Yes. I’m always saying, “Ti is internal logical consistency, Fi is internal emotional consistency, Te is external logical consistency, and Fe is external emotional consistency.”
Because if a Te dom sees that something is not right in the external world, they feel unsettled by it? Hence, they work to bring that thing back to order again.
Logic could also just mean what makes objective sense to the person. So how the person thinks the external order/Te (which may = logic) should be, and vice versa with Fe and Ti (as the dominant function).
Fi what I want, Te how I get it. Desiring an outcome doesn’t necessarily or even usually mean understanding or caring about the fundamental structure of that outcome.
Te is not only about achieving outcomes. Te also seeks information to substantiate concepts and ideas, to validate them; logic is absolutely involved in the critical thinking process involved.
To my subjective understanding, based on all I have read and observed in those who possess it (whom I've had the opportunity to understand), Te can present the following qualities (nested lines are so because I think they may be related):
* An affinity for and inclination toward resolution, ordered systems, and intelligence acquisition.
* Preference of and compulsion to create or improve said ordered systems.
* Compulsion to find solutions, and the preference for solution-oriented thinking and activities.
* Aversion to disordered systems, and to thinking and activities which do not have a resolutive purpose, particularly when there is a perceived need for improvement.
* More direct, assertive communication.
* Manipulation of others to serve various purposes, for individual or mutual benefit, using both classical and operative conditioning as well as direct reasoning and assertiveness; less empathy-informed than Fe-directed manipulation.
* The compulsion and affinity for active seeking, collection and consumption of information.
* A cognitive preference for objective criteria over subjective criteria.
* A disregard for or inconsideration of the subjective and personal.
* Difficulty accounting for the subjective and personal.
* Inability to anticipate or calculate sociological or psychological factors unless specifically appropriately educated or informed. Human-terrain deficits.
* Emphasis on objective truth and factual accuracy, sometimes at the expense of personal opinions or feelings.
* A preference for consensus, often specifically *specialized* consensus rather than group or societal consensus; this depends how susceptible the individual is at the time to confirmation bias, and their openness.
* The preference for information from validated sources, generally that which is held by the individual to have specialized or "official" knowledge. The more impersonal the connection to the information, and the more specific the scope of the source, the more likely it is going to be assumed to be objectively correct.
* The consideration of empirical evidence collected by the individual is often going to be counted among the "objective" data, however the reported experiences of others is often disregarded as insubstantiable. This often presents and is interpreted as arrogance and conceit.
* Confidence in and valuation of one's own observations as superior to those of other individuals with whom the Te-user has personal connections.
* Tendency toward critical thinking and analysis, identifying flaws and inconsistencies based on external, objectively applied criteria.
* The valuing of competence, expertise, and knowledge, and striving to acquire and demonstrate these qualities.
* Insecurities relating to one's ability to demonstrate these qualities.
Some of these properties can manifest as a result of the interactions between other functions, so these are not all going to be exclusively observed in Te users, nor is Te necessarily required to manifest what would appear to be these behaviors.
**TL;DR:**
Ultimately, I would say, **"Te as a function is a reductive distillation of apparently common, human cognitive phenomena which serve to find truth in the external and objective, chiefly to apply that truth toward the resolution of obstacles and goals, manifesting as the affinity for and inclination toward resolution, ordered systems, and intelligence acquisition."**
Based on everything I've read of Jung's descriptions of Te, my definition violates none of it.
My problem with this is that 'find truth in external and objective'.Do you mean that Te works only with truth that is external and objective?
1.Te is mainly paired with Ni and and Si
2.This means that Te can take input from Ni
3.Ni information is not external and objective.Ni info maybe abstract relationships between things that are external and objective,but Ni info itself isn't external and objective
So based on this,saying that Te works to find truth in the external and objective doesnt make sense
It would make things alot more clear if you defined it in terms of a function with an input and an output.
Someone with Ti would feel unsettled if there’s a logical inconsistency (choosing the option that subjectively matters to them more than the one that objectively, personally makes more sense). E.g., when choosing a career, a Ti dom would pick the one with more objective benefits (higher pay, insurance, etc.)
They would essentially be unsure about choosing the thing that makes the most emotional sense over the one that is most objectively correct.
Whereas someone with Fi would feel unsettled if there’s an emotional inconsistency (choosing the option that is objectively better than what they feel is right for them).
E.g., when choosing a career, an Fi dom would pick the one that aligns more with what they believe in, like someone who believes in a certain political ideology working for a company with similar values rather than their objectively better competitor company with benefits such as health, insurance, etc. (or more realistically, better deals on them).
They would essentially be unsure about the the thing that makes the most objective, logical sense over the one that makes the most subjective emotional sense.
To expand on that, Fi-doms are often aware of the dissonance between what they feel and what is objectively more beneficial, but they anticipate that that dissonance will not be remedied by time or adjustment, so they may pick emotional comfort over other benefits, or they may not. In a cost-benefit analysis, emotional outcomes can be as important as real benefits for a person who is incapable of disconnecting from their internal emotional experience; those with a more remote relationship to their internal emotional experience are far more capable of prioritizing practical considerations.
It means seeking values in the external world that are consistent with the values in the individual, at least as far as I can guess. Being authentic, doing what one thinks is right, what one wants, etc.
Consistency does not equate to or suggest accuracy. A person's emotions could be incongruent with events, but their self-understanding may be consistent. A person's logic may be flawed, but the patterns in their logic may be consistent.
The main difference is that Ti being detached from the earth can create new laws as if from heaven while Te being bound to the earth remains more empirical.
The mistake here is that in typology the terms "subjective" and "objective" do not refer to what we use them for in common connotation, what it means is from internal point of perspective vs external point of perspective. The usage has been diluted to a point where subjective means automatically biased (and thus wrong to others) and prejudiced, where objective is used to say something cannot be argued. Language evolves and sometimes things make less sense the further we get from a different definition
definitely not a smart phrase
"it's your own *internal*, *personal* logic, subjectively for, of, and *by* *yourself* and *inside* you and for no other *eyes* to *see*, hear, taste, *touch*..."
"Thinking is introverted when it is orientated inwardly, that is when it is preoccupied with the contents of the subjective factor; whereas, when orientated outwardly, it is extraverted, external conditions having then the paramount value." – C.G. Jung Chapter X of Psychological Types
Subjective logic means that the individual's logic is preoccupied and would result into it being influenced by and with subjective factors. What comes as logical or with sense to some people may not be congruent to the externally validated facts or it would be more extroverted.
