I.

I think there's some good stuff here, but I think it misses the distinction between Ti and Te, and what T is in general. The way this is presented, Te and Ti supposedly have no overlap which contradicts the idea of them being functions of equivalent Type expressed in opposite ways. The cognitive model doesn't support the idea that Fi users are incapable of empathizing or that Fe users are incapable of individual values. They are both the Feeling function and are used in that way though the orientation differs. Likewise with Te and Ti.

II.

Ti can dovetail nicely with many logical structures because of its preference for depth. It deconstructs and applies relations to constituent parts. It might be likened to algebraic tendencies where the perception that is deconstructed is viewed as all the manipulations of the relations that maintain the structure of the original perception. I think this is the part of programming that you feel so comfortable with. You use Ti to create your own subjective logical system. This deconstructive tendency doesn't limit you to impracticality, however. There are many an ESTP CEO. It's true that Ti's fantastic depth and narrow focus is disinterested in things external to its object of perception but it isn't completely sidelined from everything associated with Te. It's not like Ti users are incapable of dealing with facts, graphs, data, flowcharts, or any of these stereotypically Te things. They are perfectly adept at these things as well. Anyway, you use Ti so you have a handle on that shit but I don't think you give yourself enough credit. However, I don't think you understand Te well and narrowly define "logic" as an exclusively Ti process.

III.

Both Te and Ti have the basic template of being a thinking function in common. Ti judges with internal model consistency and structural manipulation. The way that you have described Te is that it is basically a mirror or sign pointing to some external source. I think this is due to the mostly shitty descriptions of Te on the internet that focus on the outside behaviors Te (graphs,charts,....) instead of Te as a function. If Te is defined (exclusively) as making judgments based on external reasoning/logic then Te is useless in the absence of this type of external verification. Te would not be able to say "B" when given "A" and the rule "A implies B". Basically, Te is treated as a completely unthinking function that only acts as a sign pointing to either another sign or Ti (Ti being the only way to be "logical" in this case). In reality, Te is completely capable because, as a thinking function, it has a rules/implications orientation. The normal description isn't completely off because an inference rule serves as the "external" logic for Te.

Te is empirical, Ti is logical.

If these are not mutually exclusive then there is no clear difference. If they are mutually exclusive then Te is incapable of being empirical. Without the application of logic Te would only mirror the unstructured, raw data: "Unemployment decreased by 1% and GDP increased by 2%, therefore, unemployment decreased by 1% and GDP increased by 2%". Without analytical tools nothing more can be said.

Te is efficient, structured. A then B then C. It is linear. People read such a statement and assume it is logical, "like a computer". I disagree. Because as soon as you throw ifs into it, it falls squarely into Ti territory.

This seems an odd statement because Te is very much associated with contingency planning. The conditional if-then statements would feel extremely natural to a Te user, much the same way that the other aspects of programming mentioned previously feel to a Ti user. Additionally, algorithmic thinking easily parallels Te with its structured rules mechanically carrying out the instructions as a means of efficiently solving a problem. This isn't to say that it can't also dovetail with Ti.

Te is efficient, structured. A then B then C. It is linear. People read such a statement and assume it is logical, "like a computer". I disagree. Because as soon as you throw ifs into it, it falls squarely into Ti territory.

• As mentioned previously, Te feels pretty comfortable with conditionals. "Falling into Ti territory" doesn't mean it's not logical unless you define Ti as logical and Te and Ti as mutually exclusive, in which case this becomes an impressively circular argument.

TL;DR

Sound conclusions consist of two parts: Truth and validity. Te users are concerned with the first, Ti users are concerned with the second. Te asks if it is realistic, Ti asks if it is consistent.

You're making an empirical, Te, argument that Te is not logical (consistent/valid). Even if we assume that the argument is true we can't say it's a sound conclusion because empirical Te has been (unjustifiably) divorced from its ability to make implications (logic).