Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 311 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I've seen this a lot lately, and people vastly confuse these two functions. Specifically, they confuse inferior quality Te and dominant quality Ti to be Te, because they get hung up on the "external" aspect of Te to concretely mean organizing the external world.

The problem, however, is that this is not what is meant when we understand a function to be focused on the object. When a function is extroverted or object-focused, it does not literally mean "what is outside of you"; to use Te as a part of your function stack, especially in the ego, does not make you a stickler of wanting to organize the world around you based on the MBTI J stereotype (that's actually more of a Ti thing); what it means is how the function understands information in the world. To make it even clearer:

All functions deal with the object world because it is not humanly possible to not interact with the object world in some way. You'd be braindead.

What makes a function introverted or extroverted, then, depends on how they interpret data and information of this object world.

An introvert interprets information through a subjective filter, of how the information is understood via the self but an extrovert is interested in seeing objects as they are. Specifically, when dealing with Te vs Ti, Te is interested in what objects can do, what logical results they yield. In socionics Te is therefore sometimes referred to as algorithmic logic which makes sense, because algorithms focus on the results. That Te ends up focusing on modes of production and efficiency is thus a logical result of Te's desire to understand the logical results of objects.

Ti, on the other hand, is the very opposite of this. Ti wants to understand how to define something, what something is. Definitions do not treat the object world in itself because if it would, we wouldn't need to first define it in order to understand its logical properties. Definitions therefore arise based on the subject's understanding of the world. A logical result of this drive of Ti seeking to first needing to define the object world in a logical way is its desire to create categories and hierarchies and once these are established, it is easy to check the logical consistency of a claim against what it is defined to be. Consider this: maths has a subjective factor and that factor is that we happen to call one number 2 and this number is greater than 1. We could call it yellow, we could call it YuWuA or anything, really, but in this case, we happened to call it 2. Based on this underlying subjective assumption that we've made, we have crafted an entire mode of thinking of how to systematize and categorize the world to the point we deem it to be an "objective truth" and incompletely infallible. I am not necessarily discrediting the fact that there are laws of the universe that we can observe by mere existence, but what I am raising awareness of is how maths for example attempts to classify these laws and understand their logical relationships, how they connect and are consistent within the framework we have proposed.

Fundamentally, to Ti, that 2 is a result of 1+1 isn't nearly as interesting as to why 1+1 equals 2 as in, what is the logical cause-effect between the number 1 when paired with the + sign that leads to the result of 2? To Te, that 1+1=2 isn't so interesting as much as it is interesting to understand what we can do with the result of 2. We could fundamentally replace 1 with anything else if we still accomplish number 2 and it is number 2 that we want. To put it more practically in the perspective of Te, I know I can buy a bag of apples that costs 2 dollars. How I got the money to buy the bag of apples is irrelevant. For Ti, if dealing with the same question, it would first have to define what a bag of apples is. We could reasonably say that grass is a type of apple and grass is free, so therefore I get an infinite amount of bags of apples for 2 dollars. I'm of course being somewhat facetious because I am unsure how to provide a better example of Ti, but the point remains that I've seen this kind of solipsist argument from Ti doms all the time and how they attempt to shift goalposts in rhetorical debate by changing the entire premise of what is being argued even if it seems to be extremely removed from reality that we actually operate in.

See, Te doesn't care about what a bag of apples is because it takes the object for what it is. A bag of apples is a bag of apples, why do we need to question that? What is again more interesting is what I can do with this bag of apples, like being able to eat the apples in it. If taking the example further, can I slice my apples in several parts? Does this make it easier to eat? Bingo, we've now invented silverware because it helps us to manipulate the apples as objects in the object world in a way that creates clear logical results. Ti, on the other hand, if inventing silverware, would be concerned about what a spoon is vs a fork to a knife to a spork and so on and so forth and how they are different or what makes them different from each other. It creates hierarchies and systems. Ti is also the function that ultimately results in that your mom rather have forks all the way to the left, knives in the middle and spoons to the right even if it seems arbitrary to an outsider who does not know or understand why your mom chooses to organize the silverware that particular way (to be noted: Si can lead to this too but for very different reasons, but for practical purposes let's focus on how this is an aspect of Ti). Furthermore, it is your Te dad that goes crazy every time he goes to get a knife because it is not as efficiently placed where it could be for the purpose it is meant to serve.

