# Fi vs. Ti moral values (I need to understand Ti moral values)



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

As someone who is probably Ti/Fe, I tend to look more at possible consequences of an action and whether the risk is worth it. There are some things I believe just should not be done, but there are rules I would break if I thought I could get away with it.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

HandiAce said:


> It would look like this: "I know how to accomplish some good in my life. I know what I am doing is correct and I have facts to show that it is undeniably the right thing."
> 
> Rather than knowing to yourself what will truly accomplish what you feel is morally correct, you also pay attention to tangible evidence to support why you feel the way you do.


Okay, let's take today. I had an online test, and it had to be completed by tuesday. Now the professor gave us the test online and told us not to cheat or use notes. Now in my mind I thought, "Fuck that! If the guy is gonna give us a test online, he would expect us to cheat. I mean, if he didn't expect us to cheat, then why would he give us the test online." I mean, internally it sounded wrong to me, but I really didn't give a shit and went ahead and cheated on the test anyway. I just figured, well cheating on this test will give me a better grade...getting a better grade will lead to a degree...a degree will lead to more job opportunities....and getting a good job will allow me to eventually donate more money to the poor. So realistically, cheating on the test would be the right decision to make. 

I believe that Ti was guiding that decision, am I wrong?


----------



## Rachel Something (Jan 30, 2012)

It would seem that Fi morality generally does not require the same amount of logical consistency as that of Ti. And indeed, *consistency* is a pretty fundamental part of Ti. To be honest, Fi is a bit of an enigma to me. Many of the descriptions I've read on Fi seem kind of vague to me... My guess is that due to the highly subjective nature of Fi, it's difficult to put it into words. Also, I'm guessing that some Fi users may believe that something is right or wrong but may find it difficult to articulate the reasoning behind that judgement. That said, I believe that Fi and Ti users can share the same values, but the reasoning behind them may differ.

With regard to your "Sex and the City II" reference, if I were in Carrie's position, I would also choose to come clean to my partner about my infidelity simply because I would want the same sort of honesty from him (since honesty is of fundamental importance to me in a relationship.) To withhold the truth would be to deliberately go against my principles of honesty - ergo, a glaring inconsistency between my values and my behaviour. Moreover, to expect honesty from him despite my own dishonesty towards him would reflect a glaring inconsistency between how I want him to treat me, and how I am treating him. (I am willing to do something to him, but I am unwilling that the same thing be done to me.) 

As a dominant Ti user (INTP), I can't really bring myself to believe that something is right or wrong "just because it is." There has to be some kind of reason for it, and that reason has to make sense within the realm of the ideological framework that I have constructed for myself. Other Ti users may have values that are different from mine in many ways, yet similar in the sense there is the need for some sort of logical coherence.


----------



## Remcy (Dec 19, 2011)

This is a fascinating thread. Made me think about how I form my moral values.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

It's been said, but Ti doesn't deal in morality; Ti deals with internal consistency. Ti+Fe morality would be concerned with doing what was logical, while considering the feelings of everyone who would be affected, while Fi morality would mainly be concerned with the user's personal feelings about something.


----------



## MiriMiriAru (May 1, 2011)

Dark Romantic said:


> It's been said, but Ti doesn't deal in morality; Ti deals with internal consistency. Ti+Fe morality would be concerned with doing what was logical, while considering the feelings of everyone who would be affected, while Fi morality would mainly be concerned with the user's personal feelings about something.


Exactly. This is pretty much exactly how I deal with things, logic moderated by potential harm. Fi tends not to be concerned with other people much (unless this is part of the individual's morality), and works entirely on the basis of subjective opinion...


----------



## madferit (May 7, 2011)

The Great One said:


> *I am an ENFP.* When I do something immoral, I feel awful. When I commit an attrocius act, I will continue to think about it, and think about it, until I do something to rectify that immoral act. It will be almost be as if that immoral act is a thorn in my side and I need to find a way to get that thorn out. In addition, all of my moral values are just automatic, and are very black and white: this is bad and that is good, and no inbetween.
> 
> What I have noticed with Ti users however, is that they tend to have moral values that are in shades of grey. Ti users often say, "Well this is usually bad, but under these certain circumstances, it may be deemed moral". I, on the other hand, am not like that. In my world, what I have done is either wrong or right no matter what the circumstances.
> 
> ...


Are you an ENTP or an ENFP?


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

madferit said:


> Are you an ENTP or an ENFP?


I'm in the process of figuring that out right now. I'm right on the borderline.


----------



## madferit (May 7, 2011)

The Great One said:


> I'm in the process of figuring that out right now. I'm right on the borderline.