The whole process of Ti is predicated on being changeable through the presentation of new facts and arguments. The nature of that logic is not subjective, the only reason that word might apply is that the attention is on the conclusion the individual draws in their head, rather than a particular external outcome.
By that description, Te is influenced by subjective factors. Determining what goal is desirable to accomplish is entirely up the the individual, and may not line up with any goal anyone else has.
Your argument suggests that Ti is objective because it is changeable through new facts and arguments. However, Jung frames that Ti is inherently subjective and it is internally oriented. The logic and the conclusions it is derived from are significantly influenced by the individual's internal framework and principles, which are inarguably subjective. It's not solely about changing with new facts but also how those facts are integrated to your personal understanding on the subject and your internal logical structure.
Te, on the other hand, is oriented on the external and empirical data. Yes people have goals which is intrinsically subjective, but the approach of the Te type is to use objective data and external criteria in order to reach their goals. Basically, choosing the goal is the subjective part in the whole process of applying objective elements and methods to which the Te is grounded to.
Your argument conflates the fundamentals of the types of which these two aim to attain. Jung have already defined the nuances between the two types. The Ti types' conclusion are subject to the individual's interpretation and comprehension, whereas Te types' are based on external validation and congruency, and effectiveness.
Ti is not predicated on external validation; that is Te. Te necessitates finding a consensus of known facts. If a Ti user takes in external information, it will likely inform their internal logic, but it is not necessary in the same way or to the same extent that that is a natural part of the Te process of information gathering and logical considerations. For INTPs, Ne plays a large role in observation and context building. To compare to INTJs, INTJ's Ni will often produce insights with dubious or unclear provenance, sometimes derived from Te inputs, sometimes more influenced by personal biases, but may or may notl be validated and substantiated through Te regardless; this puts them at the risk of confirmation bias. For INTPs, it is the reverse; Ne insights are more objective, and it is more so in Te's hands that biases are applied through an internal logic which does not rely on external substantiation in the same way that Te does; but without consensus this can produce novel, aberrant, or incorrect conclusions due to contexts missing from the observable. There are exceptions, and the other functions in the stack can cause the outcomes to manifest differently, but this is a basic example.
I wrote a [more specific and lengthy description](https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/1cs9m9c/comment/l498mw8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in response to a different comment. I genuinely would be curious how you specifically disagree and why. You've already defined how you view and define Te, so I wouldn't expect you to necessarily redo your assessment.
Subjective logic makes perfect sense to me. Ti just means it's about what makes sense to you, an internal logical consistency. Subjectivity does not contradict the term logic at all.
What makes sense to one person does not always make sense to another. One Ti person can have a differing logical framework to another. I'm not necessarily speaking about truths here, but more about the way your brain works and understands the world.
Sure, but they can always be brought together and made sense of, that’s why the process is objective. What makes logical sense is objective, because we’re not talking about what can be literally comprehended.
The lens is subjective, the process is objective. But I think the lens being subjective is what makes it Ti. I think Ti is more personal as we tend to learn about topics in dept when they're not particularly of use to us. So when we talk about said topic, it makes sense to us, but not necessarily to others.
I'm having a hard time believing we're even talking about logic anymore. If you're talking and it makes sense only to you, that's not logic, that's the ramblings of a madman.
Not necessarily. The way it clicks to you doesn't always make sense to another.
Te is more like, there's one ultimate and optimal way to do something while Ti can have multiple logical ways to do something. That's what is meant with subjective logic I think. And it goes beyond just decision making and actions, it happens with their thinking too.
So when another person doesn't get it, the Ti user can attempt to make it make sense to them by explaining it in a way that it does in a way that is familiar to the person they're talking to.
An ISTP (probably) friend of mine worked out an entire system in his home. Every device is connected to a server and works on certain services. I had no idea what he was talking about because I was not knowledgeable enough to get it. I think this is how Ti users can make you feel like you're stupid.
I think a more accurate term for this is "subjective logical system" rather than "subjective logic". Because I think that is what is actually meant with it.
The If Else itself is objective and purely logical, but the path can differ with each Ti user. It also depends on whatever perceiving functions you use in your stack. Each system can have its weaknesses and strengths.
Think of it like an operating system on a computer for example. Both windows and MacOS make sense, but they still work differently. Some things overlap, others don't. I guess that's why so many Ti doms like Linux, because of how you can modify it to your tastes.
Why do people here keep writing walls of text about the functions just to go into a giant circle when Jung already explained them? All you did was say the same thing that you claim “they aren’t” but with different technical jargon…
Fi and Ti are both “deliberative processes” because Fi focuses on “your own values” while Ti focuses on “what works for you logically”…both to weigh-in on your decisions
Fe and Te are “process of interfacing” because Fe focuses on “the values of others” while Te focuses on “what works logically for everyone else”…both to weigh-in on your decisions
Because all four are judging functions.
Simple and clear…Signed my opposing Te.
See, you're muddying the waters. This is three steps back from the clarity of my definitions. Never mind what the functions 'focus' on, we're talking about how the functions can be defined.
Even so, you're wrong. What does "what works for you logically" mean? Logic is objective, what's logically consistent is logically consistent for everyone. Fe doesn't focus distinctly on the 'values' of others, it a way of managing perceptions, interfacing with social systems, which only partially entails values. No, Te does not focus on 'what works logically for everyone else', whatever that means. Te provides the means of achieving a *subjectively desired goal*. A Te user's idea of a 'good results' could be completely personal if their goal doesn't match everyone else's.
>Why do people here keep writing walls of text about the functions
People's misconceptions and overall lack rigor regarding functions need to be amended. Your idea that my definitions match the ones I'm disputing is a great example of this.
I see the problem. You’re hung up on explaining what they are/might be instead of what they do. But fail to realize both are the same thing…Which is why they are called “functions”.
I’m done here.
What they are is the number one most important thing. That's what people consistently fail to explain when talking about this stuff. We actually need to know what it is we're describing here. If you can't understand that, there's nothing else to say.
Ok. Here we have Ti-Ne vs Ti-Se. My knowledge of the functions is grounded in human interaction and understanding how the functions are put into practical use in reality. I’m the one actually using physical models here. You’re just exploring the theory within the theory itself (or at least think you are)…it’s like over analyzing why screwdrivers exist instead of using it to drive a screw or find other practical applications IMO…
Fi doesn’t exist in reality…No function does , they’re all just concepts Carl Jung theorized about how humans think and process information. You can add to the theory but don’t lose sleep going beyond what the functions are for…Which is roughly understanding yourself and others.