This is really what Te and Ti are and what they do.

It's about how we interpret the world that defines whether we are dealing with extroverted or introverted cognition, not necessarily what we do in it. That your mom likes to organize your library has therefore nothing to do with Te, that's Ti, and that your brother rather shops for groceries by always sticks to the aisles by doing each aisle one by one very methodologically until he's gotten all he wants exactly as organized within the store, that's Ti too, NOT Te. It is Te when your sister uses a heavy frying pan in order to press water out of tofu, and it is Te when your dad rather buys the cheaper kind of tofu than the more expensive because in terms of quality it is exactly the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,892 Posts
It's about how we interpret the world that defines whether we are dealing with extroverted or introverted cognition, not necessarily what we do in it. That your mom likes to organize your library has therefore nothing to do with Te, that's Ti, and that your brother rather shops for groceries by always sticks to the aisles by doing each aisle one by one very methodologically until he's gotten all he wants exactly as organized within the store, that's Ti too, NOT Te. It is Te when your sister uses a heavy frying pan in order to press water out of tofu, and it is Te when your dad rather buys the cheaper kind of tofu than the more expensive because in terms of quality it is exactly the same.
The library and shopping styles sound more like Si to me, than Ti. Ti would be creating the filing system, but the desire to organize it, or the structure itself seem more Si to me. Same with shopping. Ti in that case would be creating a list that is organized by aisles, but doing the shopping like that just sounds more Si to me. The difference is that one is a pattern of behavior, and the other is the internal structure. For instance, one could see any SJ cataloging and shopping by aisle, but not an STP.

However, I could see an STP wanting to create a system to internally organize something, just not one that is so obvious externally.

On the other hand, my INTP wife has both created a system for our family library that is kind of unique, and works for our family, and also, when she shopped in a large store, she organized her lists by aisle. That said, in neither case was she very particular about enforcing either system when it came time to actually putting them in practice. She was quite prone to stack books in the front of the shelves, rather than put them back in place, and she tended to get carried away while shopping, and having to go back and get things on her list that she had forgotten while in the aisle (very absent-minded when it comes to living in and moving through this physical world--if ever there was an archetype of an "absent-minded professor", my wife would be it).

I can sort of get the point you are trying to make here, but there are sometimes fine lines to be drawn between the functions, as all introverted functions share some traits, but their purposes and external manifestations tend to be different.

I think that part of the problem is trying to find generic situations to illustrate what we mean. For instance, the apple example. Just cutting the apple seems more Se to me, but cutting it into equally-sized pieces to share equally among a group--that'd be Te, at least as I see the two. Making a knife would also be Se, not Te, but designing a knife would probably be Ti, or at least some introverted function. Thing is, it's hard to know because the situation is so general that multiple functions could be plugged into them.

And that brings me back to something that I consider to be vital to the whole discussion of functions. They are psychological functions, not mental ones. I.e. they only truly matter--as functions--when they have an impact on our psyche. For instance, most people make shopping lists, and most people tend to have their own ways of doing so. None of this really matters to anyone.

On the other hand, put an ISFP in a situation where there are multiple steps and various things they need to keep track of, and they will go into list-making hell trying to organize their mind, and it becomes very stressful. Now add that shopping list, and see what happens. Now you've hit the psyche, and you may find a hyper-organized list, with all sorts of needless details (how many, what brand, etc.) or a very scattered list with absolutely no organization. Send that ISFP to the store with that list, and they are liable to forget something on it, or worse, possibly, spend double the time, because they are going back and forth throughout the store multiple times, trying to find and remember everything, with the stress building the entire time. Don't talk to them when they get home--just don't do it. And _certainly_ don't ask them or tell them that they forgot something or got something wrong!!! (Don't ask me how I know this). _That_ is inferior Te in action. See?

A normal shopping list, on a normal day--it means nothing. I don't think it really involves our "functions", as we just do it. But make it a matter of our psyche, in the ISFP's case, inferior, and it shows up and takes on meaning.

