[Abraxas]

A lot of people seem to not understand the fundamental nature of introversion and extroversion attitudes as they manifest within the thinking function, and hence this thread to provide a very simple explanation of these two functions that ought to make sense to everyone. If it does not, please reply with any questions you have, or information you wish to provide.

The very essence of introverted functions is that they are based upon values and principles that come from the user, not necessarily from the external environment. I say 'not necessarily' because there can and will be times when someone will arrive at a subjective opinion that can be, and is empirical, and is or can be validated objectively. The primary thing to focus on is the preference of the individual who arrives at a conclusion. Did they arrive at this conclusion based on their own subjective interpretation?

Te is the opposite of this. Te users tend to bounce ideas off other people, and can be extremely expressive, even to the point of appearing to be extroverts in the case of well-developed INTJs. Te seeks and requires external, objective validation, either from other people, or from objective reality itself. For this reason, it tends to distrust conclusions that are arrived at through mere internal validation, and hence INTJs are stereotypically called 'scientists' - they tend to want to validate themselves by experimentation, or by referencing some matter of fact that can be observed and confirmed rationally by anyone who is rational.

People who prefer to use Ti will not always require this. Again, because the validation is subjective, it comes from the user and does not necessarily require something external to validate itself. It can, and often is, sufficient that the idea is internally consistent and therefore internally logical within the world-view/framework for understanding that the Ti user prefers. Ti users do not always appreciate the sort've 'generic' world-view that feels 'imposed' upon their way of thinking, and this is why INTPs are extremely abstract thinkers and great at coming up with truly original ideas. They see the universe in what is often a totally unique way - and this is also their Achilles heel for the exact same reason. Because their view is so personal and subjective, they can find it very hard to relate what they personally know to other people. In many cases, they might decide it is not worth the effort and not even try.

This is why I have observed that INTPs can be a lot more introverted than INTJs. INTJs have Te for an auxilliary function, and again, Te requires something external to validate the reasoning process. It simply must make sense to other rational people, or at least make sense in a way that provides a useful application that can be demonstrated objectively. If it does not, the Te user will have a hard time accepting the idea. It will seem to need refinement, or seems to require some kind of practical purpose to make it meaningful and not simply a good theory. This is where a lot of the friction between Te and Ti users comes from - because Te almost always needs objective validation, and Ti does not always need this. I put emphasis on 'need' and 'always' in the last sentence to illustrate that although Ti is subjective, and Te is objective, once again both functions are at their core, thinking, rational functions, and both will often arrive at the same conclusion for that reason, regardless of whether this conclusion is arrived at subjectively or objectively.

I hope this clears up any confusion that many of you may have about the two functions in comparison, and helps some of you still trying to figure out which one you prefer over the other.

 

[Owfin]

It simply must make sense to other rational people, or at least make sense in a way that provides a useful application that can be demonstrated objectively.

I wouldn't necessarily emphasize other rational people; then it might give off the impression that Te wants the opinions of other rational people, which would fall under Fe and not Te.

Te seeks and requires external, objective validation, either from other people, or from objective reality itself. For this reason, it tends to distrust conclusions that are arrived at through mere internal validation, and hence INTJs are stereotypically called 'scientists' - they tend to want to validate themselves by experimentation, or by referencing some matter of fact that can be observed and confirmed rationally by anyone who is rational.

But your basic idea hits the nail on the head. Not exactly "concise" though!

 

[L]

I dunno Owfin, I kinda liked it. I was a little skeptical of a Te user describing Ti but I think Abraxas did a damn good job myself.

 

[MegaTuxRacer]

I dunno Owfin, I kinda liked it. I was a little skeptical of a Te user describing Ti but I think Abraxas did a damn good job myself.

Yeah that Abraxas is a smart cookie. It was a good description of the functions.

