Back to the basics of extraverted thinking

[anndelise]

The main idea here is that Te types try to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing because miscommunication resulting from poorly defined premises or meanings of words is frustrating and makes the conversation (or at least the parts where people had to needlessly, in their eyes, explain their wording and meanings over and over again) seem pointless.

A very good point, and definitely true. As I have tried to point out many times the main focus is on the same thing, that is, the referent. As long as we know that we are talking about the same referent, we don't have to quarrel so much about exactly which definition is the correct one to use, or which exact language expression is the most accurate in order to pinpoint that we have the same thing in mind. We can use whatever language expression, or preliminary definition (even vague ones) that works, that is, makes it possible for us to communicate effectively.

i dont think this is exclusive to Te at all.

I dunno if it's exclusive to Te, but it does make sense in a way..
a term, a referent, a concept...each of these would likely fall under an object oriented function (Xe).
these are also abstract things..or symbols referring to a concept, not something we'd use our senses to perceive, so that scratches Se.
and to strive for well-defining the concept/symbol/referent/term would be a Te thing.

Ti would be striving for defining the relationships between at least two things....but in a sense, this can easily be mistaken as Te (or vice versa)...depending on the concept or how it's being defined...as in, "i'm using term x to refer to how Y and Z are related" and/or "term x is related to Y and to Z"

{here I tried going into a difference between a "continous implied concept" (Ne) vs a "discrete defined concept" (Te)...but I'm not yet ready for that}

[Joy]

The main idea here is that Te types try to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing because miscommunication resulting from poorly defined premises or meanings of words is frustrating and makes the conversation (or at least the parts where people had to needlessly, in their eyes, explain their wording and meanings over and over again) seem pointless.

A very good point, and definitely true. As I have tried to point out many times the main focus is on the same thing, that is, the referent. As long as we know that we are talking about the same referent, we don't have to quarrel so much about exactly which definition is the correct one to use, or which exact language expression is the most accurate in order to pinpoint that we have the same thing in mind. We can use whatever language expression, or preliminary definition (even vague ones) that works, that is, makes it possible for us to communicate effectively.

i dont think this is exclusive to Te at all.

Based on your being INTj?

As for clarifying the meanings of things, yes, it's important to do so and that it's a natural part of conversing... as I described... but it's difficult not to lose your patience with someone who's just so ridiculously far off that you don't even know where to begin.

[anndelise]

[quote="Joy"]As for clarifying the meanings of things, yes, it's important to do so and that it's a natural part of conversing... as I described... but it's difficult not to lose your patience with someone who's just so ridiculously far off that you don't even know where to begin.[/quote]

The best beginning, imo, is asking them what they mean by something they said.

[Joy]

I generally get it, or at least recognize a lot of the misunderstandings and problems with semantics. It's explaining it so they'll understand that's frustrating. I know I should really learn to be more patient... it's just that when I can tell that it will take hours of frustrating conversation to communicate effectively it doesn't seem like it's work the effort... better to just move on to another topic that won't be frustrating for everyone involved (unless it's something serious that must be discussed).

[Ms. Kensington]

The main idea here is that Te types try to make sure that everyone's talking about the same thing because miscommunication resulting from poorly defined premises or meanings of words is frustrating and makes the conversation (or at least the parts where people had to needlessly, in their eyes, explain their wording and meanings over and over again) seem pointless.

A very good point, and definitely true. As I have tried to point out many times the main focus is on the same thing, that is, the referent. As long as we know that we are talking about the same referent, we don't have to quarrel so much about exactly which definition is the correct one to use, or which exact language expression is the most accurate in order to pinpoint that we have the same thing in mind. We can use whatever language expression, or preliminary definition (even vague ones) that works, that is, makes it possible for us to communicate effectively.

i dont think this is exclusive to Te at all.

I dunno if it's exclusive to Te, but it does make sense in a way..
a term, a referent, a concept...each of these would likely fall under an object oriented function (Xe).
these are also abstract things..or symbols referring to a concept, not something we'd use our senses to perceive, so that scratches Se.
and to strive for well-defining the concept/symbol/referent/term would be a Te thing.

Ti would be striving for defining the relationships between at least two things....but in a sense, this can easily be mistaken as Te (or vice versa)...depending on the concept or how it's being defined...as in, "i'm using term x to refer to how Y and Z are related" and/or "term x is related to Y and to Z"

{here I tried going into a difference between a "continous implied concept" (Ne) vs a "discrete defined concept" (Te)...but I'm not yet ready for that}

My view is, an attitudinal stance of a desire to want people to be talking about the same thing-- how is that related to Te over Ti, even Fe? If you already acknowledge that this is just a normal part of conversing, in fact the foundation of it (to an INTj)... why even mention it.