To illustrate with one of your examples, we go back to the organized library. For an Si-ego type. That would be important. They would not only organize it, but would want it constantly organized. Let a child put a book back in the wrong place, or do what my wife does, and they would make an issue--even if it is just a gentle reminder--it _matters_ to them, not because it's their job that they are being paid for, but because that order matters. Move that Si further down, and you get my wife, for whom knowing the order internally, and having a sense of structure is all that matters. The fact that some books are not in place is not so important as knowing that that book _has_ a place, and is part of a larger system, and she knows its place in the system. And here, you see her Ti dominating the situation.

An ISTP would have a different take. I'll use my Dad, even though he may not be an STP (he is an SP of some type), I think of him that way, because of his tool bench in our garage while I was growing up, and in his shed now. He has everything properly located on hooks and cubby holes. Not because he desires order, (and his order is kind of sporadic, to be honest) but for efficiency's sake. They are where he needs them so he can grab something with the least amount of thinking and effort. By doing this, he has everything at hand, and he can focus on what he's doing. I'm similar with my things. My computer is not so much in order as organized in such a way that I don't have to think about it. I don't have to search, and I certainly am not forced, for example, to put all of certain files into a certain folder. I have a simple, pragmatic structure so I don't have to think and organize as I go. In both these cases, it has happened organically, over time, without any real intent or effort. This is Se efficacy (not efficiency--that belongs to NT types), serving our introverted judging functions. Why? because that is what matters to us. ;-)

Well, I've rambled enough. Don't know that I helped move the conversation along or not. But it is how I have come to view the functions, and it fits both what I read from Jung (actually, it was while reading Jung that this perspective grew on me), and what I've observed in real life, watching people for the past who knows how many years. I'm surprised, to be honest, that, looking back over my years and years of observing people and their patterns and habits, etc. how much makes sense now I have this lens. For years, I've observed patterns of behavior, and have been curious about it, and now it all makes a certain sense. This is why I love this stuff. It gives me a vocabulary--a language--a framework to describe these long-observed patterns.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
Those were such bad examples. lol. Cutting apples. Placing silverware around the table. Really? lol

Try to simplify that mess:

Every label is a way of handling a thing for a particular purpose. 2+2=4 for the same reason the letters "c-a-t" denote a 4 legged small mammal.