 

[Abraxas]

@Owfin is quite right, actually. I might've put a bit too much emphasis on validation from others. That probably was a bit confusing, because 'validation' sounds very much like an emotional consideration. I did not actually intend it to mean seeking an emotional validation, but simply, a rational validation. Te would accept a rational validation for an idea, if it came from someone else, but even coming from someone else, it would accept the validation because it wasn't just that other person's opinion, but an actual matter of fact - something that ought to be objective and rational to anyone because it is empirical and can be objectively demonstrated outside of any single person's interpretation.

I basically wanted to show why Te users can often come across as rather extroverted in the way they act and behave at times, and why a well-developed INTJ might be very talkative and expressive about certain ideas. They will generally do this when they are looking for objective feedback or feel confident that what they are saying ought to be a matter of fact to anyone, but they usually won't 100% accept feedback that isn't grounded in something empirical and outside of subjective interpretation. They'll listen to anything rational, even coming from Ti, but whenever it's just a theory, they'll probably feel it still needs to be demonstrated in order to be 'true'.

I hesitated to just cut people out as a factor, but that might just be my Fi creeping in. I'm getting to that age now where supposedly it's becoming more and more of an influence in how I think and behave.

 

[MegaTuxRacer]

@Abraxas I took it as rational validation, and that actually makes a lot of sense.

 

[NeedsNewNameNow]

A lot of people seem to not understand the fundamental nature of introversion and extroversion attitudes as they manifest within the thinking function, and hence this thread to provide a very simple explanation of these two functions that ought to make sense to everyone. If it does not, please reply with any questions you have, or information you wish to provide.

The very essence of introverted functions is that they are based upon values and principles that come from the user, not necessarily from the external environment. I say 'not necessarily' because there can and will be times when someone will arrive at a subjective opinion that can be, and is empirical, and is or can be validated objectively. The primary thing to focus on is the preference of the individual who arrives at a conclusion. Did they arrive at this conclusion based on their own subjective interpretation?

Te is the opposite of this. Te users tend to bounce ideas off other people, and can be extremely expressive, even to the point of appearing to be extroverts in the case of well-developed INTJs. Te seeks and requires external, objective validation, either from other people, or from objective reality itself. For this reason, it tends to distrust conclusions that are arrived at through mere internal validation, and hence INTJs are stereotypically called 'scientists' - they tend to want to validate themselves by experimentation, or by referencing some matter of fact that can be observed and confirmed rationally by anyone who is rational.

People who prefer to use Ti will not always require this. Again, because the validation is subjective, it comes from the user and does not necessarily require something external to validate itself. It can, and often is, sufficient that the idea is internally consistent and therefore internally logical within the world-view/framework for understanding that the Ti user prefers. Ti users do not always appreciate the sort've 'generic' world-view that feels 'imposed' upon their way of thinking, and this is why INTPs are extremely abstract thinkers and great at coming up with truly original ideas. They see the universe in what is often a totally unique way - and this is also their Achilles heel for the exact same reason. Because their view is so personal and subjective, they can find it very hard to relate what they personally know to other people. In many cases, they might decide it is not worth the effort and not even try.

This is why I have observed that INTPs can be a lot more introverted than INTJs. INTJs have Te for an auxilliary function, and again, Te requires something external to validate the reasoning process. It simply must make sense to other rational people, or at least make sense in a way that provides a useful application that can be demonstrated objectively. If it does not, the Te user will have a hard time accepting the idea. It will seem to need refinement, or seems to require some kind of practical purpose to make it meaningful and not simply a good theory. This is where a lot of the friction between Te and Ti users comes from - because Te almost always needs objective validation, and Ti does not always need this. I put emphasis on 'need' and 'always' in the last sentence to illustrate that although Ti is subjective, and Te is objective, once again both functions are at their core, thinking, rational functions, and both will often arrive at the same conclusion for that reason, regardless of whether this conclusion is arrived at subjectively or objectively.

I hope this clears up any confusion that many of you may have about the two functions in comparison, and helps some of you still trying to figure out which one you prefer over the other.

