Post by Auburn on Nov 12, 2015 17:38:25 GMT -5
This comes from an email question posed by Elly last week, which I think reveals and clarifies a lot of things about these two functions. I hope it benefits you all in some way.
Elly: I've been thinking about the differences between Ti and Te and I know this probably sounds very ignorant (which is part of the reason why I want it resolved in the first place) but every time I read things about Ti it always sound like a function that's more "intelligent" than Te. Like a Ti-lead would be smarter than a Te-lead in terms of analyzing things because Ti is more meticulous and in-depth it seems. For example, in this thread you said:
"Te does what Ti does, but Ti's context is variable, while Te's context is tangible."
and
"Ti is slower and more methodical/meticulous than Te."
According to this, Ti and Te do the same things but Ti is more thorough in its analysis. This sounds to me like Ti is better at making more correct judgements than Te because it isn't as prone to skip steps for efficiency, which, if I understand this correctly, would mean that Ti users (in terms of their Ti, of course) are generally better at analysis than Te users. Is this true or am I just misinterpreting their definitions and differences?
"Te does what Ti does, but Ti's context is variable, while Te's context is tangible."
and
"Ti is slower and more methodical/meticulous than Te."
According to this, Ti and Te do the same things but Ti is more thorough in its analysis. This sounds to me like Ti is better at making more correct judgements than Te because it isn't as prone to skip steps for efficiency, which, if I understand this correctly, would mean that Ti users (in terms of their Ti, of course) are generally better at analysis than Te users. Is this true or am I just misinterpreting their definitions and differences?
Erifrail: Ah, I think I see the predicament. (Sorry for the long post ahead, but hopefully the answer is somewhere in here)
Hmm, odd, I think I was actually diminishing Ti in those posts. I generally find Ti to be the slow one that learns what Te understands rather immediately. Imagine, for example, that Ti is a blind person feeling their way around a room, while Te is someone who has the light on and just sees the reality of the room right-off. The connection to the objective world automatically makes Te more equipped to ascertain the logical consequences and realities of life due to how closely tied logic is to empiricism --- in western culture the two are almost synonymous.
Oppositely, you have a paradox in Ti, which is supposed to be logical and dispassionate, but ends up manifesting very subjectively and often times off from reality. To a function that's meant to be logical, this is quite embarrassing at first. ..Pure, "philosophical" logic is not able to be accurate without a proper supply of information and the discipline to organize it. This is something Ti needs to compensate for with time and more meticulous exploration. In the TiNe section I explore this truth in the Armchair Philosopher subtype. I've actually looked and looked and haven't found very many serious scholars that are Ti-lead. Most scientists I come across are Delta types, specifically TeSi or FiNe.
So now to the question of depth. It's true that if a Ti-lead takes 10 hours to grasp a topic which the Te-lead understood in 10 minutes of hands-on dabbling, then the Ti will have a more thorough/in-depth understanding of it. But isn't that true of anyone that spends more time? If you'd also have the Te-lead spend 10 hours on the same topic, they'd probably have a far better functional grasp of things than the Ti, given everything else is equal. Add to this, Te's ability to simulate causalities as mental proxies (as mentioned in the thread you linked), due to the aide of introverted processes like Ni, then Te can also be used outside of literal events and play a similar speculation-game as Ti plays.
This may not speak for everyone, but from my exploration, some of the more brilliant minds such as - Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Neils Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Gerard 't Hooft - are Te users according to my readings. They definitely retain the capacity to be abstract, logical, deeply thorough and objective to the highest degree that human accomplishments span.
I'm unsure if there's any process that's better designed to ascertain the truth of causality more than Te, except maybe Se but even then Se doesn't quantify it or extract causal laws. For that matter, Se is another one of those which has complimentary traits -- it makes more sense for perception of the objective world to be done sensationally. In this sense, Ne is a bit backwards/roundabout, it uses the same eyes to view reality as it does to imagine it differently - blurring what it sees with imaginations.