Ti creates hierarchies and systems. Like how a knife and spoon are different. What about personality types and systemizing people that way? That is systemizing. Not finding where fucking forks go.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
16,000 Posts
The library and shopping styles sound more like Si to me, than Ti. Ti would be creating the filing system, but the desire to organize it, or the structure itself seem more Si to me. Same with shopping. Ti in that case would be creating a list that is organized by aisles, but doing the shopping like that just sounds more Si to me. The difference is that one is a pattern of behavior, and the other is the internal structure. For instance, one could see any SJ cataloging and shopping by aisle, but not an STP. However, I could see an STP wanting to create a system to internally organize something, just not one that is so obvious externally. On the other hand, my INTP wife has both created a system for our family library that is kind of unique, and works for our family, and also, when she shopped in a large store, she organized her lists by aisle. That said, in neither case was she very particular about enforcing either system when it came time to actually putting them in practice. She was quite prone to stack books in the front of the shelves, rather than put them back in place, and she tended to get carried away while shopping, and having to go back and get things on her list that she had forgotten while in the aisle (very absent-minded when it comes to living in and moving through this physical world--if ever there was an archetype of an "absent-minded professor", my wife would be it).I can sort of get the point you are trying to make here, but there are sometimes fine lines to be drawn between the functions, as all introverted functions share some traits, but their purposes and external manifestations tend to be different.I think that part of the problem is trying to find generic situations to illustrate what we mean. For instance, the apple example. Just cutting the apple seems more Se to me, but cutting it into equally-sized pieces to share equally among a group--that'd be Te, at least as I see the two. Making a knife would also be Se, not Te, but designing a knife would probably be Ti, or at least some introverted function. Thing is, it's hard to know because the situation is so general that multiple functions could be plugged into them.And that brings me back to something that I consider to be vital to the whole discussion of functions. They are psychological functions, not mental ones. I.e. they only truly matter--as functions--when they have an impact on our psyche. For instance, most people make shopping lists, and most people tend to have their own ways of doing so. None of this really matters to anyone. On the other hand, put an ISFP in a situation where there are multiple steps and various things they need to keep track of, and they will go into list-making hell trying to organize their mind, and it becomes very stressful. Now add that shopping list, and see what happens. Now you've hit the psyche, and you may find a hyper-organized list, with all sorts of needless details (how many, what brand, etc.) or a very scattered list with absolutely no organization. Send that ISFP to the store with that list, and they are liable to forget something on it, or worse, possibly, spend double the time, because they are going back and forth throughout the store multiple times, trying to find and remember everything, with the stress building the entire time. Don't talk to them when they get home--just don't do it. And _certainly_ don't ask them or tell them that they forgot something or got something wrong!!! (Don't ask me how I know this). _That_ is inferior Te in action. See? A normal shopping list, on a normal day--it means nothing. I don't think it really involves our "functions", as we just do it. But make it a matter of our psyche, in the ISFP's case, inferior, and it shows up and takes on meaning. To illustrate with one of your examples, we go back to the organized library. For an Si-ego type. That would be important. They would not only organize it, but would want it constantly organized. Let a child put a book back in the wrong place, or do what my wife does, and they would make an issue--even if it is just a gentle reminder--it _matters_ to them, not because it's their job that they are being paid for, but because that order matters. Move that Si further down, and you get my wife, for whom knowing the order internally, and having a sense of structure is all that matters. The fact that some books are not in place is not so important as knowing that that book _has_ a place, and is part of a larger system, and she knows its place in the system. And here, you see her Ti dominating the situation. An ISTP would have a different take. I'll use my Dad, even though he may not be an STP (he is an SP of some type), I think of him that way, because of his tool bench in our garage while I was growing up, and in his shed now. He has everything properly located on hooks and cubby holes. Not because he desires order, (and his order is kind of sporadic, to be honest) but for efficiency's sake. They are where he needs them so he can grab something with the least amount of thinking and effort. By doing this, he has everything at hand, and he can focus on what he's doing. I'm similar with my things. My computer is not so much in order as organized in such a way that I don't have to think about it. I don't have to search, and I certainly am not forced, for example, to put all of certain files into a certain folder. I have a simple, pragmatic structure so I don't have to think and organize as I go. In both these cases, it has happened organically, over time, without any real intent or effort. This is Se efficacy (not efficiency--that belongs to NT types), serving our introverted judging functions. Why? because that is what matters to us. ;-) Well, I've rambled enough. Don't know that I helped move the conversation along or not. But it is how I have come to view the functions, and it fits both what I read from Jung (actually, it was while reading Jung that this perspective grew on me), and what I've observed in real life, watching people for the past who knows how many years. I'm surprised, to be honest, that, looking back over my years and years of observing people and their patterns and habits, etc. how much makes sense now I have this lens. For years, I've observed patterns of behavior, and have been curious about it, and now it all makes a certain sense. This is why I love this stuff. It gives me a vocabulary--a language--a framework to describe these long-observed patterns.

Exactly. He is discussing like basic motor skills and perceptions and trying to to tie them to functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
@ferroequinologist then go read up on the socionics definitions, especially dimensional theory. What I wrote is exactly in line with that and you using your wife as an example is poor way to illustrate the point. I'm at the hospital atm so I don't have time nor energy to respond to the rest, but your personal experiences with your wife cannot be used to exemplify or be extrapolated on to represent ALL Ti or Si or whatever. Obviously, people also use a combination of functions when making decisions. I am however not interested in understanding a functional combination but I am how Te vs Ti function standalone.

It could well be that your wife uses Si in support with Ti but in socionics ISTPs have better Si than INTPs and it's on a lot more and used a lot more than it is in INTPs so there's also that.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,124 Posts
So...is Te actually good for anything relevant? I guess this fell into a common trend of describing functions where Ti is intellectual and innovative and Te is just...stupidly working with the obvious, with no curiosity or insight. Hence the question. Or maybe I'm reading into it funny.


And that brings me back to something that I consider to be vital to the whole discussion of functions. They are psychological functions, not mental ones. I.e. they only truly matter--as functions--when they have an impact on our psyche. For instance, most people make shopping lists, and most people tend to have their own ways of doing so. None of this really matters to anyone.

