Personality Cafe banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How would the two different functions go about this?

I feel like one would hold to a definition as law "this is what it is and anything else is not what it is, definitions don't change", for example the meaning is exactly how the dictionary says it is, whilst the other explores the definitions and tries to understand them and see that they can have more than one meaning depending on context "this is your definition and this is my definition and we are really talking about the same thing but using a different word". But I don't know which example would belong to which function.

What do you think?
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Te is definitely going to look outside itself for its definition for something. Like a dictionary. And would definitely take the stance of "this is what x is, and whatever isn't this is not x."

Ti is going to want to create its own definition for something that won't necessarily match what the dictionary says.

I'm not sure what Ti would do if it encountered a definition for x that didn't match its own. Probably ignore it, really, as this would be objective information, which is something that doesn't really interest Ti.

Te, when encountering an altered definition (as this would be more external data) would try to decide objectively which one was more correct. Or simply accommodate both definitions as being correct.


Te is most likely more prone to running into the issue of arguing based on an objective definition and assuming everyone else is on the same page. Ti would probably not do this and would likely define its definition from the get-go, I would imagine. To let everyone know what page to be using.

Te would really just assume that everyone is using the same page--the objective page.

But, I mean, anyone is capable of defining a definition from the get-go. I just think Te would be more prone to forgetting that step since it's so objective. It would take the attitude of: "If you don't know what something means, look it up. Google it."

Whereas Ti would care about being very precise about its definition, as this is from where all of its logic deductions will stem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Ti basically can analyze data and split the data into tiny data particles and again analyze them and repeat this process in loop till it is satisfied or gets the desired logic without getting stressed out.

Te can easily gather lots of processed data from external sources and can keep on collecting more data so that it can achieve its goal to form the ultimate system with the data collected and can do this without being stressed out.

Thats basically how these two work as per my perspective, the effectiveness of the functions however depends on the order at which it is placed in a personality type.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,800 Posts
Ti : ontological thinking
Te : pragmatical thinking

more or less...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
Te is definitely going to look outside itself for its definition for something. Like a dictionary. And would definitely take the stance of "this is what x is, and whatever isn't this is not x."

Ti is going to want to create its own definition for something that won't necessarily match what the dictionary says.

I'm not sure what Ti would do if it encountered a definition for x that didn't match its own. Probably ignore it, really, as this would be objective information, which is something that doesn't really interest Ti.

Te, when encountering an altered definition (as this would be more external data) would try to decide objectively which one was more correct. Or simply accommodate both definitions as being correct.


Te is most likely more prone to running into the issue of arguing based on an objective definition and assuming everyone else is on the same page. Ti would probably not do this and would likely define its definition from the get-go, I would imagine. To let everyone know what page to be using.

Te would really just assume that everyone is using the same page--the objective page.

But, I mean, anyone is capable of defining a definition from the get-go. I just think Te would be more prone to forgetting that step since it's so objective. It would take the attitude of: "If you don't know what something means, look it up. Google it."

Whereas Ti would care about being very precise about its definition, as this is from where all of its logic deductions will stem.
Regarding the bolded part, Ti will for the most part not ignore it. It will analyze and find why it is so in this situation and create little nuances that apply for situations like this.

It constantly changes especially if it encounter new things. It will then include that experience into its own database, hoping that updating the database will keep it as accurate to reality as possible.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,800 Posts
Regarding the bolded part, Ti will for the most part not ignore it. It will analyze and find why it is so in this situation and create little nuances that apply for situations like this.

It constantly changes especially if it encounter new things. It will then include that experience into its own database, hoping that updating the database will keep it as accurate to reality as possible.
To expand on this, Ti would work all the way up to the premises if necessary and stop at each and every step where it encounters inconsistency to add nuance to it. If that makes sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
To expand on this, Ti would work all the way up to the premises if necessary and stop at each and every step where it encounters inconsistency to add nuance to it. If that makes sense.
This is a good way of putting it. Unlike Nature, Ti loves a vacuum. For Ti, everything exists within a closed system. Even the universe--although very complex--is still a closed system. Consequently, Ti-dominant types (INTPs and ISTPs) are most comfortable when dealing with definable systems. Though a little offensive, the old stereotypes of INTPs all being computer nerds and ISTPs all being grease monkeys is somewhat helpful. The INTP's auxiliary Ne gives her a taste for abstract perception, so she's naturally more drawn to intangible systems (e.g., academic theorizing). The ISTP's auxiliary Se, on the other hand, prefers something more concrete and physical (e.g., engines). But the Ti's love for systems is central to both types.

Since it was mentioned above, I want to add that trying to distinguish Ti from Te by talking about how these functions handle language (words and definitions, etc.) is very dicey and usually results in a lot of confusion. First of all, language is intangible, so when you talk about how Ti and Te operate with regard to language, you are most likely talking about how INTPs operate as compared to ENTJs. (Thinking dominant sensors do not typically like to play around with language.) Second, communication is a necessary human function, meaning that Ti is always going to be forced to deal with language long before it can start trying to define it as a system. As a consequence, Ti is forced to use language pragmatically. The difference between the functions in this context is therefore challenging to sort through. The best way I could describe it is that Te (really Te-Ni) wants language to be effective in accomplishing a goal, but it is not concerned about logical precision for its own sake. In popular culture, Te-Ni shows up in "Man Men" quite a bit: the ad execs use words as a means to get people to buy a product. They are not concerned with accuracy; they want impactful. On the other hand, it is very difficult for Ti-Ne to compromise the precision of their language just make something else happen. It's why INTPs are often very bad liars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
I think that Te is more clear. Everyone can understand good Te.
Te might also be more willing to adjust to the audience.

