Refining the definition of Te through Model B2

On both the MBTI and Socionics communities, most descriptions of Te are centered on its practical aspect, that of how to make things work, in particular designing optimal plans to maximize efficiency. As I already mentioned in my last post, I view the realm of plan design as falling under the domain of Sensing, that which relates directly to the real, objective world. As such, I believe that, while appropriate in most occasions for the LSE, this approach might turn problematic in understanding LIEs. My proposal for Te is that it checks how well adjusted anything is to the situation, rather than how much logical sense it makes by itself, whether practically (S+) or conceptually (N-). Thus, it always takes a frame of reference in regards to which everything should be judged, thus we might say that, as opposed to Ti, its judgements are situational; universal validity is not a concern when using Te.

In a similar manner to the way I adjusted the definition of Si throug the Sensing elements of Model B2 and what they have in common, this time I am going to find the similarities between both Accurate elements (S+ and N-) to find how the Model B2 view of this axis would translate into Te. However, this time I'm going to stress the differences between them to make it clearer how a LIE might look different from a Model A interpretation of this short-sighted idea of Te, as unlike Si, it's not that definitions are unfit generally, but rather biased towards LSEs. Also, rather than the Gulenko sub-elements I used last time, this exercise requires my own set of sub-elements, which I defined in the same post cited last time.

Proper to the LSE is Ae+: building workable projects that take account of setbacks. They mix this concern with optimality with the waterproofing aspect of S+, and thus they will apply their skill in thinking how the actual process will look like, always thinking first about all the problems that might arise and then deciding what would work best in avoiding those specific situations or dealing with them once they arise. Thus, their focus on efficiency proceeds from their Sensing disposition, and even here I would argue there is more nuance than in most mainstream definitions, as there's also the component of taking a panoramic view of the available outcomes and their feasibility, rather than some general sense of doing more with less.

As for LIEs, the sub element in question is Ae-: prioritizing ideas according to how applicable they are in the moment. This time, the object of study is not a practical endeavor, but rather an abstract framework on how to view the world. To LIEs, a theory is only useful insofar as it serves to better understand certain specific phenomena, rather than how it relates to other perspectives and provides a better holistic comprehension of the world around them. Unlike LSEs, LIEs have Chimeric S+, and despite being fascinated by how to optimize every detail to the environment, they will seldom understand how to achieve anything approaching that, for the same reason that a LSE would fail at pointing out why a given theory is not an accurate representation of reality. This makes LIEs fit better within the Reasercher club, which seldom has original insights within the practical world. To be useful, science needs to point towards the real world and provide satisfying approximations of how it would apply in the real world.

One reason I suggest for this mismatch is that Accuracy does not value abstraction by itself, as there is always the risk of the map taking over the terrain and obscuring our observations. The role of Te, then, is to constrain the impact of logical systems, only accepting what has fulfilled reasonable standards of adjustment to reality, whether that amounts to rejecting S- structures that limit future possibilities, or N+ paradigms that constrain our worldview.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Refining the definitions of Sensing through Model B2

For those who have checked the elemental definitions of Model B2, it is quite apparent that Sensing is considered in terms of how to work and conduct projects. This aspect is notoriously absent, however, in most people's idea of Si. I consider it pertinent, thus, to redefine Si such that it can be best fit into my proposed framework. Si is not about sensory experiences, however pleasant they are, not about psychological comfort in general; or at least, it's not limited to that. To make a good contrast, it is useful to look first into Se, which is identifying the most impactful actions -whether on the social or practical sphere- and how to effect a change in the environment (here I'd like to pause and differentiate this from T+, which recognizes where potential lies, rather than how to enforce the structure in question). Si is unconcerned about making an effect per se, rather, it recognizes personal calls for confort and then satisfies them by recognizing which aspects could...
Read more

Natalie Wynn (IEE): Personality type analysis

Image
The purpose of this typing is to give a better sense of how the individual elements and functions come together in one single sociotype. As most of my previous articles have been focused on the elements, in-depth explanations of how a function works will be provided as the arguments are presented, with an attempt at relating how Model B2 functions are similar to specific Model A functions, as well as their differences. In this case, I will focus on the conflicts between the strong elements of the IEE: N- against N+, as well as F+ against F-. For this, I have selected transgender youtuber Natalie Wynn, host and owner of the channel Contrapoints. 9. Dialoguing F+ Perhaps Wynn is best known for her elaborate costumes and set design, which at first glance suggests the presence of F-, that is, the crafting of a message to be more appealing and shocking, with the purpose of conveying one's inner dispositions towards certain ideas or people. However, that relates to the means of her work,...
Read more

Positivist and negativist pairs

In a previous post, I proposed that positivist elements are expansive, concerned with the production or absorption of a new framework, which is accepted without a further filter, while negativist elements are refining in this regard, seeking to assess existing frameworks according to an external, non universal standard. I'd like to point out that this is not the same as the extroversion/introversion dichotomy, where each side takes respectively similar stances regarding the nature of content that is absorbed, rather than referring to the interpretation and/or management of such content. Now, I will mix both of these dichotomies to discuss the pairs that can be found in either Priority or Dimensionality blocks. SFi is refining as to personal relations, and it is not devoid of personal preferences, primarily when they refer to how comfortable and peaceful interactions will be. It is, however, positivist, and thus uses such interactions to take in what others have to say and deepen th...
Read more