On the other hand, put an ISFP in a situation where there are multiple steps and various things they need to keep track of, and they will go into list-making hell trying to organize their mind, and it becomes very stressful. Now add that shopping list, and see what happens. Now you've hit the psyche, and you may find a hyper-organized list, with all sorts of needless details (how many, what brand, etc.) or a very scattered list with absolutely no organization. Send that ISFP to the store with that list, and they are liable to forget something on it, or worse, possibly, spend double the time, because they are going back and forth throughout the store multiple times, trying to find and remember everything, with the stress building the entire time. Don't talk to them when they get home--just don't do it. And _certainly_ don't ask them or tell them that they forgot something or got something wrong!!! (Don't ask me how I know this). _That_ is inferior Te in action. See?
LOL that's too true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,542 Posts
[MENTION=42217]
... in socionics ISTPs have better Si than INTPs and it's on a lot more and used a lot more than it is in INTPs so there's also that.
This is an example of Te in action, biased with Ni. Picking the facts in order to serve an agenda.

My thought process on the other hand goes like this: The sentence triggered my Ne to pick out a possible idea to what is missing. I try and fit my ideas into a framework of my knowledge about how functions work.

The most useful one I can quickly share is concerning Si in IXTPs: It depends on the I/E energy of the type and the stage of development one is at.
Example: INTP enneagram 5 will most likely have a stronger Si than ISTP type 7.

So this was mostly my Ti at work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
So...is Te actually good for anything relevant? I guess this fell into a common trend of describing functions where Ti is intellectual and innovative and Te is just...stupidly working with the obvious, with no curiosity or insight. Hence the question. Or maybe I'm reading into it funny.




LOL that's too true.
Asking for what Te is good for is a Te driven question. Ti doesn't ask whether something is useful or has a logical purpose but is focused on what something is ie how to define it.

I also think your inquiry is biased where you confuse the thinking functions with intuition. It's intuition, but especially Ne, that is creative and innovative. A great example of this in a Te dom is that guy that invented Soylent Green or Mark Zuckerberg. Both are ENTJs and it's the enterprising nature of Te paired with intuition that gives them a desire to improve existing products in society by observing a lack of a need of something which could be done better. Also notice how both of these products insofar we can call Facebook a product, are based on Fi logic in order to improve the morals of society, to make the world better.

I'm not saying that Ti can't seek to improve society, but it's more in terms of the purely philosophical and the hierarchical; laws, for instance, because then we deal with how to define a certain action (Fe) and whether this is acceptable or not including what punishment is deemed relevant (logical) for said action. Fi can also deal with morality but it doesn't really rationalize it the way the judicial system does it by explicitly defining what is ok and what isn't.

As a personal example, I've been arguing with an INFJ and an ESTP recently about a surgical procedure I wanted to have but I was originally denied. I felt it was important to me and my embodied experiences in order to improve my mental health but they immediately began to argue whether the surgery is acceptable because they don't know how it's a part of the definition of care I'm dealing with (eg what area of care the procedure would fall under) and began to pull solipsist arguments that if I was allowed to simply be treated because of my feelings then omg who knows what else would happen the entire system would go under and chaos would ensue because we have no logical framework in which to define the standards of what should be included in state-funded healthcare anymore (mine is state-funded).

Whereas from my point of view, I have a need and a desire, this is important to me and I don't like having to rationalize my feelings to justify why I think my proposal for care is actually perfectly logically in line with what I should be offered based on the facts about what's stated and based on the outcome of the surgery. So two very different attitudes. I'm arguing from Fi and they don't like it because they don't think iinternal experience and rationale should be based on Fi but Ti. So how you understand yourself should be based on logical frameworks, not feelings. They also numerously accused me of being "too subjective" which Fi definitely is compared to Fe (Fe is extroverted so objective).

@jkp yeah I don't agree with your assertion necessarily but it is a good example of your cognition and perfectly demonstrates my op and how Ti cares for what something is, how to define it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
In summary, yes.
How does an objects properties translate to a subjective judgment however?
Is the subjective part due to drawing a link between the actual object (and properties) to a word that conceptually represents what it is. An this conceptual word is subjectively defined.
In a way it's an inner image/idea (the word based on an internal criteria) that the outer object are fitted too? Kind of like walking around with an internal checklist (four legs, fluffy, waggy tail all defines dog for example) and fitting any object I can to this inner checklist and saying it's a dog?