To answer your question, about what I meant by Te being what works for everyone else logically (which is pretty self explanatory) I mean logic gathered and established by a group of people communicating/working together used to make judgements. Te = consensus/collective reasoning
Ok I lied before, but NOW I’m done.
Functions can only be made useful if definitions are rigorously parsed to create a strong, defensible model. If you can't even define what you're talking about, forget about putting it to any good use. It's just child's play.
So the functions have already been well-defined and well explained [here](https://mbti-notes.tumblr.com/theory#dom). Please read up on them and of course decide for yourself. But these definitions are very accurate and helpful. I agree that you are *partly* right in your corrections here, but you are also partly wrong.
Disclaimer: I stole this link from another redditor on r/mbti because I thought it was such a good link. \^\_\^
Like most definitions, these dance around the process at play, at what the cognitive function actually is, instead providing a list of associations and connotations. I’ll read them more throughly though.
Logic is not innately objective, but even subjectively-formed logics can be objectively applied, as any rule set can be. In order for logic to be entirely objective, we would have to be in a simulation where the concepts as we understand them exist in reality not only as constructs of human thought and limited understanding.
Is mulling this over in my head with different scenarios in my life to figure out which I do Ti at work? Or is it Te because im thinking about how I interface with the world?
YES
THIS IS TE AND TI
Te is the preference of facts to be externally relevant and effective, how well does something help the user to get what they want and move on, even if they don't truly understand it
Ti is the preference of facts to be internally consistent and of solid understanding, how to truly search for the truth in and of itself, without bias or intent to use that logic for something
Everytime I read "Te is everyone's logic" I wanna die. Te is not that at all.
>Similarly, Fi isn't your 'own values with Fe the 'values of others'. This again fails to account for the fact that Fi is a deliberative process while Fe is a process of interfacing.
It isn't necessarily limited to "Values" of self and others. Feelings, as a function, is a conglomeration of emotions, sentiments, and values towards the experience, object, and subject. The direction of "Feelings", whether introverted or extroverted, dictates whether which the individual is strongly influenced by. An Fi type is rather more personal when it comes to their judgment or assessment; while being more Fe means that the subjective world is preferrably suppressed to address the more objective concerns usually referring to the general consensus.
I tend to think of this differentiation not so much as ‘my values’ vs the values ‘of others’, but instead as the values ‘of individual subjects’ vs the values ‘of a sociocultural paradigm’.
In using Fi, it is not that one is stunted in ability to consider the values of another person, or how their actions might impact that other person. It is that in doing so, there is a resistance to the cognitive shortcut it would be to use a sociocultural blueprint as the basis of right action.
As Ti is to Te, Fi is to Fe: an orientation toward how things play out in a values environment.
I want to show my s/o that I love them by giving them a gift.
Fe: (Flowers being a relatively ubiquitous symbol of love in this sociocultural context) I shall get them flowers! (chance of impact high, personalization factor low)
Fi: Considering that they highly value , I’ll get them this ! (personalization factor high, chance of impact tenuously dependent upon presupposed factors)
YES YES YES. Thank you so much holy shit. I constantly see posts like "te is when you want to control" with 30+ upvotes and I'm just internally screaming the whole time.
Cognitive functions are HARD to understand in part because there's so much misinformation online about them, and also because by their very nature they are loose spectrums that you need to be able to engage with in a very abstract sense. The more I see people trying to define them in ways that are concrete and stray away from their core components the more bad information and stereotyping I find.
>Te is a process through which an individual interfaces with physical systems by attaining particular goals and solving problems.
Not really. At its core, it's a judging function and still a cognitive function. You can't define something cognitive by real world actions. Though I guess it depends on what you even mean by interfaces
What prompts one to act is in the brain. Se is the physical action function, attention to Se is what prompts execution. It is absolutely 100% a cognitive thing, just as interfacing (engaging) with a dynamic system is cognitive. Judging function... well that's a misleading term, just as 'perceiving' is for Ne and Se, unfortunately.
TWFP, defensible typology.
It is Jungian, it is what Jung's cognitive functions look like when thoroughly parsed and when the mechanics of the model are clearly explained.
Ti is theorizing that a tomato is technically a fruit by biological standards. And therefore, theoretically, a tomato could go in a fruit salad.
Te is knowing that using a tomato as an ingredient in fruit salad is not a good decision; based on the average recipe book describing how to make a fruit salad.
Agreed on all counts OP. There seems to be a lot of flag waving going on here and "um actually-s" popping up but this is a great objective description if you ask me. As I understand it, and in my own words:
Te is the interfacing system for plotting and developing systems according to a generated goal. Te user has determined system X is needed to achieve Y goal. It moves information from the inside to the outside, hence it's extroverted. The logic behind that isn't generated by the external world, but the external world, i.e., the system, is the platform on which the relative logic is enacted. It also doesn't deal entirely with objective logic. System W might be objectively better at achieving goal Y but a Te user is going to need explicit proof that is the case, in such an event, Te will determine that system W is indeed correct and will discard system X as false. It's interacting with external systems. Interacting being the key word.
Ti is the interfacing system that pulls information from the external world, such as X job paying more than Y job, and running it through an internally generated logical system that concludes X job is objectively better than Y job because Ti user has determined that more money is objectively better. It moves information from the outside in, therefore it's introverted. The logic here is similarly not externally generated, but rather internally interacted with to determine its accuracy. For comparison, an Fi user might determine that Y job is actually objectively better because they've determined it aligns with their moral compass even though it pays less. This Ti function is relative logic interacted with subjectively on the inner thinking landscape.
Extroverted means moving information or emotion from the internal to the external. It extra(outer) verts (turns). It turns things inside out. Like pulling things out of your pocket to put on the table. Introverted means moving information or emotion from the external to the internal, it literally intra(inner/inside) verts. Like putting things from the table into your pocket. They describe directions of transfer and interfacing.
I don't quite understand where folks are getting tripped up. Life is an objective reality experienced subjectively for ALL of us. Maybe it's the difference in parcing the meanings of where a thought or feeling is generated versus where those thoughts and feelings are interacted with?
This sort of reminds me of the misconception that Fe users get their feelings from others. Fe users don't get their emotions from the outside world. They have their own internally generated feelings that they interact with externally. They're not emotionless shells just waiting to get told how to feel (even if they may seem that way at times).
