{"id":5697,"date":"2014-12-19T12:32:30","date_gmt":"2014-12-19T12:32:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/?p=5697"},"modified":"2020-06-20T22:38:51","modified_gmt":"2020-06-20T22:38:51","slug":"the-mechanics-of-te-and-ti","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.idrlabs.com\/articles\/2014\/12\/the-mechanics-of-te-and-ti\/","title":{"rendered":"The Mechanics of Te and Ti"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Ryan Smith and Rachel Wood<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Thinking and Feeling functions are both “rational,” in the sense that they are driven to come to conclusions about psychic contents. Unlike the perceiving functions, Sensation and Intuition, where the focus is rather on\u00a0perceiving information, the\u00a0Thinking and Feeling functions press home to arrive at\u00a0rationalized conclusions about the world.<\/p>\n

Some people (including professors of psychology<\/a>) confuse the issue by\u00a0relating Feeling with emotions<\/a> and Thinking with logic<\/span>. They are not the\u00a0same things. Thinking does<\/em> rely on logic<\/span>, and Feeling does<\/em> rely on emotions, but\u00a0neither can be reduced to such a simple formula.<\/p>\n

Still, if simplicity were\u00a0called for, we\u00a0think a useful distinction to use between Thinking and Feeling is to say that Thinking is interested in the “mechanics” of a thing, while Feeling is interested in the “value” of a thing.<\/p>\n

Of course, Thinking will roam into the realm of Feeling occasionally (and vice versa<\/em>). But as a rule, the T type will more naturally evaluate sentiments and\u00a0values in a mechanical way, while the F type will more naturally evaluate the sentiments and values inherent in\u00a0mechanics.<\/p>\n

Both types of Thinking (Te and Ti) are focused on the impersonal mechanics and principles that underlie phenomena. But there are differences between Thinking when used in the\u00a0extroverted\u00a0attitude (Te) and Thinking when used in the introverted attitude (Ti).<\/p>\n

Extroverted Thinking (Te)<\/strong><\/p>\n

“A project has to have a strategic plan, discipline, and a bias for action. It should be structured to keep momentum and reach its goals.”<\/em><\/p>\n

\"extroverted<\/a>Te is an externally-focused – or “objectively-oriented” – approach to the mechanics of things. Because it is externally focused, Te is primarily oriented by empirical evidence<\/a> and generally accepted theories. Te has a natural\u00a0inclination to\u00a0assume that the paradigm\u00a0that most of the experts\u00a0who study a given\u00a0topic agree upon is self-evidently true (given expert-level knowledge). As Te sees it, the commonly-accepted theory in a field is therefore the\u00a0best thing to go by – it is not a<\/em> standard, but\u00a0the<\/em> standard.<\/p>\n

Not only does Te\u00a0want to organize things according to this objective standard,\u00a0it also believes others should place the same credence in the objective standard and organize their lives according to this standard,\u00a0too.\u00a0This inclination tends to give Te a great respect for authority (at least when it comes to deciding between different mechanical theories about how things work, and methodologies about how to do things). For the same reason,\u00a0the views of an ETJ tend to stay close to what they see as the best source material, be it their teacher, an expert physicist, or an insightful book they’ve read on the topic.<\/p>\n

This external orientation gives Te types a clear preference for objective facts – ETJs usually\u00a0want to know the size, weight, color, and shape of an object, which\u00a0they then use charts, graphs, and tables to organize. Conversely, ETJs often fail to see the point of coming up with “out-there,” “what-if” theories to explain the data, because this approach is\u00a0so far removed from the actual object. They would ask what the point of all of that\u00a0would be when one\u00a0could just go measure the object. In the same way, this preference for retaining a focus on the objects themselves\u00a0may lead ETJs to\u00a0accuse NTPs\u00a0of “just making stuff up” (or if not, they may at least be\u00a0sorely tempted to).<\/p>\n

Because Te types prefer to ground their assessments in objective and indisputable facts, ETJs will often be sure that their solution\u00a0is the correct one and they are frequently skilled at presenting their case in such a way as to\u00a0make it seem\u00a0like all the alternatives to their\u00a0preferred course of action are just “nonsense.”<\/p>\n

Te’s orientation towards facts and objects should not be taken to mean that the Te function is particularly interested in facts or objects for their own sake, however – that would be more like Se<\/a>. Like\u00a0Ti, Te is more interested in the mechanics behind the world of the everyday phenomena, or to put it another way: Te is more interested in placing the facts and objects into a larger structure, governed by\u00a0logic<\/span> and mechanics, than it is interested in \u00a0feeling out the “facts in themselves,” improvising when surveying them, and making the most of them. Bill Gates<\/a> would be a good example here.<\/p>\n

Finally, the extroverted\u00a0orientation of this style of Thinking gives rise to another very striking difference between Te and Ti: Te types\u00a0are generally extremely capable of applying their thinking to\u00a0organize external situations. ETJs often operate on the basis of goals: They\u00a0set a goal, take stock of what objectively existing facts and\u00a0objects are available to them, and then organize those externals\u00a0in accordance with the most efficient way to achieve the goal. Hence, they tend to be very capable when it comes to planning, scheduling, and bringing order to the external world. The Te dominant will normally be perfectly happy to impose his systems on others in the same way he imposes them on himself, because, as mentioned, he sees the paradigm that he is working under, and the goals that he has set,\u00a0as objectively correct and optimal. So to oppose\u00a0them would be simply “wrong-headed” and “stupid.”<\/p>\n