A focus however on what an object can do is more external as what an object can do is based on the object itself and it's properties. This is not subjectively determined (such as an arbitrary name).

But to be doubly confusing, giving a name to something you do with an object is back to Ti?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
I'm having trouble seeing your distinction. Surely a Te-type, noticing an object's "use", is defining it based on its properties? What exactly do you mean by something's "properties", and how does that differ from an object's function-as-property?

And your assertion that you would be "braindead" if introverted functions are purely subjective...well, Jung agrees with you! The functions are described knowing that no one person is completely introverted or completely extroverted - we have a combination of both, and that gives rise to a personality. In this sense, I think your understanding of objective and subjective is slightly left-of-centre.

It seems to me that Ti & Te are both interested in creating "logical" distinctions. The difference is in how this logic is apprehended, and what it itself apprehends. This is my understanding:

  • Te, being objective, is "logic" tied to a time and place. There are rules we must follow, logical outcomes we can create or be mindful of. Reason speaks for itself, and our job is to simply point it out and let it guide us. It's linear, rational, authoritative, deferential, accessible and inclusive. In the same way Fe reasons about a "greater good" amongst people, Te speaks on behalf of a "reason" that is bigger than any one of us - almost as something that you submit yourself to (see: Objectivism as a very extreme example of this, or the scientific method as a more politically neutral example).

  • Ti is more of an internal barometer - in a way, what you're making logical sense of is yourself and your own subjective experience. In the same way Fi asks "what is important to me?", Ti asks "what makes sense to me?" It's not something that's generally applicable to other people, and is only really raised in the "objective" world as the exception to the rule. It's timeless, personal and holistic, much in the same way Te is circumstantial, "objective" and purpose-driven. If anyone speaks of following a "personal code", you're likely dealing with someone orienting around Ti (or perhaps Fi).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
How does an objects properties translate to a subjective judgment however?
Is the subjective part due to drawing a link between the actual object (and properties) to a word that conceptually represents what it is. An this conceptual word is subjectively defined.
In a way it's an inner image/idea (the word based on an internal criteria) that the outer object are fitted too? Kind of like walking around with an internal checklist (four legs, fluffy, waggy tail all defines dog for example) and fitting any object I can to this inner checklist and saying it's a dog?

A focus however on what an object can do is more external as what an object can do is based on the object itself and it's properties. This is not subjectively determined (such as an arbitrary name).

But to be doubly confusing, giving a name to something you do with an object is back to Ti?
Because if I want a specific logical outcome it's based on the desire for that outcome. If I think the most efficient way to manage a business is utilizing strategy X, then I have already unconsciously decided that strategy X is more personally valuable than other strategies available.

The latter that you cite seems more Ti rather than Fi unless I misunderstood your initial question. Te can notice an object's qualities but it's done only based on purpose or outcomes. I can notice that the outcome of working means I produce money or whatever it is that I do.

@VagrantFarce Unconsciously perhaps insofar that the thinking function is the thinking function and we both extrovert and introvert to one degree or another, but noticing properties is not the same as choosing to define the properties.

There was a recent thread with the example of buying a phone. Te types would choose a phone based on use, what it can do and whether the phone can fulfill the purpose. The qualities remain the same because the phone is designed this way obviously. But a Ti type would prefer to first define the phone, what is a phone? And would from that pick a phone to buy that fits this definition.

See the difference?

I disagree with you that Te is per se about rules; rules are a property of Ti imo. Te can collectively notice and agree to rules as a standard of what's efficient but then it's more likely based on Fi and pertains to morality in some way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
I disagree with you that Te is per se about rules; rules are a property of Ti imo. Te can collectively notice and agree to rules as a standard of what's efficient but then it's more likely based on Fi and pertains to morality in some way.
I don't mean to say that Te would unquestionably follow rules - the point is that there should be a kind of "contract" set about, one that helps us establish or enforce a logical expectation that's easily reasoned about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
Personally, I never met anyone who said that Te "wants to organise external world". So this stereotype is beyond me. Also, lol because according to it I wouldn't be a Te-dom.