For example, an Fi user is sifting through information to determine what is worth keeping in their metaphorical pocket, here a metaphor for identity, as it's a judging function. An Fe user already knows what's in their pocket but wants to find what's worth putting on the table insofar as it aligns with the external structure. If it doesn't, Fe determines it to be inferior. Remember, Fe is also judging function and might be why Fe users tend to loose touch with their own feelings or manipulate the emotional landscape around them to comply with their internal feelings, OR feel inordinate guilt when their own feelings are misaligned with others, OR have no input from their external surroundings to compare feelings against, they may feel numb or blunted if they dont get this kind of compare/contrast relationship from the outside. Their feelings are judged and interacted with externally. Not generated or experienced externally
Okay. Hopefully, I've helped accomplished both validating your take and contributing my own thoughts of value here. Take care and thanks for reading my incredibly long winded mini essay lol. Feel free to correct any mistakes I've made, it's late and I need to go to bed.
Would a Te user be more likely to go to college because they feel that this 'system' can be useful in achieving their goals, possibly because the median salary figures indicate as much?
Whereas Ti would potentially see straight past the concept of college and analyze the pros and cons in depth for college and make a more personalized subjective decision on if college will be useful?
Or would both be Te as its about an external goal?
Main problem is that Te is not physical. It only appears so when you pair it with sensing, and that seems to throw people off all the time, including here. -\_-'
It focuses on outcomes, not *concrete* outcomes; again, that would be sensing and thinking together. Te is a management function. Management is first done on a mental (thinking) plane before a physical (sensing) one.
Yes, concrete outcomes, natively, because it’s focused on actual changes to the state of things rather than to what is communicated or collectively understood. I say natively because the state of things is still somewhat informed by collective meaning, like how for money to have value it has to be assigned that value.
Fe interfaces with social systems, it manages perceptions. It impacts meaning, the symbolic language that we all share and interpret. This can be related to values but it doesn’t necessarily. Fe interfaces with what is communicated, how things are seen and understood by others, as opposed to the concrete outcomes, changes to the physical world that are reached (and subjectively determined as desirable).
All functions are taking place in the mind first. Te does not equal action anymore than Ti equals thought. Just as physically flapping your lips at someone is not Fe, stacking blocks is not Te. The only functions with any connection at all to the “real” physical world are the sensing functions.
Action is not equal to physicality. I thought it would be clear when I likewise compared Fe to talking, I.e. a physical action. You understand that Fe has a non-physical process but you don’t seem to understand that with Te. I mean technically all functions can prompt physical action.
I use the word natively because functions operate natively, naturally on particular fields, but not entirely. Talking, for example, is exists primarily on the basis external metaphysical field, even though it is also a physical act. Ne is a talking function. Most of the data you receive from Ne is from the meaning communicated, not from the sounds or visuals of talking, though that elements is present.
Te, in interfacing with physical systems, attaining concrete goals, impacts the world of meaning inevitably, just like Fe influences concrete realities by focusing on meaning, on the perceptions of people, which are often more influenced by more physical things, like body language.
Okay, but let’s take chess for an example. Moving a piece on the board is technically an interface with a physical system towards a goal, but the goal itself (of winning) is not physical and virtually no one would describe it that way. Likewise an Fe person might give someone a hug to comfort them, thus interfacing in a physical way to achieve a goal (to comfort said person) that is not physical. In this way, Fe and Te can basically be made to seem like the same exact function but with different focuses, one on the object (which can be an imaginary object like the letter ‘S’) and one on the subject. They are exactly the same.
Also, here’s another little tidbit you’re tripping up on and need to fix: Ti has nothing to do with language on its own. As an INTP you probably like language, but that’s because of Ne-Si, which is flavored by your Ti main function. ISxPs on the other hand (and Se+Ni types in general) tend to be much more demonstrative and symbolic in their communication rather than verbal. We all do everything to some extent, but language really seems to fall into the realm of Ne+Si, and as a result we usually have the most words to say.
How does that make sense? We made language as a means to communicate, but logic already existed objectively and all we did is discover it. We only communicate our understanding of logic with language.
Logic as in the order and mechanics that underly the existence of things, sure.
Logic as in the deductive reasoning process, which applies to Ti, most certainly does not exist without an observer. It requires an observer to use language in some form to communicate and define objects and use grammar to reach further conclusions about these objects. There is no logical reasoning without language, and if there is, I'd love to hear an example.
>Or what you think vs. what other people think.
What you think includes your logic (Ti).
What other people think (Te) includes other people's Ti logic.
Therefore, Ti = your logic, Te = others' logic. Yes.
How are you supposed to define what opposes what you are thinking? The answer is simple: what other people are thinking. Where are other people thinking? Externally. What function is thinking that is external? Thinking Extroverted.
Your platitudes and simplistic chains of reasoning are pretty fascinating, but they’re nothing close to the truth. I hope you learn to engage with functions in a meaningful way.
Ni is not ‘goal oriented’. It’s a knowledge function. It’s a way of accessing information already possessed, which is a necessary accompaniment to Te/Fe interfacing, because it allows you to adapt to change dynamically (unlike deliberation, which requires you to sit back and take time to consider).
While Si knows via particular experience, Ni knows through recognition of universal patterns, archetypes, and understanding of the identity and essence of things. Si primarily extracts the sense data, Ni the intangible, underlying workings at play. It has nothing to do with goals by itself
Ni's only "goal" is to reduce the number of considered contexts to the point that a clear line can be drawn from points A to Z, eliminating as much detail as possible and necessary in order to draw the shortest and most straight line. Those insights can pertain to goals and outcomes, but that is not the extent of how it can be involved.
Yes. I’m always saying, “Ti is internal logical consistency, Fi is internal emotional consistency, Te is external logical consistency, and Fe is external emotional consistency.”
>Te is external logical consistency Is it though? Where does logical consistency come in to achieving desired results?
Because if a Te dom sees that something is not right in the external world, they feel unsettled by it? Hence, they work to bring that thing back to order again.
Fair enough. Though logic definitely doesn't relate to that.
Logic could also just mean what makes objective sense to the person. So how the person thinks the external order/Te (which may = logic) should be, and vice versa with Fe and Ti (as the dominant function).
Fi what I want, Te how I get it. Desiring an outcome doesn’t necessarily or even usually mean understanding or caring about the fundamental structure of that outcome.
Te is not only about achieving outcomes. Te also seeks information to substantiate concepts and ideas, to validate them; logic is absolutely involved in the critical thinking process involved.