This seems to be a very different thing than to provide examples. Why should one provide examples if one wants to make sure people are using the same definitions, as opposed to defining terms with more abstract words? The desire to simply communicate about the same thing is not liked to Te or Ti exclusively, though it may be linked with a rational view of the world. I am surprised Phaedrus that you say that Ti forum members do not display behavior that implies great concern for the sameness of definitions. Lastly, it seems that Ti people would be very accepting of using a system of words that works best in the situation at hand, as long as it is not contradictory. Really seems to make no sense that this is described as something not Ti, and, exclusively Te.

I suppose i could compromise and agree with Ann. It would depend on what one's describing. and eh.. you could say one's describing what objects or relationships matter to you according to your quadra values or something. But I don't say this because i believe it currently. I did think about what you said you aren't ready for ann. That's Ne being Xe. I'll wait for that.

I don't see how impatience with one's difference in view would relate to whether concern for talking about the same thing would figure in if Te is in fact something like implied was talking about being super excited to try to get people to understand the same things. I think, it doesn't. (figure in)

As an aside I think the pleasure in educating as I have experienced Te people do is the same kind of masturbatory thing that comes with using one's ego function as one might attribute to Ti people, if it's masturbatory for Ti people to sit around classifying subsets of sets.

[Phaedrus]

My view is, an attitudinal stance of a desire to want people to be talking about the same thing-- how is that related to Te over Ti, even Fe? If you already acknowledge that this is just a normal part of conversing, in fact the foundation of it (to an INTj)... why even mention it.

This seems to be a very different thing than to provide examples. Why should one provide examples if one wants to make sure people are using the same definitions, as opposed to defining terms with more abstract words? The desire to simply communicate about the same thing is not liked to Te or Ti exclusively, though it may be linked with a rational view of the world. I am surprised Phaedrus that you say that Ti forum members do not display behavior that implies great concern for the sameness of definitions.

Since you have studied philosophy, Ms. Kensington, you know the difference between meaning and reference ("Sinn und Bedeutung," "connotation and denotation," etc.) My point is that it is more natural for types to focus on reference than on meaning. We want to make sure we are talking about the same thing (the same "object"). In contrast, INTjs tend to focus on word meaning, which is precisely one of the main reasons they are so concerned with definitions. But they almost always try to define terms with more abstract words.

We see that phenomenon all the time on this forum. types keep on discussing which words to use to define some abstract concept in Socionics, whereas types are relatively more interested in discussing real life examples. This difference is also indicated (but not very clearly explained and perhaps easy to misunderstand) in the Reinin dichotomy between Subjectivists and Ojbectivists:

Subjectivists

4. "Verification of concepts" – the general (common) phenomenon for subjectivists, it concerns not only the different was of acting/doing, but also concepts, terminology and so on. Subjectivists are in greater degree "adjusted" to the fact that different people have different meanings/understandings for same concepts, words and so on. They perceive the terminology (As well as actions of people) as a part of the subjective concept of different people – an extenuation of personal opinions, occupied positions, personal intention etc.: "So we have agreed that we shall name it this way". In contrast to he objectivist, who receives terminology as "objective", subjectivists understand the differences of terminologies (This concerns even well established terms) and they attempt to contrast them ("Well you say it is like that but I disagree")

5. Lexicon: when discussing actions and joint activities they use expressions like "Let me present my point of view" "According to my understanding" "personal criteria" "it matches accepted beliefs" "I have concluded" "they insisted" and so on. They in detail describe verbal communication – especially their part in it, their "interventions" in the conversations and what they were (Or were not).


Objectivists

4. In contrast to the subjectivists, they are not inclined of "verification of concepts". They assume that the terms, concepts have only one unique interpretation ("correct", "accurate" one) – often they do not think about the fact that the other person may be interpreting them differently within the framework of other concepts. They operate with concepts like "objective reality" like unequivocal facts, in such cases they do not attempt to "verify the concepts": "It refers to this". Thus in those cases they consider that they know a thing correctly, how it "really is" (The view certain pictures of the world as uniquely true): "You say it's like this while in reality is like this".

5. In description of actions or in discussion of joint activities instead of "explanatory" lexicon they give mass of examples (All "correct" and "incorrect" actions are based on examples)

If you don't see clearly the difference between meaning and reference, or don't accept it as very important, that would be an indication that you really are an INTj, because that type has a tendency not to make a clear distinction between language and the world. In a sense, for an INTj everything is a model, even the world itself. Everything is part of our language, our concepts. INTjs view everything through a filter, through a theoretical model -- "bottom-up", and they tend to think that there is no alternative to such a "world view". They tend to think that what the types attempt to do -- go from direct observations of some "objective reality" and hopefully be able to explain those observations in a theory, to generalize them -- is impossible.

[Expat]

Going back to the beginning for a while --

I'm really tired right now but here's some thoughts people can rip to shreds if they'd like.