Though, what I DO see often is people thinking that introverted functions are completely removed from the world. All functions interact with the external world but some simply "process" the information subjectively.

I have to say that while I like majority of OPs points, the practical examples are mostly out of whack. Te picks the most efficient way to do things and if having an organised library is efficient (in case the person needs to be able to find the correct book asap). Functions aren't WHAT you do, functions are WHY you do it. Both Ni and Ne can make the same conclusions but the process is different. Likewise, Te and Ti can be expressed in similar ways, the real question is why the person behaves that way. For that reason it's important to judge long term behaviour rather than short term. Since we can't read minds of others.

Both functions can love ordering books and both functions can prefer going through aisles one by one. Also both functions can use frying pan to push water out of tofu and both functions can buy the cheapest possible one. These examples are ridiculous to use as an evidence for functions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
182 Posts
I don't think the OP meant those examples as completely literal. They're just representations of how things are processed. Ti walks down each separate aisle to make sure everything is perfectly correct and in order, internal logical structure, picking out if things are wrong or right. Whether or not this turns into actually being very organized in the real world would probably have to do more with the different functions interacting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,511 Posts
I don't think the OP meant those examples as completely literal. They're just representations of how things are processed. Ti walks down each separate aisle to make sure everything is perfectly correct and in order, internal logical structure, picking out if things are wrong or right. Whether or not this turns into actually being very organized in the real world would probably have to do more with the different functions interacting.
You see, the whole problem of people misunderstanding the functions is BECAUSE they take these examples literally. Like with the mentioned Te stereotype. Fighting wrong stereotypes with more wrong stereotypes is not the solution to this issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,511 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Personally, I never met anyone who said that Te "wants to organise external world". So this stereotype is beyond me. Also, lol because according to it I wouldn't be a Te-dom.

Though, what I DO see often is people thinking that introverted functions are completely removed from the world. All functions interact with the external world but some simply "process" the information subjectively.

I have to say that while I like majority of OPs points, the practical examples are mostly out of whack. Te picks the most efficient way to do things and if having an organised library is efficient (in case the person needs to be able to find the correct book asap). Functions aren't WHAT you do, functions are WHY you do it. Both Ni and Ne can make the same conclusions but the process is different. Likewise, Te and Ti can be expressed in similar ways, the real question is why the person behaves that way. For that reason it's important to judge long term behaviour rather than short term. Since we can't read minds of others.

Both functions can love ordering books and both functions can prefer going through aisles one by one. Also both functions can use frying pan to push water out of tofu and both functions can buy the cheapest possible one. These examples are ridiculous to use as an evidence for functions.
Do you even understand why they are being used, though? Seems like you don't. Why do you think I mentioned pressing water out of tofu with a frying pan? What does it demonstrate? What reasoning process was used when coming up with that decision?

If you're so keen on the why, then why can't you see the why behind actions taken?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,078 Posts
I've seen this a lot lately, and people vastly confuse these two functions. Specifically, they confuse inferior quality Te and dominant quality Ti to be Te, because they get hung up on the "external" aspect of Te to concretely mean organizing the external world.

The problem, however, is that this is not what is meant when we understand a function to be focused on the object. When a function is extroverted or object-focused, it does not literally mean "what is outside of you"; to use Te as a part of your function stack, especially in the ego, does not make you a stickler of wanting to organize the world around you based on the MBTI J stereotype (that's actually more of a Ti thing); what it means is how the function understands information in the world. To make it even clearer:

All functions deal with the object world because it is not humanly possible to not interact with the object world in some way. You'd be braindead.

What makes a function introverted or extroverted, then, depends on how they interpret data and information of this object world.


An introvert interprets information through a subjective filter, of how the information is understood via the self but an extrovert is interested in seeing objects as they are. Specifically, when dealing with Te vs Ti, Te is interested in what objects can do, what logical results they yield. In socionics Te is therefore sometimes referred to as algorithmic logic which makes sense, because algorithms focus on the results. That Te ends up focusing on modes of production and efficiency is thus a logical result of Te's desire to understand the logical results of objects.