Not sure I fully agree.
Ne seems to like to bounce ideas off people too. Although maybe not for objective validation, but for idea development or validation in the sense of "yes that's a good idea".
Also Ti is subjectively judging objective data from Ne, Te is objectively judging subjective data from Ni. So sometimes it's hard to tell the difference in conclusions, they can both appear to be objectively correct or completely off base depending on how well the functions are working together. The main difference I see in INTPs vs INTJs is the INTJ is much more confident in their conclusion, even when wrong. The INTP second guesses alot and uses alot of hedge words.

 

[MegaTuxRacer]

Not sure I fully agree.
Ne seems to like to bounce ideas off people too. Although maybe not for objective validation, but for idea development or validation in the sense of "yes that's a good idea".
Also Ti is subjectively judging objective data from Ne, Te is objectively judging subjective data from Ni. So sometimes it's hard to tell the difference in conclusions, they can both appear to be objectively correct or completely off base depending on how well the functions are working together. The main difference I see in INTPs vs INTJs is the INTJ is much more confident in their conclusion, even when wrong. The INTP second guesses alot and uses alot of hedge words.

I think this is largely driven by Fe. I know when I ask someone about an idea, a significant reason behind asking someone else is to see if they like the idea. I care about honest criticism and suggestions too, but I also receive emotional validation that someone else likes my idea. By "like" I don't mean rational validation. I mean that they approve of this idea that is inherently mine that I want to share with the world. I think where Ne feeds off of someone else is when in brainstorming sessions or going down the rabbit hole.

 

[NeedsNewNameNow]

I think this is largely driven by Fe. I know when I ask someone about an idea, a significant reason behind asking someone else is to see if they like the idea. I care about honest criticism and suggestions too, but I also receive emotional validation that someone else likes my idea. By "like" I don't mean rational validation. I mean that they approve of this idea that is inherently mine that I want to share with the world. I think where Ne feeds off of someone else is when in brainstorming sessions or going down the rabbit hole.

Yes, not objective validation. I don't know if it is Fe at work. SimulatedWorld has it listed as a feature of Ne in his descriptions.

 

[MegaTuxRacer]

Yes, not objective validation. I don't know if it is Fe at work. SimulatedWorld has it listed as a feature of Ne in his descriptions.

Okay perhaps I am not entirely clear why you take issue with his article. It is meant to explain what just Ti and Te do. What you're doing is talking about how they interact with Ne/Ni. You're right, but it's not exactly a valid criticism of the OP considering its purpose.

 

[CCCXXIX]

Te wants to know if an idea works, Ti wants to know how it works. BAM, that's as simple as it gets.

edit: btw, Ti is more objective of a function than Te. believe it or not

Edit#2: Ti is more objective because it's complimented by Ne/Se instead of Ni/Si.

There's a reason the books written on this material are very thick. It's because MBTI is not so simple as people believe. I'd say a high percentage of people on this forum are mis-typed just because of lack of understanding of the whole system. Though I commend you on your attempt to try to simplify it.

 

[Abraxas]

@NeedsNewNameNow , Ni and Ne are perceiving functions. Perceiving functions have nothing to do with the decision making process, or with drawing any kind of conclusions. Decisions and conclusions are made with judging functions only. Perceiving functions = input only. Output = judging functions only.

Source: Psychological Types by C. G. Jung (1921) - Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923)

Psychological Types - Wikisocion

@CCCXXIX , Ti is subjective.

Source: Psychological Types by C. G. Jung (1921) - Translation by H. Godwyn Baynes (1923)

Psychological Types - Wikisocion

 

[NeedsNewNameNow]

Okay perhaps I am not entirely clear why you take issue with his article. It is meant to explain what just Ti and Te do. What you're doing is talking about how they interact with Ne/Ni. You're right, but it's not exactly a valid criticism of the OP considering its purpose.

It isn't really that I take issue with it, but I'm more looking for traits that clearly distinguish the two functions. The 'bouncing ideas' thing can also be Ne. I think the best ways to distinguish the two is that Te judges based on external criteria. IE, a consensus opinion may sway Te, but not impress Ti. Also they seem to be used in different ways. Te excels at planning, organizing, strategizing, Ti seems to be more about building or understanding systems.

