Tell me about your Te

[Kim]

How do those of you who think they have Te in their ego-block see this manifest itself. How do you naturally process information?
I am not so much interested in what Te supposedly is, but rather what it is exactly that makes you assume that it is one of your dominant functions.

Te PoLR or role would be interesting, too.

[aestrivex]

i predict that Te is by nature rather antithetical to this sort of discussion and you won't find many informative results. but it will be interesting to follow nonetheless.


i cannot offer you any sort of satisfactory answer; i'm looking for precisely these sorts of answers myself to quell my own doubts about my type.

[Kim]

i predict that Te is by nature rather antithetical to this sort of discussion and you won't find many informative results. but it will be interesting to follow nonetheless.

Why is that?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[aestrivex]

i predict that Te is by nature rather antithetical to this sort of discussion and you won't find many informative results. but it will be interesting to follow nonetheless.

Why is that?

i would make an effort to explain it if i did not think it were probably wrong.

[Kim]

Your comment in the other thread, made me wonder something. You know where you said that functions are preferences rather than ability. If so, then it's possible for an ethical type to be more adept at Te or Ti than a logical type. I mean in actual practice. Think of professions that heavily use Te or Ti for example, and there are ethical types in those professions as well as logicals.

Wanted to add that that's something I've never bought. That being a logical type automatically means you can think cleaner and more concisely in logical matters. People with brains are generally people with brains, and with that a larger range of capabilities are present.

That is exactly what I think and what I observe around me. It does not really matter if you are good at something because it comes to you naturally or if you had to work for it. Personally, I need a good incentive to give math the time of day (for example). I was horrible at it in school. At uni, I had to take a course in statistics for my Sociology minor. I started the course mid-semester and had to teach myself what I had missed. I did well in the course because I saw a good reason for it. I needed this Ti ability to complement my Te work, so to speak. So I had to work harder, but still succeeded. And the same goes for my ISTp ex with his social skills and so on. He can act like a Fe-type when the situation calls for it. And it has actually become quite natural for him.

And this is important because all of this leads to mistypings all over the place. This is actually also why I opened the thread.

[Kim]

i predict that Te is by nature rather antithetical to this sort of discussion and you won't find many informative results. but it will be interesting to follow nonetheless.

Why is that?

i would make an effort to explain it if i did not think it were probably wrong.

Go for it anway. I would be curious to hear it.

[FDG]

Your comment in the other thread, made me wonder something. You know where you said that functions are preferences rather than ability. If so, then it's possible for an ethical type to be more adept at Te or Ti than a logical type. I mean in actual practice. Think of professions that heavily use Te or Ti for example, and there are ethical types in those professions as well as logicals.

Wanted to add that that's something I've never bought. That being a logical type automatically means you can think cleaner and more concisely in logical matters. People with brains are generally people with brains, and with that a larger range of capabilities are present.

true, even if I still see F types as being more insecure than me in their logic. Like they'll get the right result, but they won't believe it's right, and so they'll do the problem 10 times, and this way they really get the right result. Whereas I just think the first solution I get is correct, and so do more things wrong.

[Expat]

How do those of you who think they have Te in their ego-block see this manifest itself. How do you naturally process information?
I am not so much interested in what Te supposedly is, but rather what it is exactly that makes you assume that it is one of your dominant functions.

It's more a question of how I prefer it over other functions. For instance:

- when trying to reach an understanding about an issue or subject, I spend far more time reading/talking about it than thinking about it on my own (although I do both)
- as you yourself put it, I always value "reality check" over internal consistency (Te>Ti)

Now, this only indicates that I belong to a Te quadra, not that it's my dominant function.

I assume it's my dominant function because it's the one I most identify with and take for granted, but I wouldn't be able to arrive at my type with certainty based only on individual functional strength -- for instance, how do I know I am ENTj and not ISFj or INTp or ESFp? Because I can see plenty of people who are far more confident in their Se than I am; because I don't have that condifence in my Fi in terms of understanding my relationships with others, because I see in me EJ rather than IP temperament. In the case of Ni and Te it becomes more difficult to choose.

So, although it's easy for me to identify with Te as my dominant function, if it wasn't for all the other points above I don't know that I'd be sure.

[Expat]

Your comment in the other thread, made me wonder something. You know where you said that functions are preferences rather than ability. If so, then it's possible for an ethical type to be more adept at Te or Ti than a logical type. I mean in actual practice. Think of professions that heavily use Te or Ti for example, and there are ethical types in those professions as well as logicals.

Sure, but I'd expect an ethical type to become really - energetic, enthusiastic, "in their element" when focusing on their strong ethical function rather than the preferred logical one.

[snegledmaca]

I don't know if this is but this is a major setback for me so I presume it will be at least related.

When dealing with things I want to have everything interconnected and I'm extremely stressed if say something is described generally where I'm suppose to "fill in the blanks". For example in an exercise where they don't set all the parameters but leave it up to me to set them or where the procedure is not completely described and I have to do some steps on my own. I hate this not because of the "gaps" that I have to fill in, but because these are exactly the places where I utterly fail the assignment. The problem is that even though I can do it I can never do it *right*, which is what I'm suppose to do. I always do it my way, which normally doesn't have anything to do with the assignment at hand and is a product of my whims of fantasy. It's the same when people explain things to me, if I am to have a good understanding of something, to have it "right", there should be no gaps because god only knows with what's I'll fill them in. But I do like it when these gaps are are left to be done on my own. Then there is no need to "have it right" and I fill them in with all kinds of "fun" things.