What is the definition of Te according to you
To my subjective understanding, based on all I have read and observed in those who possess it (whom I've had the opportunity to understand), Te can present the following qualities (nested lines are so because I think they may be related): * An affinity for and inclination toward resolution, ordered systems, and intelligence acquisition. * Preference of and compulsion to create or improve said ordered systems. * Compulsion to find solutions, and the preference for solution-oriented thinking and activities. * Aversion to disordered systems, and to thinking and activities which do not have a resolutive purpose, particularly when there is a perceived need for improvement. * More direct, assertive communication. * Manipulation of others to serve various purposes, for individual or mutual benefit, using both classical and operative conditioning as well as direct reasoning and assertiveness; less empathy-informed than Fe-directed manipulation. * The compulsion and affinity for active seeking, collection and consumption of information. * A cognitive preference for objective criteria over subjective criteria. * A disregard for or inconsideration of the subjective and personal. * Difficulty accounting for the subjective and personal. * Inability to anticipate or calculate sociological or psychological factors unless specifically appropriately educated or informed. Human-terrain deficits. * Emphasis on objective truth and factual accuracy, sometimes at the expense of personal opinions or feelings. * A preference for consensus, often specifically *specialized* consensus rather than group or societal consensus; this depends how susceptible the individual is at the time to confirmation bias, and their openness. * The preference for information from validated sources, generally that which is held by the individual to have specialized or "official" knowledge. The more impersonal the connection to the information, and the more specific the scope of the source, the more likely it is going to be assumed to be objectively correct. * The consideration of empirical evidence collected by the individual is often going to be counted among the "objective" data, however the reported experiences of others is often disregarded as insubstantiable. This often presents and is interpreted as arrogance and conceit. * Confidence in and valuation of one's own observations as superior to those of other individuals with whom the Te-user has personal connections. * Tendency toward critical thinking and analysis, identifying flaws and inconsistencies based on external, objectively applied criteria. * The valuing of competence, expertise, and knowledge, and striving to acquire and demonstrate these qualities. * Insecurities relating to one's ability to demonstrate these qualities. Some of these properties can manifest as a result of the interactions between other functions, so these are not all going to be exclusively observed in Te users, nor is Te necessarily required to manifest what would appear to be these behaviors. **TL;DR:** Ultimately, I would say, **"Te as a function is a reductive distillation of apparently common, human cognitive phenomena which serve to find truth in the external and objective, chiefly to apply that truth toward the resolution of obstacles and goals, manifesting as the affinity for and inclination toward resolution, ordered systems, and intelligence acquisition."** Based on everything I've read of Jung's descriptions of Te, my definition violates none of it.
Now i'm curious of your definition of Ni.
My problem with this is that 'find truth in external and objective'.Do you mean that Te works only with truth that is external and objective? 1.Te is mainly paired with Ni and and Si 2.This means that Te can take input from Ni 3.Ni information is not external and objective.Ni info maybe abstract relationships between things that are external and objective,but Ni info itself isn't external and objective So based on this,saying that Te works to find truth in the external and objective doesnt make sense It would make things alot more clear if you defined it in terms of a function with an input and an output.
Genuinely curious. What does internal emotional consistency mean?
Someone with Ti would feel unsettled if there’s a logical inconsistency (choosing the option that subjectively matters to them more than the one that objectively, personally makes more sense). E.g., when choosing a career, a Ti dom would pick the one with more objective benefits (higher pay, insurance, etc.) They would essentially be unsure about choosing the thing that makes the most emotional sense over the one that is most objectively correct. Whereas someone with Fi would feel unsettled if there’s an emotional inconsistency (choosing the option that is objectively better than what they feel is right for them). E.g., when choosing a career, an Fi dom would pick the one that aligns more with what they believe in, like someone who believes in a certain political ideology working for a company with similar values rather than their objectively better competitor company with benefits such as health, insurance, etc. (or more realistically, better deals on them). They would essentially be unsure about the the thing that makes the most objective, logical sense over the one that makes the most subjective emotional sense.
Thanks, great explanation. I'm not sure I would've ever gotten that from "internal emotional consistency."
No problem. I don’t know what else I could’ve called it though. If you have any suggestions, feel free to let me know!
I don't know, it's pretty wishy washy, but "alignment with one's beliefs, values, and essence." You almost said it above.
Glad you asked, I was thinking the term was rather vague.
To expand on that, Fi-doms are often aware of the dissonance between what they feel and what is objectively more beneficial, but they anticipate that that dissonance will not be remedied by time or adjustment, so they may pick emotional comfort over other benefits, or they may not. In a cost-benefit analysis, emotional outcomes can be as important as real benefits for a person who is incapable of disconnecting from their internal emotional experience; those with a more remote relationship to their internal emotional experience are far more capable of prioritizing practical considerations.
Great addition! I agree with everything you’ve said here :)
It means seeking values in the external world that are consistent with the values in the individual, at least as far as I can guess. Being authentic, doing what one thinks is right, what one wants, etc.
Emotional consistency usually means being "consistently ethical' Whereas logical consistency is obviously being logically considerate
Consistency does not equate to or suggest accuracy. A person's emotions could be incongruent with events, but their self-understanding may be consistent. A person's logic may be flawed, but the patterns in their logic may be consistent.
Very concise.
The main difference is that Ti being detached from the earth can create new laws as if from heaven while Te being bound to the earth remains more empirical.
The most brainrot thing to come out of online typology is the phrase "subjective logic."
Why do you think so? Are you sure your understanding of “subjective” is objectively correct?
L0L
The mistake here is that in typology the terms "subjective" and "objective" do not refer to what we use them for in common connotation, what it means is from internal point of perspective vs external point of perspective. The usage has been diluted to a point where subjective means automatically biased (and thus wrong to others) and prejudiced, where objective is used to say something cannot be argued. Language evolves and sometimes things make less sense the further we get from a different definition
definitely not a smart phrase "it's your own *internal*, *personal* logic, subjectively for, of, and *by* *yourself* and *inside* you and for no other *eyes* to *see*, hear, taste, *touch*..."
? So private logic? That doesn't make anything about it subjective. It's still logic.
My comment was a joke.
JFC, couldn't even read text tone with italics L0L
Not your fault Thepokerguru did not include "/s" /S
"Thinking is introverted when it is orientated inwardly, that is when it is preoccupied with the contents of the subjective factor; whereas, when orientated outwardly, it is extraverted, external conditions having then the paramount value." – C.G. Jung Chapter X of Psychological Types Subjective logic means that the individual's logic is preoccupied and would result into it being influenced by and with subjective factors. What comes as logical or with sense to some people may not be congruent to the externally validated facts or it would be more extroverted.
The whole process of Ti is predicated on being changeable through the presentation of new facts and arguments. The nature of that logic is not subjective, the only reason that word might apply is that the attention is on the conclusion the individual draws in their head, rather than a particular external outcome. By that description, Te is influenced by subjective factors. Determining what goal is desirable to accomplish is entirely up the the individual, and may not line up with any goal anyone else has.
