Personality Cafe banner

TPs, do you agree with TJs about Ti/Te?

2K views 22 replies 6 participants last post by  Gashina 
#1 ·
I've been seeing this pattern of TJ typology bloggers (who are now a majority) trying to explain the differences between Te and Ti. Because the very few TPs bloggers who are still into MBTI only post memes I want to ask:

Here are Te vs Ti posts:

TJs vs TPs and getting onto college
TJs vs TPs and problem solving
TJs vs TPs and general thinking attitude

Do you recognize yourself in the Ti examples provided?

I want to know weather their scenarios are accurate or biased towards their own judging function.
 
#2 ·
On the schooling thing. Yeap, Te-users do school to get somewhere. I do school to understand something.
I've meet plenty people who thinks and acts like they're "in the know" but they clearly don't understand anything at all. I at least can say "I don't know yet!".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gashina
#4 ·
Hi! I relate to the specific school being a step of "How to get to somewhere". As Te user, I did some school just in intent of work in specific companies/field. I trust myself to learn what I need by my own and used school system to develop network and connections to the professional world. I also relate to Te wants to take action right away and will have a quick-and-dirty way to decide what needs to get done on a basic level. I can take time to make a decision if I feel I don't know yet what is the clear outcome of each decision but once I decided I don't evaluate the aspect of each data, I like going straight to the point and sometime can forget some details that I fix on the road, but when I have my general goal I like to put the plan in action pretty quickly, usually they are pretty long therme plan and I usually feel I should not lose time before started if I want to reach my goal before retirement ahah. In general, Tidom are way more patient than Tedom.

Also I notice that Ti like to think on their own and research a lot of data on their own to make the most optimal decision, where most likely Te like to research what is just "needed" and like to debate with targeted people which course of action would be the most likely to work. Thinking out loud and testing their plan with specific people (if Te deeply trust their opinion) to see comment and reaction is also seen as an efficient process of decision making for Te Dom.
 
#6 · (Edited)
Thank you for both who replied!

Also I notice that Ti like to think on their own and research a lot of data on their own to make the most optimal decision, where most likely Te like to research what is just "needed" and like to debate with targeted people which course of action would be the most likely to work. Thinking out loud and testing their plan with specific people (if Te deeply trust their opinion) to see comment and reaction is also seen as an efficient process of decision making for Te Dom.
About your method of research: what do you mean by "needed"? Can you please give an example of something you had to research and what you included?

I don't like what is being said about Ti in the first article it's not just about logic and certainly not "logical but false". The particularly offensive bit is the mckinsey example that actually tells you more about the speaker than his subject. I'm sure he is wrong because the stuff he said about mckinsey I already know and I don't think people who are smart enough to be interviewed by mckinsey will fail to notice the same at all regardless of their functions and types. It's interesting to see the way he reached his conclusion though.

Also feel like what's being said in second article about Ti is missing the point altogether. I get a feeling a common misconception about Ti is that they don't realize Ti is like drawing the perfect circle the whole exercise is holistic and inward looking (i.e. not radiating towards possibilities all over the place and not separable) and this circle represents everything we understand about this world and we keep drawing with that ideal in mind. Ti only has one model for this world and everything it comes across. The theory of everything? It is not exactly a theory but something comparable to that idea.

Again in the third article the mistake arises from the misunderstanding of the nature of Ti. It's not about subjective and objective logic in the first place and I find it funny because for the sake of discussion lets just pretend and accept it is a fact that for example istp and estp are good with their hands and physical environment and good at sports etc. Is mr entj trying to tell us that beckham (assuming he is tp) is able to curve the ball the way he did is because he leans toward subjective logic when he kicks the ball? Messi (assuming he is tp) is able to dribble the way he did because he is a subjective dumb mfker who routinely fails to take into account the objective facts and reality? What kind of stupid assertion is that? I hope one is able to see the ignorance and insults embedded in the assertions mentioned in this article.
I opened this thread precisely because for a long time I've seen people basically paint TP as obtuse and impractical, wasting time even in dire situations, and that never sat right with me. No matter how much some of these authors may try to soften the blow by citing ways in which Ti is useful, it's obvious they actually see it as stupid and irrational. What they do is describe Te as perfectly sensible and objective, while Ti is out of touch with reality.

It confused me so much because I never saw myself in those descriptions and always found myself siding with Te in them to the point I thought I had to be a TJ. I believe Fe gets a similar treatment, with TPs being mostly described as amoral assholes who like to use people.

Your second paragraph is interesting because I did think that the theory of everything sounds exactly how dominant Ti is described as.
 
