5 Differences Between Te and Ti Logic

Ultimately, the way we think is the basis of cognitive functions. Ryan and I are constantly bringing that up, because that’s what is often forgotten. It’s not about actions, or tendencies – those are all symptoms. It’s about the way we think. I wrote an article a while back about the differences between Te and Ti users. That article was fairly broad, focusing on some general temperament differences in addition to some specific function tendencies. I’m going to try something a bit different in this article… I’m going to attempt to hone in specifically on the way both of these functions rationalize, and how they differ in that sense, because as I mentioned, that’s the key. This will probably be rather challenging, so we’ll see how it goes. Of course, I can’t get into the nitty gritty of both of these functions without covering the basics, in case there are any newcomers to the blog reading this now. So, let’s begin…

1. Te is objective logic, while Ti is subjective logic

We say this all the time, but what does it actually mean? Well, it means that Te logic is based on what is verifiable in the external world. It is not better or worse than Ti. It is simply different. Te users trust a system that can produce physical, observable results. That’s also why Te users are known for being goal-oriented; they’re results oriented. Te wants to see results to prove the logic.

Ti, on the other hand, is different. Ti logic is subjective to the person, meaning it compares thoughts with thoughts. As a result, their thoughts end up interconnected to an extreme degree, such that it can be difficult to accept conflicting information even when it is externally verified… Thus, what appears to be externally verified may be discarded in favor of what the Ti user believes makes better sense. (For better or for worse…)

(Generally speaking, introverted functions are more abstract, and extraverted functions are concrete.)

2. Te is extraverted judging, while Ti is introverted judging

Perhaps I’m sounding redundant, but my aim is to keep this fairly simplistic by drawing out my reasoning from the basic concepts. Since Te is extraverted, Te users are quicker to share their judgements. Te is easier to verbalize because Te is verifiable… and quantifiable. Now, maybe you’re an INTJ, and you’re thinking that you’re terrible at verbalizing your thoughts. I’m not talking about your thoughts though. I’m talking about your judgments. Te is good at verbalizing judgements or reasoning, not necessarily information. Information draws from the perceiving functions. Judgements draw from the judging functions. Because Te is quicker to externalize their judgements, this can make them seem more rigid and critical. (They may not always be, but they can be.)

Now, obviously a Ti user can be critical. I’d never presume to say otherwise. Ti users may silently judge you all day long if you’re being irrational, but they will not be as quick to verbalize this judgement, since their judging function is introverted. Introverted functions are by nature harder to verbalize. Plus, Ti argues with itself. Because of the nature of Ti logic, it can be harder to project into the external world in a way that is linear and easy to understand. Once it has been analyzed long enough, it can certainly be verbalized in a quicker or sharper manner, which is why you will sometimes get sharp judgements coming from a Ti user, but this shouldn’t be that frequent in the average healthy user. Now, bear in mind, an extraverted Ti user will be quicker to make comments than an introverted Ti user, and an auxiliary Te user may reserve their judgement for a close inner circle. I’m speaking to tendencies, not rules.

3. Te compares logic to a gold standard, while Ti is more interested in connecting dots

Since Te logic is verified and external, there is a right and a wrong. Does this mean Te users think they know everything? No. Does this mean there are no gray areas? Not necessarily, but Te users compare their thoughts against external data. If the data exists, then there is a clear judgement to be made. Thus, they tend to view their conclusions more absolutely, due to how their logic works. They will take whatever information their perceiving function feeds them and draw the only perceivable “logical” conclusion (in their mind). As a result, they tend to struggle to understand people’s “bad logic”. After all, the information is the information, there can only be one logical conclusion. Te users essentially use themselves as a benchmark by which to compare other people to, which ties back into Fi. In some ways, this makes Te logic more rigid. It is what it is, and you’re clearly wrong.

