Te vs. Ti: The Strengths and Weaknesses

We already have a couple of articles dedicated to Te vs Ti, such as 11 Differences Between Te and Ti Users and 5 Differences Between Te and Ti Logic. However, in this article, I would like to discuss how the underlying reasoning of Te vs. Ti leads to specific strengths and weaknesses. This article will be relevant to high users specifically, meaning those who have Te or Ti within their top two functions. In other words, this article will be most relevant to the TJs (ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ, ISTJ) and the TPs (ENTP, INTP, ESTP, ISTP). If you need some background information on these functions before I get started, see also: Introverted Judging Functions (Ti/Fi) and Extraverted Judging Functions (Fe/Te).

Does it Work (Te) vs. Does it Make Sense (Ti): Their first instinct

Many times, Te’s first instinct, when coming up against something it needs to reason out, is logistical in nature. The questions of how to do it, when to do it, and what is needed to accomplish the task are usually the first things to pop into their mind. Once honed in on a potential solution, if they can demonstrate to themselves that it works, they’ll use that as their starting point and work forward from there. The idea of how does it make sense, in these situations, is not always a priority. Watching it work or doing a quick test oftentimes is sufficient for them.

On the other hand, Ti’s first instinct frequently is: “do I understand what is going on? Can I make sense of it to myself?” The logistical aspect is not always the first priority. Instead, logistics will be secondary to the need to have a personal understanding of all the intricacies of a potential solution. They will want to know how it is going to work within the confines of what they are trying to do. A physical demonstration of it working within a different context (such as a different place or time) will not always be sufficient if that demonstration doesn’t show enough to make it “click” for the Ti user, so to speak.

These are the initial tendencies for Ti and Te. It doesn’t mean that Ti cannot do the Te thing (and vice versa). However, each has their own “first instinct”, and will deem that the most important initial aspect to have a grasp on before moving on to the other necessary steps of reasoning. In this way, the two functions will work from different ends, but at some point, inevitably cross paths with one another.

External (Te) vs. Internal (Ti): Where they draw their information from

Te will have a stronger tendency to draw from the external world for information. In addition, Te users will prefer to use the external world to prove (or demonstrate) that they are right. They will not always find it necessary to lay out an entirely consistent and logically airtight argument for something if they can simply demonstrate that it works. The simple act of proving that something produces a specific result can often times be enough for them. They will think it should suffice for others as well. While Te certainly wants things to make sense, if something just works, they don’t always need to have a completely airtight understanding as to why.

On the other hand, Ti will have a stronger tendency to draw from the internal world for information. They will have a greater tendency to lean into how something makes sense, or desire to demonstrate why something is logically sound. They can be dismissive of real world demonstrations, if these demonstrations can’t be backed up with sound reasoning explaining why it worked. As a result, they can be skeptical of real world proofs, citing that it could be missing something or could be a misrepresentation. This can be especially true if the demonstration goes against what they personally have worked out, since it defies their logic.

Again, this does not mean that Ti cannot or does not use real world demonstrations to back up their logical points, nor does it mean that Te will fail to provide logically sound reasoning for things. However, as a whole, Te will probably place more value on something that they can concretely prove will work, while Ti will probably place more value on something that they believe to be logically sound.

Incorporate (Te) vs. Isolate (Ti): How does the reasoning operate

Te users will initially want to build their logic off of a current, existing structure. They want to incorporate their logic with the external world; they want it to work with what is already out there. Therefore, they have a tendency to leverage the components already available to them and see if they can make these components work for them in different ways. They’d rather tweak what is already existing to make it do what they want (i.e.: using a known working base and going from there.) This usually ties back to a desire for efficiency. If something already exists, it is more efficient to utilize that if possible than to spend time coming up with some novel way of doing it.