#5 ·
I don't like what is being said about Ti in the first article it's not just about logic and certainly not "logical but false". The particularly offensive bit is the mckinsey example that actually tells you more about the speaker than his subject. I'm sure he is wrong because the stuff he said about mckinsey I already know and I don't think people who are smart enough to be interviewed by mckinsey will fail to notice the same at all regardless of their functions and types. It's interesting to see the way he reached his conclusion though.

Also feel like what's being said in second article about Ti is missing the point altogether. I get a feeling a common misconception about Ti is that they don't realize Ti is like drawing the perfect circle the whole exercise is holistic and inward looking (i.e. not radiating towards possibilities all over the place and not separable) and this circle represents everything we understand about this world and we keep drawing with that ideal in mind. Ti only has one model for this world and everything it comes across. The theory of everything? It is not exactly a theory but something comparable to that idea.

Again in the third article the mistake arises from the misunderstanding of the nature of Ti. It's not about subjective and objective logic in the first place and I find it funny because for the sake of discussion lets just pretend and accept it is a fact that for example istp and estp are good with their hands and physical environment and good at sports etc. Is mr entj trying to tell us that beckham (assuming he is tp) is able to curve the ball the way he did is because he leans toward subjective logic when he kicks the ball? Messi (assuming he is tp) is able to dribble the way he did because he is a subjective dumb mfker who routinely fails to take into account the objective facts and reality? What kind of stupid assertion is that? I hope one is able to see the ignorance and insults embedded in the assertions mentioned in this article.
 
#7 ·
Some quotes from another thread about Ti, if anyone would like to comment:

Logical validity =/= logical soundness. Argument will never suffice as evidence for us. Argument only serves to better explain that which is already proven or demonstrated unless a subjective premise is being argued (in which case our Fi seems to step in and argue relativism, or we judge it in such a manner that is reminiscent of cost-benefit analysis.) If you attempt to argue a premise that isn't falsifiable, or attempt to demonstrate that something is true through sheer reasoning and nothing else, you wont be taken seriously by Te.

The main issue is that Ti is never ending. Because it functions as sheer reasoning, there is always a counter argument to be made and that counter is valid so long as it satisfies the premise. As I said however, validity does not equate to soundness, so even if an argument is valid, that doesn't really mean anything to us until we verify it as being true/sound or not. Ti is simply counterproductive to our need for closure. Instead of arguing and arguing and arguing, we'll go outside with test tubes and verify what is being discussed. For whatever reason Ti typically views this sort of thing with disdain (reference something like the philosophy of science which tries to argue that science does not reveal the true 'nature' of 'things.') Inversely, Te views Ti with disdain because it:

1. Doesn't get shit done.
2. Doesn't abide by external, objective standards and is therefore difficult to understand and apply to anything.
3. Does not respond to clear and literal evidence.

We would rather not deal with it because we are more concerned with pragmatism and utilitarianism than ultimate truths anyways.

It does excel at analysis however. Mind you, INTJs and ENTJs use Ni, so we often do not need in depth analysis because we are constantly generating insights and predictions that end up having high rates of accuracy. When I need to understand things in depth however, I like how Ti goes into detail, so long as it's not backed or preceded by Ne, in which case it becomes hard to follow and seems to shoot all over the place.
When two Te users argue, it's not really an argument. They trade evidence and observations and discuss the MEANING and INTERPRETATION of it, as well as the ways in which it could be used.

Ti argues the very essence of such things. Te doesn't care about that so long as it has been empirically verified.
Yet again, Te comes out on top.
 
#9 ·
Im not that familiar with Te and what you said helps me understand more about this function.

Its fine and understandable certain functions do not see eye to eye they are not supposed to. I always remind myself each function has its use and place in this world whether i like it or not.

There really is no point trying to place a higher value in any one particular function. Id just accept the fact we all operate differently and no one is perfect.
 
#13 ·
#21 ·
I've been seeing this pattern of TJ typology bloggers (who are now a majority) trying to explain the differences between Te and Ti. Because the very few TPs bloggers who are still into MBTI only post memes I want to ask:

Here are Te vs Ti posts:

TJs vs TPs and getting onto college
TJs vs TPs and problem solving
TJs vs TPs and general thinking attitude

Do you recognize yourself in the Ti examples provided?

I want to know weather their scenarios are accurate or biased towards their own judging function.
Well, my Ti tends to support my Ne. I like logic, but it can be manipulated. Plenty of people think using fallacies will win their arguments. I go with what makes sense to me and usually, I'm right.

As for getting into college, I just showed them I served in the Navy. They all loved me. I could have gone just about anywhere I wanted.

Problem solving? I tend to just know what to do. I know when something doesn't look right. I eliminate everything it can't be and what's left is what it must be (seems familiar?).
 
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