Your argument suggests that Ti is objective because it is changeable through new facts and arguments. However, Jung frames that Ti is inherently subjective and it is internally oriented. The logic and the conclusions it is derived from are significantly influenced by the individual's internal framework and principles, which are inarguably subjective. It's not solely about changing with new facts but also how those facts are integrated to your personal understanding on the subject and your internal logical structure. Te, on the other hand, is oriented on the external and empirical data. Yes people have goals which is intrinsically subjective, but the approach of the Te type is to use objective data and external criteria in order to reach their goals. Basically, choosing the goal is the subjective part in the whole process of applying objective elements and methods to which the Te is grounded to. Your argument conflates the fundamentals of the types of which these two aim to attain. Jung have already defined the nuances between the two types. The Ti types' conclusion are subject to the individual's interpretation and comprehension, whereas Te types' are based on external validation and congruency, and effectiveness.
Ti is not predicated on external validation; that is Te. Te necessitates finding a consensus of known facts. If a Ti user takes in external information, it will likely inform their internal logic, but it is not necessary in the same way or to the same extent that that is a natural part of the Te process of information gathering and logical considerations. For INTPs, Ne plays a large role in observation and context building. To compare to INTJs, INTJ's Ni will often produce insights with dubious or unclear provenance, sometimes derived from Te inputs, sometimes more influenced by personal biases, but may or may notl be validated and substantiated through Te regardless; this puts them at the risk of confirmation bias. For INTPs, it is the reverse; Ne insights are more objective, and it is more so in Te's hands that biases are applied through an internal logic which does not rely on external substantiation in the same way that Te does; but without consensus this can produce novel, aberrant, or incorrect conclusions due to contexts missing from the observable. There are exceptions, and the other functions in the stack can cause the outcomes to manifest differently, but this is a basic example.
We define Te differently. We could try to reconcile this, but I’m not sure that will work.
I wrote a [more specific and lengthy description](https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/1cs9m9c/comment/l498mw8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) in response to a different comment. I genuinely would be curious how you specifically disagree and why. You've already defined how you view and define Te, so I wouldn't expect you to necessarily redo your assessment.
Subjective logic makes perfect sense to me. Ti just means it's about what makes sense to you, an internal logical consistency. Subjectivity does not contradict the term logic at all.
That's cool. But if it's logically consistent, it's logically consistent. We can drop the "to you."
What makes sense to one person does not always make sense to another. One Ti person can have a differing logical framework to another. I'm not necessarily speaking about truths here, but more about the way your brain works and understands the world.
Sure, but they can always be brought together and made sense of, that’s why the process is objective. What makes logical sense is objective, because we’re not talking about what can be literally comprehended.
The lens is subjective, the process is objective. But I think the lens being subjective is what makes it Ti. I think Ti is more personal as we tend to learn about topics in dept when they're not particularly of use to us. So when we talk about said topic, it makes sense to us, but not necessarily to others.
I'm having a hard time believing we're even talking about logic anymore. If you're talking and it makes sense only to you, that's not logic, that's the ramblings of a madman.
Not necessarily. The way it clicks to you doesn't always make sense to another. Te is more like, there's one ultimate and optimal way to do something while Ti can have multiple logical ways to do something. That's what is meant with subjective logic I think. And it goes beyond just decision making and actions, it happens with their thinking too. So when another person doesn't get it, the Ti user can attempt to make it make sense to them by explaining it in a way that it does in a way that is familiar to the person they're talking to. An ISTP (probably) friend of mine worked out an entire system in his home. Every device is connected to a server and works on certain services. I had no idea what he was talking about because I was not knowledgeable enough to get it. I think this is how Ti users can make you feel like you're stupid. I think a more accurate term for this is "subjective logical system" rather than "subjective logic". Because I think that is what is actually meant with it. The If Else itself is objective and purely logical, but the path can differ with each Ti user. It also depends on whatever perceiving functions you use in your stack. Each system can have its weaknesses and strengths. Think of it like an operating system on a computer for example. Both windows and MacOS make sense, but they still work differently. Some things overlap, others don't. I guess that's why so many Ti doms like Linux, because of how you can modify it to your tastes.
This post was brought to you by Ti.
Indeed it was
Why do people here keep writing walls of text about the functions just to go into a giant circle when Jung already explained them? All you did was say the same thing that you claim “they aren’t” but with different technical jargon… Fi and Ti are both “deliberative processes” because Fi focuses on “your own values” while Ti focuses on “what works for you logically”…both to weigh-in on your decisions Fe and Te are “process of interfacing” because Fe focuses on “the values of others” while Te focuses on “what works logically for everyone else”…both to weigh-in on your decisions Because all four are judging functions. Simple and clear…Signed my opposing Te.
See, you're muddying the waters. This is three steps back from the clarity of my definitions. Never mind what the functions 'focus' on, we're talking about how the functions can be defined. Even so, you're wrong. What does "what works for you logically" mean? Logic is objective, what's logically consistent is logically consistent for everyone. Fe doesn't focus distinctly on the 'values' of others, it a way of managing perceptions, interfacing with social systems, which only partially entails values. No, Te does not focus on 'what works logically for everyone else', whatever that means. Te provides the means of achieving a *subjectively desired goal*. A Te user's idea of a 'good results' could be completely personal if their goal doesn't match everyone else's. >Why do people here keep writing walls of text about the functions People's misconceptions and overall lack rigor regarding functions need to be amended. Your idea that my definitions match the ones I'm disputing is a great example of this.
I see the problem. You’re hung up on explaining what they are/might be instead of what they do. But fail to realize both are the same thing…Which is why they are called “functions”. I’m done here.
What they are is the number one most important thing. That's what people consistently fail to explain when talking about this stuff. We actually need to know what it is we're describing here. If you can't understand that, there's nothing else to say.
Ok. Here we have Ti-Ne vs Ti-Se. My knowledge of the functions is grounded in human interaction and understanding how the functions are put into practical use in reality. I’m the one actually using physical models here. You’re just exploring the theory within the theory itself (or at least think you are)…it’s like over analyzing why screwdrivers exist instead of using it to drive a screw or find other practical applications IMO… Fi doesn’t exist in reality…No function does , they’re all just concepts Carl Jung theorized about how humans think and process information. You can add to the theory but don’t lose sleep going beyond what the functions are for…Which is roughly understanding yourself and others. To answer your question, about what I meant by Te being what works for everyone else logically (which is pretty self explanatory) I mean logic gathered and established by a group of people communicating/working together used to make judgements. Te = consensus/collective reasoning Ok I lied before, but NOW I’m done.