Te= Understanding of Data, information, facts, pieces,
with Ni = projection and long-term view of where these pieces can go when put together
with Si= building, physical manipulation of these pieces, creation

The Te as data thing, and the Te as methods, what works, etc. (from Joy's post and Rick's quote) are two separate views of what Te is. Although they can go together, they're different strands and lead to different conclusions.

They necessarily go together, as Diana said. You can't have methods that work without factual data - and you can't check if the data are correct if the methods don't work.

Personally, I don't like it when people identify Te too much with raw data, because then it becomes a perceiving function rather than a judging function. Further, if Ni is understanding or deciding how to fit the pieces together and Te is the pieces of raw data, then Ni becomes the judging function and Te is the perceiving one.

That's precisely the kind of thing I meant in your type thread.

First, no, Te does not "become" a perceiving function at all. Obviously, at the end of the day, any use of your senses (like reading) involves Si, so yes, Si "perceives" the raw data. But it is Te that decides that they are data in the first place, so they are judging. The same goes for Fe when "perceiving" people's emotions. Whether someone's facial expression means anything or not is judging, not perceiving.

Second, what Diana said was something else, they fit together in a sequential way, but in a perceiving rather than judging move, a sort of "guessing" if you will.

[Expat]

Hmm, well I'll give it a shot, here is how I understand

Imagine that you are watching television or a theater performance or a video game or even an EKG monitor. What is happening, though you may not be aware of it, is a constant flow of new information. Every new moment in time brings a new development but yet it is a continuation of the last moment, and it is of the moment before it and so on. Simply put, the plot thickens. And now as you watch the action unfold you are aware of the plot and slowly as you get into the action the plot takes first place, you're not just looking at the pictures, the actors and so on anymore, you start observing the plot "Oh no! Jimmy cheated on Marisa!". In the end all that you are left form the experience is an awareness of the plot and everything else is subordinate to the plot "It's an epic tale of friendship and betrayal in the little town of whatever some time ago". Now imagine that this plot is unfolding every day of your life right in front of your eyes.

would be the plots of objects, the story of the light bulb, the perils of the new piece of code, the controversy of the homosexual bolt in a homogenous small town engine block and so on. sees all of these stories and it can change and shape them. It can for example determine how to approach an object so that it's external dynamics or it's plot it is observing doesn't thicken "Oh no! the gay bolt moved to the KKK neighborhood!!!", that is, so that the plot unravels positively "And the project requirements and project accomplishments lived happily ever after".

Also notable mentioning is that it is merely an observant, it uses the rules that govern the relationships between the objects it observes but does not study them. And really when your watch your TV show you don't care how the television works, how the picture is formed and explanation of why the things work, you just want to see your show.

Also notable mentioning is that it doesn't perceive the internal dynamics of the objects it observes, the "internal" plot. How should it know if the actors have gas, are drowsy and so on if they don't show it externally? It can only observe what's on screen, is visible. Also this is why for example sees a lot of as "drama" because is the internal dynamics of objects, the thing cannot see. All it can see is the external expressions of and it just doesn't make sense in the context of external dynamics, it doesn't fit the plot "Why are you being so unnecessarily emotionally expressive?".

Bad is an inability to see this external plot of objects. To the untrained eye using objects looks something like this "Hmm, I'll try to use this thing to solve my problem" while to it's "Hmm, so I'll just take this mouse that posses the antidote to the illness that I have in this meat grinder in an attempt to extract the cure".

I think this is excellent - not just the hightlighted bit, but that was particularly good.

The problem is -- the "bad" is not really aware of what is seeing, so they attribute 's views to -- something else.

[Enters Laughing]

When I'm talking with Te types (or rather when they are talking), they just seem to keep stating the obvious - e.g. what everyone probably knew half an hour ago. It's like they have to bullshit in order to appear intelligent .

[Enters Laughing]

O.k., another description of the difference between Statics + Dynamics:
If a static type is in a room, they will see all the objects around them and visualise what they can do with those objects in real-time.
A dynamic type might remember the room 10 years previously or what it might be like in 10 years - the objects in the room might change, but the room stays largely the same.

Si + Ni types wait for the objects in their environment (e.g. the room) to be in particular positions before they act. It's a bit like waiting for the peaks + troughs in a sine wave. They wait for the right snapshot in time out of a series of snapshots before acting.

Static types live their lives in a snapshot (in the moment), rather than wait for it to occur - they put objects into their correct positions\form (in the environment\room).

So, Te types are good at following long term trends, so that at any one moment (a snapshot in time) they know the context of objects (their environment) - this is why Te types are practical in the moment.

Ti types already know how thay are going to act, and act that way - but when an unexpected event occurs (at a particular snapshot) in time, they are inefficient at reprocessing the 'new' information (it isn't new to dynamic types, as they are better able to follow trends). So Ti types might have out of date or irrelvant information in the current moment, but they make up for this by having a greater store of information (observations) built up over a long period of time.

[Blaze]

i like the above description subterranean. practical and easy to visualize for sure.