Ti, on the other hand, is the very opposite of this. Ti wants to understand how to define something, what something is. Definitions do not treat the object world in itself because if it would, we wouldn't need to first define it in order to understand its logical properties. Definitions therefore arise based on the subject's understanding of the world. A logical result of this drive of Ti seeking to first needing to define the object world in a logical way is its desire to create categories and hierarchies and once these are established, it is easy to check the logical consistency of a claim against what it is defined to be. Consider this: maths has a subjective factor and that factor is that we happen to call one number 2 and this number is greater than 1. We could call it yellow, we could call it YuWuA or anything, really, but in this case, we happened to call it 2. Based on this underlying subjective assumption that we've made, we have crafted an entire mode of thinking of how to systematize and categorize the world to the point we deem it to be an "objective truth" and incompletely infallible. I am not necessarily discrediting the fact that there are laws of the universe that we can observe by mere existence, but what I am raising awareness of is how maths for example attempts to classify these laws and understand their logical relationships, how they connect and are consistent within the framework we have proposed.

Fundamentally, to Ti, that 2 is a result of 1+1 isn't nearly as interesting as to why 1+1 equals 2 as in, what is the logical cause-effect between the number 1 when paired with the + sign that leads to the result of 2? To Te, that 1+1=2 isn't so interesting as much as it is interesting to understand what we can do with the result of 2. We could fundamentally replace 1 with anything else if we still accomplish number 2 and it is number 2 that we want. To put it more practically in the perspective of Te, I know I can buy a bag of apples that costs 2 dollars. How I got the money to buy the bag of apples is irrelevant. For Ti, if dealing with the same question, it would first have to define what a bag of apples is. We could reasonably say that grass is a type of apple and grass is free, so therefore I get an infinite amount of bags of apples for 2 dollars. I'm of course being somewhat facetious because I am unsure how to provide a better example of Ti, but the point remains that I've seen this kind of solipsist argument from Ti doms all the time and how they attempt to shift goalposts in rhetorical debate by changing the entire premise of what is being argued even if it seems to be extremely removed from reality that we actually operate in.

See, Te doesn't care about what a bag of apples is because it takes the object for what it is. A bag of apples is a bag of apples, why do we need to question that? What is again more interesting is what I can do with this bag of apples, like being able to eat the apples in it. If taking the example further, can I slice my apples in several parts? Does this make it easier to eat? Bingo, we've now invented silverware because it helps us to manipulate the apples as objects in the object world in a way that creates clear logical results. Ti, on the other hand, if inventing silverware, would be concerned about what a spoon is vs a fork to a knife to a spork and so on and so forth and how they are different or what makes them different from each other. It creates hierarchies and systems. Ti is also the function that ultimately results in that your mom rather have forks all the way to the left, knives in the middle and spoons to the right even if it seems arbitrary to an outsider who does not know or understand why your mom chooses to organize the silverware that particular way (to be noted: Si can lead to this too but for very different reasons, but for practical purposes let's focus on how this is an aspect of Ti). Furthermore, it is your Te dad that goes crazy every time he goes to get a knife because it is not as efficiently placed where it could be for the purpose it is meant to serve.

This is really what Te and Ti are and what they do.

It's about how we interpret the world that defines whether we are dealing with extroverted or introverted cognition, not necessarily what we do in it. That your mom likes to organize your library has therefore nothing to do with Te, that's Ti, and that your brother rather shops for groceries by always sticks to the aisles by doing each aisle one by one very methodologically until he's gotten all he wants exactly as organized within the store, that's Ti too, NOT Te. It is Te when your sister uses a heavy frying pan in order to press water out of tofu, and it is Te when your dad rather buys the cheaper kind of tofu than the more expensive because in terms of quality it is exactly the same.
You made a mistake see. A function is not intor / extroverted because how they interpret data or where they find it. It is like it is because you possess that function in the top position of your stack and your whole consciousness is intro / ambi / extra verted. Refer to Carl G Jung for more about this :wink:

In other words, hospital...I have a nose. Besides that, I still don't see you as INTJ like at all. All you do is share your opinions clad in heavy dose of reading Jung or whatever. You have a need. Lol yeah, INTJs surely decide upon that. And INFPs not at all. NOT AT ALL. :wink:

Don't forget that data has a way of reaching me. And I LOVE IT.
 
1 - 20 of 311 Posts
Top