Makes so much more sense and is so much more accurate to my thought process, much better than all the nonsense I see online about Te - ENTJ

"The valuing of P makes these types appreciative of the working productivity of the events surrounding them. Emphasis is placed on how things are being done and whether they can be improved to function more effectively. These types usually attempt to inform and educate themselves and others, delivering the facts without spin or affectation to make sure people are best equipped to perform tasks to the high standards. Regularly they will focus on the efficacy of why they are doing things, avoiding wastes of time and effort. These types tend to see truth as a 'work in progress', being based on whatever they can see to work in real life, but continuously needing to be updated".

One of the best descriptions of Te I've seen on KZfaq

I have a problem calling Te or Ti as thinking, L(this one is problematic too) and P. In normal conversation, what we call thinking is related to intuition and not NECESSARILY logic. I can think about my logic, but I don't need to think to enact it. Hence most socionists call it LOGIC. One of my suspicions is that MBTI types are so loosely assigned is that: -Intuitors think they are logicians because they think a lot and; -Logicians suspect they are ethical because they don't think so much (in this case they would ACT more with Sensing) Ex: Most of the time, a skilled mechanic is not in his mind thinking about what he is doing, but rather acting through his memorised routine. The clarity of socionics terms should not be corrupted by MBTI's shallow depth of insight. Nice videos, much needed

best description of TE on youtube.

I'm following all the videos explaining every function and I have to remark how much I appreciate how precise and clear the definitions given are. They really are explained correctly. I'm commenting on this video in particular because it really put into words the NF struggle and why we often feel misunderstood, since we primarily rely on the two forms cognition that are the not directly transferrable, intuition and feeling. Sincerely, an IEE

Good description.

Objective Personality's Blast vs Sleep is anaccurate because an LSI (inspector) is actually using so-called "sleep" and an SLI (craftsman) is actually using so-called "blast."

There is an interesting two-sided nature to Logic, one that has to do with the nature of how things are (ontology) and how we come to know and understand them (epistemology). In German Idealist philosophy, two concepts involved in the study of being were expanded upon from Aristotle and Plato, that being Content and Form. Plato believed the Content (or Matter) of things participated in a supersensible world of Forms, whereas Aristotle believed that an object is a unity of Content and Form. Kant took Aristotle’s idea and attempted to give it epistemological grounding. Both transcendental and absolute idealists reasoned that Content is the factual information the mind receives in its experience of the world whereas Form is the structure the mind imposes on what it experiences. Is this not the very stuff that Te and Ti are made of? You can only increase the amount of facts know by observing and experiencing the world, whereas connecting or classifying facts into a system / framework involves filtering out irrelevant facts that do not cohere with each other.

You said Te is not about refining, obviously this harkens back to your breath vs depth conception. Te would fall into the “breadth” category since it is extroverted. However a question I have is: If a Te lead type , for example, were aiming to optimize, improve the efficiency/productivity of a venture, and continuing to update as new information surfaces. how is that not its own kind of “refining”? After all to make something “work best” you would have trim the fat out of the assembly line. You have to refine the process.

Would you agree a craftsman (SLI) working on fixing an engine is using Te to fix it?

Could you also give us your insights about how to strengthen our abilities in each jungian coginitive function to reach psychic balance if it is possible?

I agree Te is data. Would you type Data from Star Trek as an INTJ (ILI)?

1:20 "building your sense of how to think by going out and talking to all sorts of other people to find out what they think and derive your view from the consensus" - This is basically why the OPS people typed me as ISTJ. I was going around conferring with people I trusted, to get input from them on how to address problems and then I'd try things out by trial-and-error. For my own life, though, this feels more like mobilizing Te - I think of myself as like an apprentice with a thousand teachers who I strive to emulate, and then I go out into the world and do the best I can based on what I've learned. It always seemed kinda weird to me to be high Te because I don't want to call the logical shots, and somebody else is high Fi because of their comfort as the shot-caller.

I find Te users generally better at Trivial Pursuit than Ti users. As Te is facts about the outside world.

If Ti operates by making logical deductions based on objective axioms, can you describe how Te operates?

definitely my blind spot would rather pay someone to do it , Its so boring, but i can do it if i force myself or catch enough of my mistakes over time . its something that definitely takes time to work on if im even mindful of it , so parts i do succeed in but its a hit or miss ( i have fallen asleep when studying things of this nature, i tried taking super intendant classes because you get free rent i couldn't retain the information and i have cried when trying to do taxes ) i have ways around this though but good explanation never read my grimoires you might summon the wrong creature trying to find my methodology lmao

I used to think I was an INTJ (INTp) years ago, because I used to think that Te being their auxiliary judging function that enabled everyone to think entirely for oneself and engage in independent thinking without the aids of other people and other source, but later on I discovered it was actually my dominant Ti function that was responsible for that.

Can you define 'facts'? Or is it simply the unit of currency which Extraverted Thinking users use to exchange information? Sort of, the realm of external, impersonal and dynamic information that 'pragmatises' a situation? Swell video ~

The audio is very quiet in this video

In reality my experience of Te users is that they over simply things in order to implement, without fully comprehending cause and effect. They take in other people’s complex thinking, comprehend it in light speed time and try to pump out some product, method etc that ultimately fails or has quality issues. There is also a poor level of ethics, so they often don’t care as long as money can be made and they can garner some kind of recognition. They also crave status and think in terms of subjective hierarchy, which they imagine that everyone else adheres to. They believe that those that don’t play in this game are losers. Sad though as it seems they all get to the end of their life and realise, it didn’t really matter.

copied from "Pragmatism (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Pragmatism originated in the United States around 1870, and now presents a growing third alternative to both analytic and ‘Continental’ philosophical traditions worldwide. Its first generation was initiated by the so-called ‘classical pragmatists’ Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), who first defined and defended the view, and his close friend and colleague William James (1842-1910), who further developed and ably popularized it. The core of pragmatism as Peirce originally conceived it was the Pragmatic Maxim, a rule for clarifying the meaning of hypotheses by tracing their ‘practical consequences’ - their implications for experience in specific situations. For Peirce and James, a key application of the Maxim was clarifying the concept of truth. This produced a distinctive epistemological outlook: a fallibilist, anti-Cartesian explication of the norms that govern inquiry. Within that broad outlook, though, early pragmatists split significantly over questions of realism broadly conceived - essentially, whether pragmatism should conceive itself as a scientific philosophy holding monism about truth (following Peirce), or a more broad-based alethic pluralism (following James and Dewey). This dispute was poignantly emblematized in arguments between Peirce and James which led Peirce to rename his view pragmaticism, presenting this clarified viewpoint to the world as his new ‘baby’ which was, he hoped, ‘ugly enough to be safe from kidnappers’ (EP2: 355).