Not everyone can understand Ti.
Ti does not aim for mutual understanding in the same way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,800 Posts
I think that Te is more clear. Everyone can understand good Te.
Te might also be more willing to adjust to the audience.

Not everyone can understand Ti.
Ti does not aim for mutual understanding in the same way.
Yeah and a clever work around to that is to take advantage of Ti & Fe.
A good pairing of Ti and Fe would look a lot like Te as otherwise a good pairing of Te and Fi would look a lot like Ti.

IMO, the only way it can be a good pairing though is when the individual engages this pairing as a perpetual/multidimensional check & balance process.
_____

See that "I think that Te is more clear. Everyone can understand good Te." It is very likely that your J preference here is doing a strong value statement which to me as P, doesn't look rational at all if you don't present either your premises or the data you used to achieve that value statement.

As a P, I am rather skeptical about strong value judgements. (I don't want to shock you but I ll translate what I said) : I do tend to mistrust them as being a way to fuck with the purity of my thinking. So it is up to you to prove your point. Or to risk being deemed as a vile bastard by me :D


Maybe that illustrates with another lense what you wanted to say. I just wanted to provoke you with all my best-wishing intentions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Yeah and a clever work around to that is to take advantage of Ti & Fe.
A good pairing of Ti and Fe would look a lot like Te as otherwise a good pairing of Te and Fi would look a lot like Ti.

IMO, the only way it can be a good pairing though is when the individual engages this pairing as a perpetual/multidimensional check & balance process.
_____

See that "I think that Te is more clear. Everyone can understand good Te." It is very likely that your J preference here is doing a strong value statement which to me as P, doesn't look rational at all if you don't present either your premises or the data you used to achieve that value statement.

As a P, I am rather skeptical about strong value judgements. (I don't want to shock you but I ll translate what I said) : I do tend to mistrust them as being a way to fuck with the purity of my thinking. So it is up to you to prove your point. Or to risk being deemed as a vile bastard by me :D


Maybe that illustrates with another lense what you wanted to say. I just wanted to provoke you with all my best-wishing intentions.
Well. I have not conducted any scientific inquiries to come to this conclusion.
I am only just conveying how I personally interpreted the functions (don't we all?).

I study engineering. In school we have lots of different professors. I personally find it hard to understand those teachers who stray too far away from application and concreteness, but wander into the purely theoretical.
I, among others, find these professors hard to understand. I've interpreted their behavior as a Ti trait.

But coupled with good Fe, perhaps the Ti dominant can make himself understood.

I think that Ti-people understand both Ti and Te.
And that Te-people struggle with understanding Ti.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,800 Posts
Well. I have not conducted any scientific inquiries to come to this conclusion.
I am only just conveying how I personally interpreted the functions (don't we all?).

I study engineering. In school we have lots of different professors. I personally find it hard to understand those teachers who stray too far away from application and concreteness, but wander into the purely theoretical.
I, among others, find these professors hard to understand. I've interpreted their behavior as a Ti trait.

But coupled with good Fe, perhaps the Ti dominant can make himself understood.

I think that Ti-people understand both Ti and Te.
And that Te-people struggle with understanding Ti.
Ofc we all convey our personal interpretations. The thing is that to a P, Te-Fi is frustrating and hurtful because it is like you take hard facts and harshly judge. If J's don't soften the corners P will find it unnecessarily agressive. I guess that for J's (correct me if I am wrong), you hate the abstract/undecisiveness of Ti-Fe.

You know, sometimes Ti don't even understand itself lol, that s the BEAUTY!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,715 Posts
I always see every expression to be a symbol representing something else, like words for instance; the word red represents the colour, and the words came into being by necessity to communicate with others. It's very simple and concrete, but it gets the job done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,085 Posts
Definitions are so funny to me because they change depending on context. There may only be one definition of "biology," but the word means different things to different people, and is used in different subjects...

My definitions were definitely personal. I might write the definition for mitochondria as "the thing where cellular respiration happens and energy pops out". That's what it is, of course, but it's also a thousand other things. But I liked this definition best. To Te point but a little whimsical, and writing that in an abstract way definitely helped me see that I had mastered the concept of the mitochondria.

Te sounds... much different from what I did.
 

·
PerC Waiter
Joined
·
2,398 Posts
Te uses predetermined definitions, be they denotations or connotations. Things they can actually check and make sure they're true.

Ti invents their own definitions that line up with their personal experiences as well as the experiences of others. They try to make sure the definition lines up with reality as much as possible.

Essentially, Te let's the definition determine if something is correct, whereas Ti let's the "something" determine if the definition is correct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Ofc we all convey our personal interpretations. The thing is that to a P, Te-Fi is frustrating and hurtful because it is like you take hard facts and harshly judge. If J's don't soften the corners P will find it unnecessarily agressive. I guess that for J's (correct me if I am wrong), you hate the abstract/undecisiveness of Ti-Fe.

You know, sometimes Ti don't even understand itself lol, that s the BEAUTY!

I am actually quite possibly ENFP/INFP, even though there's also been some indications for me being INTJ. I am not judgmental at all about people. How could I be, I am a human myself, what do I know?

But when I try to accomplish something, when I work, I tend to fall into a different type of behavior. I want to know what is going on. I want to choose the best method for accomplishing the goal. I am very good at breaking down complex concepts and finding the essence of it. I do so quickly and accurately.

Do I come off as judgmental in these situations? Sure. But it is never personal.

I understand the BEAUTY, I have the same relation to life in general, just not to work.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top