[Joy]

The thing that a lot of people here do not seem to really get is that Te is not an "intellectual" function, meaning that it's not about complex reasoning or in depth logical analysis or providing thorough explanations. It's about "the point", the most effective way to accomplish something, and seeing what's actually going on. The simplest way to put it: Te is about what works.

practical application > intellectualism

*edited to add: I didn't explain this very well at the time, but Te is the logic of activity. It's not structured logic.*

[FDG]

When I use Te I think about it as the "efficiency" function.

An example:
We have to buy a new technology choosing between X and Y, and the technologies give a payoff (in terms of improvement in efficiency) of A or B respectively for X and Y.

Now Te would reason as such:
If X->A and Y->B and X is more costly than Y but B gives an higher payoff than A of more that the difference between X and Y so that X-Y<B-A then we choose to buy A.

You can add as many layers of complexity as you wish to this reasoning. For example there could be a constraint so that X can only produce 1000 units and thus:
If X->A and Y->B and X-Y<B-A IFF production < 1000
and
X-> and Y->B and X-Y>B-A(production-1000) IFF production >1000

Then we calculate the values and see which technology is more efficient. So on. Ahhh, I <3 if-then chains.
It might seem strange that some people don't reason this way. I only have had a demonstration lately with an ENFj "boss". All that stuff flew over his head when we were deciding how many copies of a newspaper to print; his reasoning was "If you print more copies, you are going to be perceived as more important, even if you have to throw in the basket half of them!". Ugh. The guy's also very smart, meaning that if I were to ask him to solve the problem above as an intellectual exercise, he'd find the answer in a second - it's just that he doesn't apply the same reasoning to everyday life problems.

Diana: what you say is true, even if I would add a little divide, based on the Ti-Fe Fi-Te dichotomy: a Fi type is unlikely to be very good at Ti, a Ti type is unlikely to be good at Fi, a Te type is unlikely to be good at Fe, and so on; this means that Fe types are generally not that good at Te and they emulate it with Ti, and vice versa for Fi types.

[FDG]

The thing that a lot of people here do not seem to really get is that Te is not an "intellectual" function, meaning that it's not about complex reasoning or in depth logical analysis or providing thorough explanations. It's about "the point", the most effective way to accomplish something, and seeing what's actually going on. The simplest way to put it: Te is about what works.

practical application > intellectualism

I'd say that there must be component of logical reasoning if you have to work with complex systems.

[Joy]

The thing that a lot of people here do not seem to really get is that Te is not an "intellectual" function, meaning that it's not about complex reasoning or in depth logical analysis or providing thorough explanations. It's about "the point", the most effective way to accomplish something, and seeing what's actually going on. The simplest way to put it: Te is about what works.

practical application > intellectualism

I'd say that there must be component of logical reasoning if you have to work with complex systems.

Then it would be Ti, even if being used for Te reasons. We all use all of our functions.

[krieger]

Metabolism Te: when I *know* my views on some universal theme are correct, I can extrapolate facts on specific occasions that manifest said theme, and thus prove my theory 'right' to those who are irresponsive to my prefered means of persuasion.

Exertion Te: the only means I have at disposal of integrating knowledge that I have not assimilated or given shape to myself. It is a kind of knowledge that give pertinence only to the bare skelletal structure of any phenomenom or theory. For example, in socionics, the only things that a person of my type can acknowledge are it's atomic terms like 'external', 'dynamic', 'temperament', and the definite ways in which these are arranged in models such as the function cycle. I can ruminate on how these terms and relations hang together, but the result of doing so is always provisional at best. Predominant is always the exertion Fi 'what if?' attitude to knowledge; the desire to take all possibilities in account and never to loose track of the cardinal principle that real 'knowledge' is a rare, and fleeting thing.

For an example of the opposite of exertion Te (exertion Ti), read Aushra Augustinavichute's writings.

[XoX]

use cases...let's see

Number one:
You listen to someone explaining some crazy idea and you can instantly see their idea is crap and you say "hey, your idea is crap, figure out another one". Then they try to come up with all kinds of explanations why you are being overly judging and the idea is really aWeSoMe but all the explanations make you laugh as you know the idea is crap.

Number two:
You have a problem A you want to solve and "tools" X1, X2 and X3 available to you. You figure out that if you first apply X3, then X1 and then X2 that should solve it and you can move on to another problem. If for some reason it doesn't solve the problem then figure out why and do the necessary adjustments and do it again. If any type tries to explain how you have no idea what you are doing and it is pure luck that you managed to solve the problem in the first place dismiss them as they are only likely to slow you down. If it works it works.

I think those would be the most important use cases, lol. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Exodus]

The thing that a lot of people here do not seem to really get is that Te is not an "intellectual" function, meaning that it's not about complex reasoning or in depth logical analysis or providing thorough explanations. It's about "the point", the most effective way to accomplish something, and seeing what's actually going on. The simplest way to put it: Te is about what works.

practical application > intellectualism

I'd say that there must be component of logical reasoning if you have to work with complex systems.

Then it would be Ti, even if being used for Te reasons. We all use all of our functions.

Yes. I think also that Xi and Xe have to work more closely together than other function pairs, as they are different outlooks on the same domain, or different parts of the same process.