The difference in worldview approaches between the valued Ti and Te is well illustrated by the two major legal systems in the world: the Roman-Germanic and Anglo-American.
The Roman-Germanic, or continental, legal system is distinguished by a clear division of legal norms and their hierarchical systematization. All normative legal acts are laid out in a single structure and are subordinated to each other depending on their legal force. Typically, the constitution possesses the highest legal force, followed by international agreements ratified by state bodies, then branch codes (criminal, civil, labor, administrative, etc.), after which “ordinary” laws come into play, and then other normative legal acts. Any norm that contradicts the highest source of law is null and void. This legal system is widespread throughout continental Europe, in Latin American countries, some Asian and African countries.
The Anglo-American legal system is characteristic of the United Kingdom and all of its former colonies, including the United States. Legal regulation and standardization are not typical of these countries, as the main source of law is legal precedent. This means that in making decisions on any issue, the judicial authority relies more on previous practice in cases of this kind than on normative legal acts. Thus, the application of law differs greatly in variability and largely depends on the skill of the lawyer, who must build a line of conduct in the judicial process based on successful precedents in such cases. Since this is much more difficult than simply understanding the branch code, reading the constitution and a couple of laws on the topic, the legal profession in countries with an Anglo-American legal system is incomparably more prestigious and highly paid than in countries with a continental legal system.
In the first case, we can see an explicit predominance of the Ti-approach in lawmaking. Legal norms are maximally “sorted out” so that even a person without a legal education can understand how the system of regulatory legal acts is organized. There is a clear division of legal norms into categories (branches), each of which covers a certain sphere of law application. The law is formulated as a set of rules of conduct that must (or can) be followed – here we can see a connection between the Ti and Fe aspects.
The second approach is focused on the practical application of the law, rather than on its study and codification. In any case, when it is necessary to analyze a specific case and make a decision, a judge asks the question: “How was it done before?” If precedents differ in diversity, then the judge has to make a decision based on subjective considerations, and here we can see, in addition to the Te aspect, the complementing Fi aspect.
It is impossible to say which legal system is better, just as it is impossible to say that the valued Ti is worse than the valued Te or vice versa. Each system is simply more comfortable for people of certain socionic types, as it corresponds to their natural worldview.