Which brings me to an interesting point: fairness vs truth, when it comes to judging the merits of functions. I should probably say that I'm honestly not entirely sure if the functions could ever be described as equal to each other. It is true, so far as I know, that certain functions are better at certain processing-vectors than others, and those who try to play a democratic game of equality are confusing the value-of-persons with their abilities. I find all humans to be equal, although it's a logical error to say they all share the same level of capacity at everything or that equal capacity is what would classify them as equal.
P.S. -- Just while we're on the topic (and cuz I haven't talked to you all for so long =P) I might as well drown you with more walls of text, yay! I'll send another email after this one with an unreleased article I wrote up that ties some of these differences between Ti and Te back to the MBTI and its misconceptions. If you've been reading MBTI descriptions of Ti and Te, then you're absolutely right in what you said. The MBTI assigns Te's traits to Ti, while not doing the inverse. Added to this, Te is horribly misunderstood by MBTI. Most ExTJs are given such bloke-ish, neanderthal-ish descriptions... such as being the "get stuff done" people who just run their business without ever having a profound thought. The capacity of Te for analysis and empiricism is totally left out, and Ti types are praised so heavily as profound thinkers. Most of the people they quote end up being Te types and it just makes me facepalm...
Hmm, odd, I think I was actually diminishing Ti in those posts. I generally find Ti to be the slow one that learns what Te understands rather immediately. Imagine, for example, that Ti is a blind person feeling their way around a room, while Te is someone who has the light on and just sees the reality of the room right-off. The connection to the objective world automatically makes Te more equipped to ascertain the logical consequences and realities of life due to how closely tied logic is to empiricism --- in western culture the two are almost synonymous.
Oppositely, you have a paradox in Ti, which is supposed to be logical and dispassionate, but ends up manifesting very subjectively and often times off from reality. To a function that's meant to be logical, this is quite embarrassing at first. ..Pure, "philosophical" logic is not able to be accurate without a proper supply of information and the discipline to organize it. This is something Ti needs to compensate for with time and more meticulous exploration. In the TiNe section I explore this truth in the Armchair Philosopher subtype. I've actually looked and looked and haven't found very many serious scholars that are Ti-lead. Most scientists I come across are Delta types, specifically TeSi or FiNe.
So now to the question of depth. It's true that if a Ti-lead takes 10 hours to grasp a topic which the Te-lead understood in 10 minutes of hands-on dabbling, then the Ti will have a more thorough/in-depth understanding of it. But isn't that true of anyone that spends more time? If you'd also have the Te-lead spend 10 hours on the same topic, they'd probably have a far better functional grasp of things than the Ti, given everything else is equal. Add to this, Te's ability to simulate causalities as mental proxies (as mentioned in the thread you linked), due to the aide of introverted processes like Ni, then Te can also be used outside of literal events and play a similar speculation-game as Ti plays.
This may not speak for everyone, but from my exploration, some of the more brilliant minds such as - Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Neils Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, Gerard 't Hooft - are Te users according to my readings. They definitely retain the capacity to be abstract, logical, deeply thorough and objective to the highest degree that human accomplishments span.
I'm unsure if there's any process that's better designed to ascertain the truth of causality more than Te, except maybe Se but even then Se doesn't quantify it or extract causal laws. For that matter, Se is another one of those which has complimentary traits -- it makes more sense for perception of the objective world to be done sensationally. In this sense, Ne is a bit backwards/roundabout, it uses the same eyes to view reality as it does to imagine it differently - blurring what it sees with imaginations.
Which brings me to an interesting point: fairness vs truth, when it comes to judging the merits of functions. I should probably say that I'm honestly not entirely sure if the functions could ever be described as equal to each other. It is true, so far as I know, that certain functions are better at certain processing-vectors than others, and those who try to play a democratic game of equality are confusing the value-of-persons with their abilities. I find all humans to be equal, although it's a logical error to say they all share the same level of capacity at everything or that equal capacity is what would classify them as equal.