Ti logic is different. Ti logic is more flexible and subjective. Since Ti users’ logic is more flexible, they assume a subjectivity in everyone’s logic. Ergo, now we have a moving target, of sorts. They’re not as quick to make judgements on others simply because they’re not holding people to their own personal standard. They’re holding a person to that person’s standard. See, a Ti user’s objective judgement function is Fe. Fe takes in objective data from the people around them, from the social dynamic. Fe will feed Ti data which Ti will use to “connect the dots” between the person’s actions in order to understand how they came to the decision they came to. Ti users don’t really need to “understand” the decision… They just need to understand what led up to it. They just want to connect the dots. In doing so, they will form a unique model for every person’s reasoning, using that as a benchmark by which to judge the individual’s actions. This is why Ti users are said to be focused on consistency. They want you to be consistent with yourself, not necessarily consistent with them or with reason or with the rest of the world… just consistent with yourself. Don’t break your own model.

Ryan and I butt heads about this all the time. He’ll adamantly declare that something someone did does not make any sense. I’ll be like “well, yeah it does. They did this, that, and the other because of blah blah blah”. He’ll then essentially shoot back with, “yeah, but that’s stupid. It doesn’t make any sense.” I’ll then end up responding with something along the lines of, “well yeah, it’s not logical… but it makes sense.” (Sounds like a contradiction, right?)

4. Te is quicker to adapt to external sources, while Ti may reject them

So, while I just stated a little while ago that Te logic is rigid and Ti logic is flexible, that is actually purely context dependent. Since Te logic is based in what is externally verifiable, if a Te user is presented with solid proof, they’ll be much quicker to adapt and change their stance. Now, granted, they may need to vet the source of the information. They won’t just readily assume any supposed authority is valid. They’ll notice misinformation and conflicting information, which may drive them to do a ton of research to figure out what’s what. But, if they determine that the information is coming from a valid, credible source, they’ll be quicker on average to adjust to the new data, because they ultimately compare their thoughts with external facts.

On the other hand, Ti can become extremely inflexible when presented with a contradiction to their own internal model. It won’t necessarily matter that it’s verified. They hold their internal model above anything external, so they may reject a supposed “fact”. However, with that being said, I’m not saying that they’re utterly irrational. If presented with something that is irrefutable, a healthy Ti user will adjust their thinking, but is not something that they’ll be eager to do since their thoughts are intricately woven together. But, of course, I’ve been speaking to an extreme. Dialing this back a notch, if they’re confronted with something new and verified, a Ti user (even if they ultimately accept it) will be more hesitant to accept it right away since they have to go through the process of comparing this new thought with all of their other thoughts. That process will take time. Ergo, the Ti user will need to ponder a while before forming a judgement on that new piece of information. This is one of the reasons why Ti users tend to act more hesitant, or use qualifying language to avoid stating absolute certainties. – They take longer to be “certain”. They’ve got to compare a new thought with all of their other thoughts. Their thoughts are the benchmark of truth for them.

5. Te deconstructs, while Ti builds from the ground up

First off, let me preface this entire section by saying don’t take this too literally. Take it in context with logic. Obviously, a Te user can build a physical building, and a Ti user can tear something down. However, in the realm of logic, Te users have a tendency to work backwards, while Ti users work from the ground up. That statement probably doesn’t make any sense though so let me explain.

As stated several times, a Te user is focused on results. So, if a Te user desires to understand something deeper, they will tend to start with the results and break them down, essentially deconstructing it down to its base components. You should also see this happen in debates and arguments. They’ll start with the premise and see if they can tear it apart. Essentially, they’ll want to verify the conclusion before subjecting themselves to the argument. The logic is meaningless if it leads to an incorrect result.

A Ti user does the reverse. Remember that they devalue the external, and focus on their personal understanding. To understand something, they will need to start from nothing and build up to the results. They need to understand every piece to feel as if they understand the whole. I can use this article (and most of my other theory articles) as an example for Ti in this context. I typically always start with root definitions and then build upon those, adding logic upon logic until I’ve reached the point or points that I was attempting to put forward.

In conclusion…

Talking about logic is always complicated due to the nature of the subject. I get tired of all the canned descriptions and overly complex jargon that gets put forward all the time. My goal here was to put forward something simple and understandable. Hopefully I achieved that, and you’ll leave this page with a deeper understanding of the inner workings of the Te and Ti minds.