Ti logic comes across as more isolated. There seems to be a tendency to reject what is already existing in the external world in favor of working it all out internally. They take in small pieces or chunks of information, and see what they can personally derive from it. They integrate this new information with their internal understanding, and build on it before letting more chunks from the outside come in. Ti users want to validate and internalize the external information instead of accepting it for what it is.

This does not mean that Te can’t reject external information or logic, or that Te is always open-minded. They can easily start to cherry-pick certain external information, while rejecting other pieces. Likewise, they can create new logical constructs based on their internalized information. However, this will not be their first instinct. In contrast, Ti can also take and build off the already known. They do not always have to recreate everything from scratch within their own mind, but their first instinct is to do so, and given an abundance of time, they’ll prefer it.

Incomplete knowledge (Te) vs. Impractical (Ti): The shortcomings of each approach

While the Te approach often appears practical and grounded, it is not without shortcomings. The tendency to look for what is already working can, at times, box out other angles or avenues of doing something. Furthermore, the tendency to just utilize existing systems or products can at times leave the user lacking a deeper understanding of the intricacies of the process that is being used. While they may know enough about the process they are using to bend it to their will, they may not have taken the time to learn how to completely break down the process to its key concepts and reform it into something entirely new and different. This is not to say that they can’t accomplish such things, but they are usually not looking to do so. For better or for worse, they would rather utilize what already exists, rationalizing that it is more efficient to optimize something that already works than coming up with a completely new process (even if, in the long run, it would save even more time).

On the other hand, Ti has the opposite problem, where it may get stuck for too long in the phase of trying to understand every nuance of how something works. This can lead to less than optimal outcomes, especially if they come to the conclusion that what they just spent all that time on is actually of no use to them. (In other words, they realize it won’t work the way they thought, and have to throw it all away.) In much the same way, the endeavor to make the entire system logically consistent with itself can lead to it being stripped of any practical application or real world value for the sake of its consistency, making it functionally useless. This is not to say that this will always be the case, but a Ti user’s pitfall will be more in this realm.

For example, as bloggers, Mara and I could spend all of our time fine-tuning old articles, as we learn more and more about type theory. Essentially, we could ensure that everything we’ve ever written is perfectly accurate and consistent with itself. However, doing so would rob us of any time to create new content, preventing us from being successful. We could also ignore external SEO standards in favor of writing what we believe to be most informative or useful. However, doing so, would make people unable to find our content, rendering it useless.

External leveraging (Te) vs. Internal retooling (Ti): The strengths of each approach

Because Te focuses on what it practically applicable, their strength is in identifying quickly what will work or leveraging what may be useful. This has the obvious benefit of allowing one to be up and running with whatever is available to them, and ensuring whatever is being implemented will work right from the beginning. The efficiency of Te logic is especially beneficial in situations where time is of the essence. While they may not have built the best mouse trap (so to speak), they have resourcefully used what was available to them to make a functional “mouse trap”. Sometimes, that is all that matters. The focus on understanding an already working process just enough to replicate it can be very advantageous, because not only does it provide a great starting point but it allows problems to be solved immediately.

Ti having a focus on the thorough understanding of a system has the strength of flexible application. The deeper the understanding of how something works, the easier it will be to know what it is (and what is not) capable of. Knowing this information can allow them to build on it in more extensive ways, or re-apply the knowledge in different ways that would not always be directly obvious, especially to someone without a deeper understanding of the subject matter. Once this level of logical consistency is achieved, it will be very easy for the one in possession of that knowledge to quickly gauge if something will work, and how it will work, even without having some external application to prove its efficacy.

However, the strengths of these two systems of logic are the best highlighted when used in tandem with each other. The great consistency of the Ti logic when applied to the practical application of the Te logic will inevitably leave you with something that works much better than it did before. Furthermore, it will work with greater reliability and be less prone to error or breakdown. The Te reasoning will balance aspects of Ti, keeping it rooted in external application. Meanwhile, the Ti reasoning will temper aspects of Te that sacrifices depth of understanding for the sake of forward movement or accomplishing the goal.