P.S. -- Just while we're on the topic (and cuz I haven't talked to you all for so long =P) I might as well drown you with more walls of text, yay! I'll send another email after this one with an unreleased article I wrote up that ties some of these differences between Ti and Te back to the MBTI and its misconceptions. If you've been reading MBTI descriptions of Ti and Te, then you're absolutely right in what you said. The MBTI assigns Te's traits to Ti, while not doing the inverse. Added to this, Te is horribly misunderstood by MBTI. Most ExTJs are given such bloke-ish, neanderthal-ish descriptions... such as being the "get stuff done" people who just run their business without ever having a profound thought. The capacity of Te for analysis and empiricism is totally left out, and Ti types are praised so heavily as profound thinkers. Most of the people they quote end up being Te types and it just makes me facepalm...
Elly: I enjoyed that it was long; the more information I get the better
I know you also mentioned in another thread that the MBTI community (at least I think that's what you were referring to) believe Richard Dawkins to be a Ti-lead. What you said was:
"Someone who I believe uses their psyche in this manner is Richard Dawkins. Whose keen Te-Fi discernment wheel often fools people into thinking it is Ti due to the precision it has."
Just to clear things up even more, is Ti more precise in its judgements than Te is (unless ones judgements functions are well balanced)? And one more thing: Is there something Ti does that Te can't do (as skillfully as Ti)?
I know you also mentioned in another thread that the MBTI community (at least I think that's what you were referring to) believe Richard Dawkins to be a Ti-lead. What you said was:
"Someone who I believe uses their psyche in this manner is Richard Dawkins. Whose keen Te-Fi discernment wheel often fools people into thinking it is Ti due to the precision it has."
Just to clear things up even more, is Ti more precise in its judgements than Te is (unless ones judgements functions are well balanced)? And one more thing: Is there something Ti does that Te can't do (as skillfully as Ti)?
Erifrail: Ok, I think I see the discrepancy. It's in this comment right?
"... thinking it is Ti due to the precision it has."
i.e. It seems to imply that "Ti = precision", and that "Dawkins is an exceptional Te user to reach the Ti level"?
I was referring to the MBTIers. They think he's Ti because they have a view of Te as unable to be that precise.
This goes back to my previous email, and the way I said Te traits are assigned to Ti, but not vice-versa in the MBTI. This was actually meant, by me, to be a pro-Te comment. I was trying to point out that there are people with all the precision that is usually attributed to Ti, but who are in fact Te-Fi users. Sorry if that's wasn't the clearest.
Some Ti's are more precise than some Te's and vice-versa. There's no way to answer definitively to one way or the other, since it depends on the person. In both cases it depends on balance between Ti-Fe or Te-Fi respectively.
There is some nuance to note that puts Ti in the more "precise" camp due to being a Ji function, but I have to explain this in context.
In its pure form, I wouldn't describe Ti as precise, but rather as "nitpicky" (the same goes for Fi). There's a selectiveness to it, but that picky selection isn't necessarily accurate. Due to the divorced quality Ti has, it's nitpicky about concepts/ideas which aren't associated to reality very strongly. So, sure, we can say they have a "precise" ideology: they have an imaginary castle in their mind where every pencil and pair of shoes is kept nicely organized.
To give you an example of this, imagine that my CT theory was somehow absolutely false. Then I've just formed one such precise castle where I have a specific answer to this-and-that, but which wouldn't reflect reality. This is the danger Ti runs, and it's why a discipline in empiricism is necessary. This is why I also note Chakras, Ki and other "precise" yet unreal systems being Ti-byproducts.
Te in its pure form (with no Pi or Ji help) is also debilitated in a different way. It will judge right-off in a very binary and oversimplified form without precedent or reflection. "Yes that's good, do that" or "No, throw that away" is the binary preoccupation in its mind. Sometimes the first conclusion that comes to mind is what they'd run with: "yes that'll do". If you want an example of this, watch Bill O'Reily and take note of how he replies to people and how quickly he does it ---- and how quickly he dismisses people based on oversimplified judgments. Nuance is indeed omitted, and things are dealt with at face value. (Do note, though, that O'Reily is a very poorly balanced individual.)
