Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
560 Posts
:unsure:

.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
Eh.... my two most dominant functions are Te and Ti. So yeah... Take your pick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
How did you manage to improve Ti?



I suspect the current function theory is presented simply because it was there to be presented. I've noticed some anomalies within personality groups that I think is best explained buy them possessing radically different functional stacks than the theory suggests or maybe even allows for.

For instance I read other ENTJs writing and recognize some similarities... other ENTJs read me and have no problem seeing me as ENTJ, but I'm just not the same on some level. Most of the time people recognizing me as an ENTJ as a "Well.. he must be because there's simply no other extroverted thinker he could be" feel to it. A self analysis of my writing style tells me that I often express myself in a Ti fashion.

I think it might have been a childhood development thing. I pushed my emotions to the bottom of the barrel and honed my ability to read people and situations, and see what made them tic, how to break them down, etc. Perhaps it was a defensive measure... or perhaps it's just the way I was born.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
638 Posts
These descriptions aren't too bad:

Extraverted Thinking

Introverted Thinking

This isn't from firsthand experience since neither function is developed well in me, but I can see the difference empirically between the way my INTP fiance and INTJ mom reason things. Mom is much more point A to point B, step by step, linear logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
859 Posts
I suspect the current function theory is presented simply because it was there to be presented. I've noticed some anomalies within personality groups that I think is best explained buy them possessing radically different functional stacks than the theory suggests or maybe even allows for.

For instance I read other ENTJs writing and recognize some similarities... other ENTJs read me and have no problem seeing me as ENTJ, but I'm just not the same on some level. Most of the time people recognizing me as an ENTJ as a "Well.. he must be because there's simply no other extroverted thinker he could be" feel to it. A self analysis of my writing style tells me that I often express myself in a Ti fashion.

I think it might have been a childhood development thing. I pushed my emotions to the bottom of the barrel and honed my ability to read people and situations, and see what made them tic, how to break them down, etc. Perhaps it was a defensive measure... or perhaps it's just the way I was born.
I also dual weild Ti and Te quite effectively, and I have been pondering this for some time. Might be my fourteen years old close friendship with an INTJ that has made me build these skills.

How would one express oneself in a Ti fashion? What makes this different from expressing yourself in a Te fashion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,124 Posts
You can't have both. The function tests are poor and give bad results. Often Te is listed as an organization skill. Ti is perfectly capable of that too, so that's why it may appear you use both.

It basically comes down to that Te requires external validation and evidence to come to it's conclusions. Ti doesn't. It may be hard to grasp that. But I bet if you are Ti user, you've probably clashed with a Te user without realizing why. And vice versa. Both probably wondering what is wrong with the other person.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
You can't have both. The function tests are poor and give bad results. Often Te is listed as an organization skill. Ti is perfectly capable of that too, so that's why it may appear you use both.

It basically comes down to that Te requires external validation and evidence to come to it's conclusions. Ti doesn't. It may be hard to grasp that. But I bet if you are Ti user, you've probably clashed with a Te user without realizing why. And vice versa. Both probably wondering what is wrong with the other person.
So Ti doesn't need external validation? Is that the whole difference between Ti and Te? Doesn't sound hollistic enough
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
Ti is used to weigh up new information gained against inner subjective logical models

Te is used to implement, articulate or take action with objective logical structure

Dominant Ti and dominant Te types generally don't clash, unless there is a mismatch in auxiliary functions i.e. Si vs Ne or Se vs Ni (which have antagonistic relationships) ... in fact quite the opposite IMO - they work very well together and inspire each other ((INTP/ENTJ and ISTP/ESTJ are regarded as inspirational matches) as each has strength in the area other has weaknesses in i.e. Te dominants strength is making external judgements using what is known to them, which is Ti dominants weakness, whilst Ti strength is making internal judgements evaluating what is happening in the now which is Te dominants weakness, but they do it speaking the same logic based 'language' (unlike Ti vs Fe and Te vs Fi that clash as they have an antagonist relationships and speak different 'languages').
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,124 Posts
So Ti doesn't need external validation? Is that the whole difference between Ti and Te? Doesn't sound hollistic enough
It's not the entire difference, but it's one of the hallmarks. I think another one is Te is linear and Ti doesn't have to be.

Ti can be, it can organize just like Te.. That's why some people think they use both. But I think the real difference is dom/aux Te users need the organization, while dom/aux Ti users don't naturally organize without some effort.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,653 Posts
Ti - internal categories and principles upon which one judges/interprets the world from an abstract point of view
Te - external/empirical quantification, experimentation, and organization.

Both functions are logical, just in different ways. Ti abstracts; Te is more empirical.
 

·
MOTM June 2010
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
Ti and Te are completely different in use and cannot be used as being claimed by some, in close proximity since one (Ti) is always governed by subjectivity and the other (Te) by the object. Jung made it clear that they are not the same and oppose one another:
Whenever the chief value is given to the subjective process, that other kind of thinking arises which stands opposed to extraverted thinking, namely, that purely subjective orientation of thought which I have termed introverted. A thinking arises from this other orientation that is neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data -- a thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character. I do not wish to enter more fully into this kind of thinking here; I have merely established its existence for the purpose of giving a necessary complement to the extraverted thinking process, whose nature is thus brought to a clearer focus.

Such a conflict, we might think, could be easily adjusted if only we clearly discriminated objects of a subjective from those of an objective nature. Unfortunately, however, such a discrimination is a matter of impossibility, although not a few have attempted it. Even if such a separation were possible, it would be a very disastrous proceeding, since in themselves both orientations are one-sided, with a definitely restricted validity; hence they both require this mutual correction. Thought is at once sterilized, whenever thinking is brought, to any great extent, under the influence of objective data, since it becomes degraded into a mere appendage of objective facts; in which case, it is no longer able to free itself from objective data for the purpose of establishing an abstract idea. The process of thought is reduced to mere 'reflection', not in the sense of 'meditation', but in the sense of a mere imitation that makes no essential affirmation beyond what was already visibly and immediately present in the objective data. Such a thinking-process leads naturally and directly back to the objective fact, but never beyond it ; not once, therefore, can it lead to the coupling of experience with an objective idea. And, vice versa, when this thinking has an objective idea for its object, it is quite unable to grasp the practical individual experience, but persists in a more or less tautological position. The materialistic mentality presents a magnificent example of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,027 Posts
I always thought there was a point in which Te and Ti look alike.

What are they different in?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
The theories says you can't use them both, yet, when you need to quantify or express your internal thoughts, what function do you use? Ne is the only one? For a T dominant isn't Te the function used to materialise your thoughts, to have a practical use int the environment? Or I in this case I'm just confusing Ni and Si for Ti?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,338 Posts
Then why is it so that countless of people who rely heavily on T seem to not only score highly on both Ti and Te but actually relate to both?
I don't just see this in heavy T users but heavy F users as well as heavy S users. I was told that it was normal but the cognitive functions don't say so. Strange it is.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,849 Posts
Then why is it so that countless of people who rely heavily on T seem to not only score highly on both Ti and Te but actually relate to both?
I don't just see this in heavy T users but heavy F users as well as heavy S users. I was told that it was normal but the cognitive functions don't say so. Strange it is.
Do you think all people are aware of how they truly are and answer the questions on the test to correspond exactly to their true personality?
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top