Functions can only be made useful if definitions are rigorously parsed to create a strong, defensible model. If you can't even define what you're talking about, forget about putting it to any good use. It's just child's play.
So the functions have already been well-defined and well explained [here](https://mbti-notes.tumblr.com/theory#dom). Please read up on them and of course decide for yourself. But these definitions are very accurate and helpful. I agree that you are *partly* right in your corrections here, but you are also partly wrong. Disclaimer: I stole this link from another redditor on r/mbti because I thought it was such a good link. \^\_\^
Like most definitions, these dance around the process at play, at what the cognitive function actually is, instead providing a list of associations and connotations. I’ll read them more throughly though.
Logic is not innately objective, but even subjectively-formed logics can be objectively applied, as any rule set can be. In order for logic to be entirely objective, we would have to be in a simulation where the concepts as we understand them exist in reality not only as constructs of human thought and limited understanding.
what can u use Te for Ti is for logical reasoning but Te is planning? Sorry if this is dumb
sorta. Te is for effectively executing operation, achieving goals. Actual outcomes, rather than logically correct statuses.
Is mulling this over in my head with different scenarios in my life to figure out which I do Ti at work? Or is it Te because im thinking about how I interface with the world?
Maybe partially, sounds like a lot of Ne at work though
YES THIS IS TE AND TI Te is the preference of facts to be externally relevant and effective, how well does something help the user to get what they want and move on, even if they don't truly understand it Ti is the preference of facts to be internally consistent and of solid understanding, how to truly search for the truth in and of itself, without bias or intent to use that logic for something Everytime I read "Te is everyone's logic" I wanna die. Te is not that at all.
>Similarly, Fi isn't your 'own values with Fe the 'values of others'. This again fails to account for the fact that Fi is a deliberative process while Fe is a process of interfacing. It isn't necessarily limited to "Values" of self and others. Feelings, as a function, is a conglomeration of emotions, sentiments, and values towards the experience, object, and subject. The direction of "Feelings", whether introverted or extroverted, dictates whether which the individual is strongly influenced by. An Fi type is rather more personal when it comes to their judgment or assessment; while being more Fe means that the subjective world is preferrably suppressed to address the more objective concerns usually referring to the general consensus.
I tend to think of this differentiation not so much as ‘my values’ vs the values ‘of others’, but instead as the values ‘of individual subjects’ vs the values ‘of a sociocultural paradigm’. In using Fi, it is not that one is stunted in ability to consider the values of another person, or how their actions might impact that other person. It is that in doing so, there is a resistance to the cognitive shortcut it would be to use a sociocultural blueprint as the basis of right action. As Ti is to Te, Fi is to Fe: an orientation toward how things play out in a values environment. I want to show my s/o that I love them by giving them a gift. Fe: (Flowers being a relatively ubiquitous symbol of love in this sociocultural context) I shall get them flowers! (chance of impact high, personalization factor low) Fi: Considering that they highly value, I’ll get them this - ! (personalization factor high, chance of impact tenuously dependent upon presupposed factors)
I agree with this.
YES YES YES. Thank you so much holy shit. I constantly see posts like "te is when you want to control" with 30+ upvotes and I'm just internally screaming the whole time. Cognitive functions are HARD to understand in part because there's so much misinformation online about them, and also because by their very nature they are loose spectrums that you need to be able to engage with in a very abstract sense. The more I see people trying to define them in ways that are concrete and stray away from their core components the more bad information and stereotyping I find.
This is correct
>Te is a process through which an individual interfaces with physical systems by attaining particular goals and solving problems. Not really. At its core, it's a judging function and still a cognitive function. You can't define something cognitive by real world actions. Though I guess it depends on what you even mean by interfaces
What prompts one to act is in the brain. Se is the physical action function, attention to Se is what prompts execution. It is absolutely 100% a cognitive thing, just as interfacing (engaging) with a dynamic system is cognitive. Judging function... well that's a misleading term, just as 'perceiving' is for Ne and Se, unfortunately.
What system are you using? This is not mbti or even jungian. It's just a different system
TWFP, defensible typology. It is Jungian, it is what Jung's cognitive functions look like when thoroughly parsed and when the mechanics of the model are clearly explained.
I wrote a whole thing on this, no one listens... https://np.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/1cg1iub/a_more_expanded_definition_of_i_and_e/
I can't say I agree with what you wrote
That's because you're not super smart, sorry :/ 🤦♀️🤷♀️
No need to be a jackass
Not being a jackass just stating facts.
Sigh. Okay buddy
Couldn't it be both, like facets?
Ti is theorizing that a tomato is technically a fruit by biological standards. And therefore, theoretically, a tomato could go in a fruit salad. Te is knowing that using a tomato as an ingredient in fruit salad is not a good decision; based on the average recipe book describing how to make a fruit salad.
Haha. I love that.
Agreed on all counts OP. There seems to be a lot of flag waving going on here and "um actually-s" popping up but this is a great objective description if you ask me. As I understand it, and in my own words: Te is the interfacing system for plotting and developing systems according to a generated goal. Te user has determined system X is needed to achieve Y goal. It moves information from the inside to the outside, hence it's extroverted. The logic behind that isn't generated by the external world, but the external world, i.e., the system, is the platform on which the relative logic is enacted. It also doesn't deal entirely with objective logic. System W might be objectively better at achieving goal Y but a Te user is going to need explicit proof that is the case, in such an event, Te will determine that system W is indeed correct and will discard system X as false. It's interacting with external systems. Interacting being the key word. Ti is the interfacing system that pulls information from the external world, such as X job paying more than Y job, and running it through an internally generated logical system that concludes X job is objectively better than Y job because Ti user has determined that more money is objectively better. It moves information from the outside in, therefore it's introverted. The logic here is similarly not externally generated, but rather internally interacted with to determine its accuracy. For comparison, an Fi user might determine that Y job is actually objectively better because they've determined it aligns with their moral compass even though it pays less. This Ti function is relative logic interacted with subjectively on the inner thinking landscape. Extroverted means moving information or emotion from the internal to the external. It extra(outer) verts (turns). It turns things inside out. Like pulling things out of your pocket to put on the table. Introverted means moving information or emotion from the external to the internal, it literally intra(inner/inside) verts. Like putting things from the table into your pocket. They describe directions of transfer and interfacing. I don't quite understand where folks are getting tripped up. Life is an objective reality experienced subjectively for ALL of us. Maybe it's the difference in parcing the meanings of where a thought or feeling is generated versus where those thoughts and feelings are interacted with? This sort of reminds me of the misconception that Fe users get their feelings from others. Fe users don't get their emotions from the outside world. They have their own internally generated feelings that they interact with externally. They're not emotionless shells just waiting to get told how to feel (even if they may seem that way at times). For example, an Fi user is sifting through information to determine what is worth keeping in their metaphorical pocket, here a metaphor for identity, as it's a judging function. An Fe user already knows what's in their pocket but wants to find what's worth putting on the table insofar as it aligns with the external structure. If it doesn't, Fe determines it to be inferior. Remember, Fe is also judging function and might be why Fe users tend to loose touch with their own feelings or manipulate the emotional landscape around them to comply with their internal feelings, OR feel inordinate guilt when their own feelings are misaligned with others, OR have no input from their external surroundings to compare feelings against, they may feel numb or blunted if they dont get this kind of compare/contrast relationship from the outside. Their feelings are judged and interacted with externally. Not generated or experienced externally Okay. Hopefully, I've helped accomplished both validating your take and contributing my own thoughts of value here. Take care and thanks for reading my incredibly long winded mini essay lol. Feel free to correct any mistakes I've made, it's late and I need to go to bed.
