"Te" can multiply facts by looking at tried and tested models as a basis for evidence for a new unrelated model being generated. This is all in part of the characteristic of being able to source logic that is not directly evident from external reality. ...
"Te" can pull facts out of its ass, its seems like a joke but its true. Well "Te" doesn't have to source its "objective data" from the external, like Ni's stereotype it can magic up facts by looking deep inside sourcing data internally. It can adopt "subjectively sanctioned" ideas as Jung pointed out.
Um, yeah, speaking of pulling stuff out of one's ass...
You want to talk about Te? Let's talk about Te.
First of all, I don't think anybody really follows Jung's conception of Te very closely today, including cognitive function theorists like Nardi, Berens and Thomson. Jung didn't miss the boat as badly on Te as he did on, say, Si, but Myers (rightly) corrected him in major respects, and Nardi, Berens and (I think) virtually all modern cognitive function theorists pretty much incorporate Myers' improvements. But — setting that issue aside for the moment — assuming someone was interested in learning about Jung's original conception of Te, your OP would certainly be a poor place to start.
FYI, Jung believed there were two very different categories of ideas that constitute products of "extraverted thinking." Both kinds are extraverted by virtue of the fact that they basically come from outside the subject, but they
come from outside in two completely different ways.
The first category is ideas that constitute what Jung called "concretistic" thinking, by which he meant ideas that are very closely tied to external physical facts, with a relatively low level (at most) of
abstraction. As Jung explained, concretistic thinking involves concepts that are "not abstract, not segregated, not thought 'in itself,' but ... still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception." Jung noted that, "
o far as the recognition of facts is concerned this orientation is naturally of value, but not as regards the interpretation of facts and their relation to the individual. Concretism sets too high a value on the importance of facts and suppresses the freedom of the individual for the sake of objective data." Not to put too fine a point on it, Jung thought extraverts in general (not just Te-doms) tended to be somewhat crippled thinkers when it came to dealing with highly abstract concepts.
And the second category of ideas that Jung said could be products of extraverted thinking are more abstract ("purely ideal") ideas that "come from outside" as far as the particular thinker is concerned because he didn't think of them himself, but got them from external sources — ideas "borrowed from outside, i.e., ... transmitted by tradition and education," as Jung described it. Jung viewed extraverted thinking types as conservative traditionalists when it came to their abstract ideals. He said they tended to adopt the "generally accepted ideas" of the time rather than coming up with original ideas of their own.
In your OP, you completely misinterpret the sentence where Jung refers to "subjectively sanctioned" ideas. Here's the sentence in context (from the Collected Works translation, which superseded the original Baynes translation):
Jung said:
Judgment always presupposes a criterion; for the extraverted judgment, the criterion supplied by external conditions is the valid and determining one, no matter whether it be represented directly by an objective, perceptible fact or by an objective idea; for an objective idea is equally determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned. Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education. So in judging whether a particular thinking is extraverted or not we must first ask: by what criterion does it judge—does it come from outside, or is its origin subjective?
What Jung says is that an idea that's a product of Te is either "determined by external data or borrowed from outside even when it is subjectively sanctioned." And in the next sentence, he explains, "Extraverted thinking, therefore, need not necessarily be purely concretistic thinking; it can just as well be purely ideal thinking, if for instance it can be shown that the ideas it operates with are largely borrowed from outside, i.e., have been transmitted by tradition and education."
In other words, again, Jung viewed "extraverted thinking" as either involving (1) ideas that were "embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception" at the expense of subjective interpretation, or (2) more abstract ideas that the extraverted thinker "borrowed" from outside because they were the "generally accepted ideas" of his time and place, rather than abstract ideas that he came up with himself. The "subjectively sanctioned" reference that you completely misunderstood was Jung explaining that the fact that the Te-dom ends up "subjectively sanctioning" an idea — i.e., deciding that he personally agrees with it — doesn't change the fact that the idea's source was external, because otherwise, as far as Jung was concerned, it wouldn't constitute "extraverted thinking."
===================================
And while I have your attention, let me expand on my initial comment that almost nobody today — with the exception of annoyingly uninformed internet forumites — makes use of Jung's original conception of Te.
Who are the Te-doms (in terms of the MBTI types)? ESTJs and ENTJs. Do ESTJs tend to be somewhat fact-oriented "concrete" thinkers? Yep; that's pretty much their S at work, right? And do their ideas tend to be largely "borrowed from outside" (conventional/traditional)? Yep; they're SJs, right? You could see an ESTJ squawking that some of Jung's characterizations sell him short (in terms of abstract thinking ability, for example), but still, so far (at least arguably) so good. But wait... what about ENTJs? Oops. Concretistic thinkers? Not hardly. Tending to mostly favor conventional/traditional ideas "borrowed from outside"? Well, no, actually. And the main problem is that extraversion, as Jung conceived it, was what we today would think of as more of a combination of E and S. So Jung's "extraverted thinkers" weren't E_TJs; his description really only works (to the extent that it does) for ESTJs.
And Myers recognized that. After a short chapter in Gifts Differing where she dutifully provided four pages of tables summarizing Jung's conceptions of the cognitive functions (including, for Te, "Is fed from objective data — facts and borrowed ideas"; and "Depends upon the facts of experience and regards the abstract idea as unsubstantial and of negligible importance"), she went on to abandon those aspects of Jung's characterization in her own descriptions of E_TJs (except, to a limited extent, in her ESTJ description). Myers' description of ENTJs aptly notes that they "look at the world with intuition rather than sensing, so they are mainly interested in the possibilities beyond the present, obvious or known," singles out their "tolerance for theory" and "taste for complex problems" and says they're "likely to be expert at finding new solutions."
To Myers, E_TJs were "analytical and impersonal" types driven to "organize the facts — and everything else within reach." She said they're "decisive, logical, strong in reasoning power," "aim to govern their own conduct and other people's in accordance with thought-out conclusions," and "value truth in the form of fact, formula, and method."
Look at, say, Berens' or Thomson's descriptions of Te and ENTJs and ESTJs and you'll see that they basically adopt Myers' adjustments to Jung — including her all-important transplantation of abstract/concrete from I/E to N/S.