Introverted Thinking (Ti)<\/strong><\/p>\n

“It is my own inner inquiries\u00a0that my theorizing in the main seeks to satisfy – my longing for pure and impartial knowledge.”<\/em><\/p>\n

\"introverted<\/a>Ti is an internally-focused – or “subject-oriented” – approach to the mechanics of things. Ti is primarily interested in improving its own understanding of psychic contents and in discovering the impartial principles that govern those contents. Hence, because of this focus on principles, Ti is not normally goal-oriented the way Te is. Because Ti has an individualistic and “subject-based” approach to mechanical frameworks, it also differs from Te in the sense that it is perfectly happy to dismiss what the experts say if those opinions conflict with the ITP’s\u00a0own understanding of an object or idea. Ti mixes and matches of its own accord: It will take a few select ideas from some experts, and a few other ideas from other experts, perhaps even from other fields altogether, and then add to that\u00a0a few hypotheses\u00a0of its own, all the while deploying them to develop the ITP’s\u00a0own personal understanding.<\/p>\n

The fact that a\u00a0Ti type’s conclusion may be in stark contrast to that of leading\u00a0experts in a field, or that it makes many assumptions that cannot\u00a0be shown to be true, matters less\u00a0to the Ti type than to the Te type.\u00a0One reason for this discrepancy is that the Ti type has a\u00a0relative disinterest in “objective facts for their own sake” when compared to the Te type. This autonomy of thought can in many cases be a good thing, since it has laid\u00a0the foundation for many important scientific advancements\u00a0that may not otherwise have been discovered. But on the other hand, because of its individualized\u00a0character, Ti always runs the risk of its theory being completely wrong – especially so since ITPs can sometimes be childishly selective with regard to which facts and premises they want to admit into their analysis at all.<\/p>\n

Ti types\u00a0want to carefully analyze an object or idea, take it apart to see all the components, and then come up with their own theories about what the underlying mechanics of the object or idea are. Furthermore, Ti types also\u00a0want to make their understanding of this particular object or idea\u00a0correspond with their understanding of other systems and fields, so that it all fits together without contradictions. A good example here would be Immanuel Kant<\/a>. Though many would not admit it, Ti types are uncomfortable with the prospect of letting\u00a0their worldview being governed by\u00a0objective, measurable facts. In Jung’s view, this is because these objective facts seem like rude intrusions, but it seems plausible that Jung is getting Ti mixed up with Ni here (see note 3 here<\/a>). A more plausible reason that Ti types are uncomfortable with pawning their world view to objective, outside facts is that ITPs don’t feel that “the facts” tell the whole\u00a0of the story. Ti types\u00a0want to arrive at the principle<\/em> that they believe governs those facts<\/a>, and they often defend this delicate and subject-oriented\u00a0preference by derogating\u00a0Te types, perceiving them to be “unimaginative, small-minded literalists” (or at least they will be sorely tempted to).<\/p>\n

The tendency of Ti types to\u00a0constantly refine their inner\u00a0understanding\u00a0also\u00a0means that they tend to be far less certain\u00a0about their conclusions than Te types\u00a0are.\u00a0In contrast to the Te type, the ITP\u00a0is not naturally interested in applying his understanding\u00a0externally, that is, in achieving specific real-world goals. Instead, to the Ti type, the development of internal frameworks and principles\u00a0is experienced\u00a0as an end in itself. Their goal, if it can even be called a goal, is to arrive at the most comprehensive and thorough understanding possible. And to postulate ‘goals’ in connection with such an ‘understanding’ is usually experienced as a distorting factor.<\/p>\n

Because Ti types tend to orient themselves on the basis of impartial principles, this also means that Ti types tend to spend far more time ironing out contradictions in their theories. By contrast, the Te types do not tend to spend as much time pondering such “other-wordly” or “irrelevant” implications of the goals that they aim to further.\u00a0For Te types\u00a0tend to focus their attention in a different direction, namely the application of knowledge\u00a0to real-world situations with the aim of\u00a0achieving specific\u00a0goals.<\/p>\n

This difference in orientation also leads to a noticeable difference between ETJs and ITPs on the behavioral level: Te types tend to phrase their arguments\u00a0in terms of hard facts that it would seem belabored to attempt to dispute: “The evidence\u00a0is in and the experts agree, what more do you want?” they will say. And so, ETJs will be quite happy to use circular reasoning as long as their premises are backed up by real and objective data (induction itself being ultimately circular<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Ti types, however, are far less persuasive (even to themselves!). They use a lot of qualifications in their thinking (“maybe”, “possibly”, “all else being equal,” “could be the case” and so on), which attests to the fact that they have a far more ‘distanced’ relationship to\u00a0objective facts. Also, Ti types tend to be far more careful about\u00a0their definitions for the same reason. It is not hard to imagine a Ti type like Immanuel Kant writing page after page of qualifications and considerations in order to finally arrive at a functional definition of\u00a0what a dog is.\u00a0Te types\u00a0tend to\u00a0find this kind of exercise\u00a0hilarious and will often, like\u00a0H.J. Eysenck and Aristotle, simply lift\u00a0the conventional definitions over into technical usage: “A dog is a dog – what else could it be?”<\/p>\n

So in Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n