That's a first. I've never seen someone struggling between T or F. It's usually J/P or E/I.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

madferit said:


> That's a first. I've never seen someone struggling between T or F. It's usually J/P or E/I.


I'm definitely an ENxP. It's just that I am either an ENFP with a heavy Te or an ENTP with a heavy Fe.


----------



## madferit (May 7, 2011)

The Great One said:


> I'm definitely an ENxP. It's just that I am either an ENFP with a heavy Te or an ENTP with a heavy Fe.


I thought Te was an ENTJ thing. Probably you were meaning Ti(or Ne)?


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

The Great One said:


> Okay, let's take today. I had an online test, and it had to be completed by tuesday. Now the professor gave us the test online and told us not to cheat or use notes. Now in my mind I thought, "Fuck that! If the guy is gonna give us a test online, he would expect us to cheat. I mean, if he didn't expect us to cheat, then why would he give us the test online." I mean, internally it sounded wrong to me, but I really didn't give a shit and went ahead and cheated on the test anyway. I just figured, well cheating on this test will give me a better grade...getting a better grade will lead to a degree...a degree will lead to more job opportunities....and getting a good job will allow me to eventually donate more money to the poor. So realistically, cheating on the test would be the right decision to make.
> 
> I believe that Ti was guiding that decision, am I wrong?


That writing seems pretty Ti-minded to me. You are picking apart the implications of your professor's actions like a good Ti-mind would do  

An ENFP might think something like "I do want a good grade so I can accomplish something meaningful, even if it does mean cheating. I am a good person and I would want that to show through my mastery of this course!"


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

I thought Te was an ENTJ thing. Probably you were meaning Ti(or Ne)? 

I was talking about my tertiary function, and not my auxiliary.



> That writing seems pretty Ti-minded to me. You are picking apart the implications of your professor's actions like a good Ti-mind would do
> 
> An ENFP might think something like "I do want a good grade so I can accomplish something meaningful, even if it does mean cheating. I am a good person and I would want that to show through my mastery of this course!"


Thank you for being the first person to actually answer my question


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

The Great One said:


> I thought Te was an ENTJ thing. Probably you were meaning Ti(or Ne)?
> 
> I was talking about my tertiary function, and not my auxiliary.
> 
> ...


No problem 

Here's another test from @*NiDBiLD *:

You (Ti): I have made a blueprint for a house. It will be totally awesome. It will not need any outside source of water or electricity. I have solved that. Also, it will keep warm the year around. I have solved that problem too. This is the perfect house. I know this.

Te Person: *looks at the blueprint* ... ... Uhm. Sorry to say this, but um... Based on the carrying power of steel, this structure wouldn't be able to hold it's own weight.

If your reaction to the Te guy is "Damn you!" Then you have Ti-Fe orientation.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

@The Great One: This is how you tell the difference between Ti and Te. Let's say that a Ti and a Te user make a plan, and it fails;

Te: Well, that plan didn't work. Let's go and find one which does!

Ti: Ok, the plan failed, but _why_? It made perfect sense!

Te goes with what's logical in practice, while Ti goes with what's logical according to a principle. Te will skip over what doesn't work and implement what _does_, while Ti will try to design things so that they _do_ work, or figure out why they don't. This is because Ti constructs logical principles by which to gain an accurate judgement of the world; if these principles are off, the Ti user will want to adjust them until they're correct.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Everyone has access to moral values. The functions are about what we pay attention to in situations.
Fi will pay more attention to [universal] moral values directly, while Ti will base morality on logical arguments. This might work just as well, but it won't consistently follow universal values. Technical details will often find loopholes. Then, immature Fe will tend to hide behind the environment, to find moral justification.

In my experience, when this vulnerable Fe feels threatened, I'm left "out there" with a default Fi perspective ("right brain Crow's Nest"? Instead of being able to merge with an object, it seems the relevant moral issues are abstracted and stand out subjectively), that gives a strong sense of guilt. This is good to know for those struggling with T/F(P) preference, as this might sound like FP/Fi "evaluating congruence, weighing good and bad", but the context is a more negative one, when Ti/Fe fails, and the usually neglected perspective is forced into consciousness, so it is compatible with a TP preference.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Eric B

So, are you saying that the demonic function can erupt if the inferior fails too often or if a user lacks self-confidence around the inferior?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

Yes, as the "Demon" is the shadow of the inferior. The inferior is very vulnerable, and the Demon compensates for it. That might be why the associated function might come up "stronger" on the K2C test, as we're discussing elsewhere.

I wonder if it's always necessarily a "Demon" constellation when it comes up as a Crow's Nest. When Lenore Thomson devised that model' Beebe's archetype theory wasn't really put yet, so she didn't say they were the same (Since adding discussion of Beebe's model, she believes the Demon is more associated with severe trauma, anyway, so it wouldn't be the same to her).

