @adage. In the end weak valued Te implies strong Fi and vice versa according to the Socionics theory, so we're essentially saying the same in different ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K75g7eRhH9M

What I see is a desire to bridge the gap between how Shapeless would act according to their principles versus how their colleague acts. Even if trying to bridge this gap by trying to deduce the colleague's motivations (Ne) based on the facts (Te), the goal remains reinforcing the bond between Shapeless and this colleague, which is pretty much as Fi as can be.

Pretty much. And thanks.

I bothered because what makes sense to one might not to another, and no one can truly guess what will work.
It's from a communication class I took, it doesn't matter if you're saying the same thing because the way it's put together is unique and might be what someone needs.
Even if I thought your first post covered it, it made me think of how different Te positioning would look like as a matter of comparison, which I quite like doing.

[Armitage]

@adage, it's definitely an interesting overview. I also agree that repetition makes stick, especially in different forms. I only thought that it might be important to point out that we're saying the same, because it might not be as obvious to others who read this thread as it is to us.

[Shapeless]

It's weak valued Te since you're looking at the facts and trying to place yourself in relationship to it, the facts aren't central but they are valued.
In contrast, strong valued Te would care about the facts and how to fix things in a way that would affect how each party relate one other, but it would be a by product of choices based on facts.

Weak unvalued Te would care more that it happens in good spirit, how they relate to the person or the action would be secondary. The facts would be considered an annoyance.
Strong unvalued Te would care more about the logical consistancy of the events, the facts would only support this.

Thanks a lot for all these specifications!