All that to say.... if we try to gauge the word "precision" ...then Te needs to find its selectivity/precision in Fi, since specificity and taste are attributes that are related back to the inner self. Te on its own is not picky because it has no personal palate - the situation before them is judged by how objects relate to one another, not to itself. But if the situation itself is precise (i.e. working a complex machine with lots of variables to relate to one another) then Te is quite precise.
Te without Fi = Imprecise but generally practical
Ti without Fe = Precise but wholly impractical (imaginary)
Te + Fi = Precise and very practical
Ti + Fe = Very precise and moderately practical
I think that's generally what the differences are. Again, whether this makes the two types equal in value is not what I'm aiming to address. There's specialization to both, making some better at some things than others, but all types can be generally competent at most everything.
"... thinking it is Ti due to the precision it has."
i.e. It seems to imply that "Ti = precision", and that "Dawkins is an exceptional Te user to reach the Ti level"?
I was referring to the MBTIers. They think he's Ti because they have a view of Te as unable to be that precise.
This goes back to my previous email, and the way I said Te traits are assigned to Ti, but not vice-versa in the MBTI. This was actually meant, by me, to be a pro-Te comment. I was trying to point out that there are people with all the precision that is usually attributed to Ti, but who are in fact Te-Fi users. Sorry if that's wasn't the clearest.
Some Ti's are more precise than some Te's and vice-versa. There's no way to answer definitively to one way or the other, since it depends on the person. In both cases it depends on balance between Ti-Fe or Te-Fi respectively.
There is some nuance to note that puts Ti in the more "precise" camp due to being a Ji function, but I have to explain this in context.
In its pure form, I wouldn't describe Ti as precise, but rather as "nitpicky" (the same goes for Fi). There's a selectiveness to it, but that picky selection isn't necessarily accurate. Due to the divorced quality Ti has, it's nitpicky about concepts/ideas which aren't associated to reality very strongly. So, sure, we can say they have a "precise" ideology: they have an imaginary castle in their mind where every pencil and pair of shoes is kept nicely organized.
To give you an example of this, imagine that my CT theory was somehow absolutely false. Then I've just formed one such precise castle where I have a specific answer to this-and-that, but which wouldn't reflect reality. This is the danger Ti runs, and it's why a discipline in empiricism is necessary. This is why I also note Chakras, Ki and other "precise" yet unreal systems being Ti-byproducts.
Te in its pure form (with no Pi or Ji help) is also debilitated in a different way. It will judge right-off in a very binary and oversimplified form without precedent or reflection. "Yes that's good, do that" or "No, throw that away" is the binary preoccupation in its mind. Sometimes the first conclusion that comes to mind is what they'd run with: "yes that'll do". If you want an example of this, watch Bill O'Reily and take note of how he replies to people and how quickly he does it ---- and how quickly he dismisses people based on oversimplified judgments. Nuance is indeed omitted, and things are dealt with at face value. (Do note, though, that O'Reily is a very poorly balanced individual.)
All that to say.... if we try to gauge the word "precision" ...then Te needs to find its selectivity/precision in Fi, since specificity and taste are attributes that are related back to the inner self. Te on its own is not picky because it has no personal palate - the situation before them is judged by how objects relate to one another, not to itself. But if the situation itself is precise (i.e. working a complex machine with lots of variables to relate to one another) then Te is quite precise.
Te without Fi = Imprecise but generally practical
Ti without Fe = Precise but wholly impractical (imaginary)
Te + Fi = Precise and very practical
Ti + Fe = Very precise and moderately practical
I think that's generally what the differences are. Again, whether this makes the two types equal in value is not what I'm aiming to address. There's specialization to both, making some better at some things than others, but all types can be generally competent at most everything.