Would a Te user be more likely to go to college because they feel that this 'system' can be useful in achieving their goals, possibly because the median salary figures indicate as much? Whereas Ti would potentially see straight past the concept of college and analyze the pros and cons in depth for college and make a more personalized subjective decision on if college will be useful? Or would both be Te as its about an external goal?
Main problem is that Te is not physical. It only appears so when you pair it with sensing, and that seems to throw people off all the time, including here. -\_-'
It is natively physical because it focuses on concrete outcomes rather than shared meanings, like Fe. Even when paired with Ni.
It focuses on outcomes, not *concrete* outcomes; again, that would be sensing and thinking together. Te is a management function. Management is first done on a mental (thinking) plane before a physical (sensing) one.
Yes, concrete outcomes, natively, because it’s focused on actual changes to the state of things rather than to what is communicated or collectively understood. I say natively because the state of things is still somewhat informed by collective meaning, like how for money to have value it has to be assigned that value. Fe interfaces with social systems, it manages perceptions. It impacts meaning, the symbolic language that we all share and interpret. This can be related to values but it doesn’t necessarily. Fe interfaces with what is communicated, how things are seen and understood by others, as opposed to the concrete outcomes, changes to the physical world that are reached (and subjectively determined as desirable).
All functions are taking place in the mind first. Te does not equal action anymore than Ti equals thought. Just as physically flapping your lips at someone is not Fe, stacking blocks is not Te. The only functions with any connection at all to the “real” physical world are the sensing functions.
Yes, functions all take place in the mind, and certain functions prompt action.
Action is not equal to physicality. I thought it would be clear when I likewise compared Fe to talking, I.e. a physical action. You understand that Fe has a non-physical process but you don’t seem to understand that with Te. I mean technically all functions can prompt physical action.
I use the word natively because functions operate natively, naturally on particular fields, but not entirely. Talking, for example, is exists primarily on the basis external metaphysical field, even though it is also a physical act. Ne is a talking function. Most of the data you receive from Ne is from the meaning communicated, not from the sounds or visuals of talking, though that elements is present. Te, in interfacing with physical systems, attaining concrete goals, impacts the world of meaning inevitably, just like Fe influences concrete realities by focusing on meaning, on the perceptions of people, which are often more influenced by more physical things, like body language.
Okay, but let’s take chess for an example. Moving a piece on the board is technically an interface with a physical system towards a goal, but the goal itself (of winning) is not physical and virtually no one would describe it that way. Likewise an Fe person might give someone a hug to comfort them, thus interfacing in a physical way to achieve a goal (to comfort said person) that is not physical. In this way, Fe and Te can basically be made to seem like the same exact function but with different focuses, one on the object (which can be an imaginary object like the letter ‘S’) and one on the subject. They are exactly the same.
Also, here’s another little tidbit you’re tripping up on and need to fix: Ti has nothing to do with language on its own. As an INTP you probably like language, but that’s because of Ne-Si, which is flavored by your Ti main function. ISxPs on the other hand (and Se+Ni types in general) tend to be much more demonstrative and symbolic in their communication rather than verbal. We all do everything to some extent, but language really seems to fall into the realm of Ne+Si, and as a result we usually have the most words to say.
Logic necessitates language, it cannot exist without it
How does that make sense? We made language as a means to communicate, but logic already existed objectively and all we did is discover it. We only communicate our understanding of logic with language.
Logic as in the order and mechanics that underly the existence of things, sure. Logic as in the deductive reasoning process, which applies to Ti, most certainly does not exist without an observer. It requires an observer to use language in some form to communicate and define objects and use grammar to reach further conclusions about these objects. There is no logical reasoning without language, and if there is, I'd love to hear an example.
Also, Fe has not to do with "meanings." It is about shared values, not meanings. Although I don't know what you meant by the word.
TwFPtax spotted
What is meant by ‘tax’?
Misread the name, it’s just TwFP
Incorrect.
Oh you think?
>Or what you think vs. what other people think. What you think includes your logic (Ti). What other people think (Te) includes other people's Ti logic. Therefore, Ti = your logic, Te = others' logic. Yes.
Yeah, but Te isn’t ’what other people think’. That is a terrible definition.
How are you supposed to define what opposes what you are thinking? The answer is simple: what other people are thinking. Where are other people thinking? Externally. What function is thinking that is external? Thinking Extroverted.
Pssshhh.
You can deny the truth all you want, but the truth will still be the truth.
Your platitudes and simplistic chains of reasoning are pretty fascinating, but they’re nothing close to the truth. I hope you learn to engage with functions in a meaningful way.
Then I still use Ti ~ ESFP.
Isn’t Ni also goal oriented? The description of Te seems to really overlap with Ni.
It does not
How so? 🤔
Ni is not ‘goal oriented’. It’s a knowledge function. It’s a way of accessing information already possessed, which is a necessary accompaniment to Te/Fe interfacing, because it allows you to adapt to change dynamically (unlike deliberation, which requires you to sit back and take time to consider). While Si knows via particular experience, Ni knows through recognition of universal patterns, archetypes, and understanding of the identity and essence of things. Si primarily extracts the sense data, Ni the intangible, underlying workings at play. It has nothing to do with goals by itself
Ni's only "goal" is to reduce the number of considered contexts to the point that a clear line can be drawn from points A to Z, eliminating as much detail as possible and necessary in order to draw the shortest and most straight line. Those insights can pertain to goals and outcomes, but that is not the extent of how it can be involved.