 

[NeedsNewNameNow]

@NeedsNewNameNow , Ni and Ne are perceiving functions. Perceiving functions have nothing to do with the decision making process. Decisions are made with judging functions only. Perceiving functions = input only. Output = judging functions only.

Right, but they work together. Ti judges objective input subjectively. Te judges subjective input objectively. If Ti is working with enough objective data, it's subjective judgement could well be indistinguishable from an objective Te judgement. I guess what I'm saying is you can't look at the result, but look at the process that lead to the result to determine if it was done objectively or subjectively.

 

[CCCXXIX]

Ti is subjective.

Yes, you misinterpreted what I said.

 

[Abraxas]

Yes, you misinterpreted what I said.

No, I didn't.

"...Ti is more objective of a function--"

Ti is never objective. End of story.

By definition by Carl Jung himself, it is always subjective, and it's conclusions are always subjective.

 

[Abraxas]

Right, but they work together. Ti judges objective input subjectively. Te judges subjective input objectively. If Ti is working with enough objective data, it's subjective judgement could well be indistinguishable from an objective Te judgement. I guess what I'm saying is you can't look at the result, but look at the process that lead to the result to determine if it was done objectively or subjectively.

My reply to you was meant to illustrate that Ne does not 'bounce ideas off other people'. It has nothing to do with cognitive output.

Furthermore, you are just repeating what I said in my OP in different words. This is unnecessary. I already clearly said that Ti can draw the same conclusions as Te under some circumstances. The only difference, is that the conclusions Ti draws are done subjectively. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the paired perceiving function in any way.

 

[L]

Yes, you misinterpreted what I said.

I used to take issue with the terms "subjective" and "objective" and in fact, I still do somewhat. But I understand what they mean when used in this way, it just simply means where the energy is directed in a way. Te is objective because it's energy is directed outside of oneself, and likewise, Ti is subjective because it's energy is directed towards oneself. Not to say that Te can't be subjective and Ti can't be objective because these are perfect function descriptions not descriptions of perfect people that prefer these modes of thinking one way or another.

I believe that's how it goes anyways, I havn't read any of Jung's work directly so I might be a little off, @Abraxas ?

 

[Abraxas]

I used to take issue with the terms "subjective" and "objective" and in fact, I still do somewhat. But I understand what they mean when used in this way, it just simply means where the energy is directed in a way. Te is objective because it's energy is directed outside of oneself, and likewise, Ti is subjective because it's energy is directed towards oneself. Not to say that Te can't be subjective and Ti can't be objective because these are perfect function descriptions not descriptions of perfect people that prefer these modes of thinking one way or another.

I believe that's how it goes anyways, I havn't read any of Jung's work directly so I might be a little off, @Abraxas ?

Philosophically, and outside the realm of Jungian psychology, you are correct.

Subjectivity and objectivity are metaphysical definitions that are still open to debate; how, when, and to what they apply (if at all) is still an open subject as far as I know (I am not a phil major.) When I discuss the functions, I stick strictly to the definitions and opinions of Carl Jung himself, and Isabel Myers Briggs, since they are the ones who contributed to and invented the MBTI theory. While I have my own opinions on the matter of subjectivity and objectivity in a general sense, when it comes to MBTI, I try to speak the language of its creators, as a rule, to avoid confusion and to avoid misrepresenting the ideas that these people came up with.

I am also not suggesting that a re-definition of the functions is inappropriate, but it is beyond the scope of this thread and it was not my intention to begin a debate or a conversation about alternative ways to represent Jung and Isabel's original work. This thread's only purpose was to attempt a concise and accurate description of the functions within the language and perspective of the people who invented it, in order to provide insight into these two functions through direct comparison, absent any other functions, so that those who feel they could be mistyped, or have difficulty approaching the subject, would have a resource available to them that might simplify their confusion.

I appreciate your feedback, as always. Your posts are a pleasure to read and reply to.