Still, the "8th place" function in one way or another is something that will come up either when the dominant is stumped, or when the ego feels really threatened (which might be when the inferior is under attack), —or both. (It's not hard to see how these situations could be the same thing).


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

Dark Romantic said:


> @_The Great One_ : This is how you tell the difference between Ti and Te. Let's say that a Ti and a Te user make a plan, and it fails;
> 
> Te: Well, that plan didn't work. Let's go and find one which does!
> 
> ...


Okay well, I'm definitely more interested in how things work as opposed to making things work. It's just that I have a very bad temper and sometimes want to break stuff when I can't make something work that I know should work. I explore every possibility of how I could possibly make something work, then I try to make it work. If it then doesn't work, I want to break things because I JUST KNEW THE DAMN THING WOULD WORK AND NOW IT DOESN'T! FUCK!

Another comment that I would add is that I hate things that are difficult to operate and make work. I try to make things as simple as possible. Why should I complicate things, you know? KISS is my motto in life..."Keep in Simple Stupid."


----------



## myexplodingcat (Feb 6, 2011)

HandiAce said:


> That writing seems pretty Ti-minded to me. You are picking apart the implications of your professor's actions like a good Ti-mind would do
> 
> An ENFP might think something like "I do want a good grade so I can accomplish something meaningful, even if it does mean cheating. I am a good person and I would want that to show through my mastery of this course!"


Uhhhh... 

Ti is actually very outspoken about its principles. This ^ would be using Ti only minimally, to defend an Extroverted wish.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

madferit said:


> I thought Te was an ENTJ thing. Probably you were meaning Ti(or Ne)?


No. All FPs have Te. ExFPs have tertiary Te and IxFPs have inferior Te.

FPs do not have Ti. Fi clashes with Ti in the extreme. 

In fact FPs can seem "J-ish" by certain people's standards when they are employing Te to control the external environment, or suddenly become uncharacteristically harsh.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

The Great One said:


> Okay well, I'm definitely more interested in how things work as opposed to making things work. *It's just that I have a very bad temper and sometimes want to break stuff when I can't make something work that I know should work*. I explore every possibility of how I could possibly make something work, then I try to make it work. If it then doesn't work, I want to break things because I JUST KNEW THE DAMN THING WOULD WORK AND NOW IT DOESN'T! FUCK!
> 
> Another comment that I would add is that *I hate things that are difficult to operate and make work. I try to make things as simple as possible. Why should I complicate things, you know?* KISS is my motto in life..."Keep in Simple Stupid."


Yeah, sounds like you've got Te.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Dark Romantic said:


> @The Great One: This is how you tell the difference between Ti and Te. Let's say that a Ti and a Te user make a plan, and it fails;
> 
> Te: Well, that plan didn't work. Let's go and find one which does!
> 
> ...


I relate strongly to this. I've noticed in an immediate context - like when I'm cooking or just doing things around the house, I will just grab things that work in the moment even if its not meant for that purpose because...it works. Period. 

I think my Te more clashes with Fe in this sense, maybe, that it doesn't have to be "meant" for that purpose, I'm more concerned that my goal will be accomplished than how. 

Of course it's nice to have conventional tools, but I don't necessarily need them.


----------



## Dental Floss Tycoon (Apr 4, 2011)

Remcy said:


> This is a fascinating thread. Made me think about how I form my moral values.


Yep, I was thinking the same thing. Also, I still can't know for sure if I'm either Te/Fi (INTJ) or Fe/Ti (INFJ).


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

> An ENFP might think something like "I do want a good grade so I can accomplish something meaningful, even if it does mean cheating. I am a good person and I would want that to show through my mastery of this course!"


No, this is what the ENFP is question did, this is not commonly what an ENFP would do. Don't confuse this with ENFP in general. Some of us got goods grades by knowing the material, not cheating. 

@The Great One. This professor must have been quite stupid to give his class an assignment outside of school and say, don't cheat. In my days at University, there was no such thing. We actually got graded on what we knew, not how well we could use the internet. Damn, its no wonder kids slide along in the Education system today. So happy i got my education when the internet , phones and all that stuff wasn't available. We actually graduated knowing the work. I've heard this many times now how the education system is so easy these days. Cheating is too available, too easy. Phones are the way to all the answers ....apparently, so i hear .


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> No, this is what the ENFP is question did, this is not commonly what an ENFP would do. Don't confuse this with ENFP in general. Some of us got goods grades by knowing the material, not cheating.
> 
> @The Great One. This professor must have been quite stupid to give his class an assignment outside of school and say, don't cheat. In my days at University, there was no such thing. We actually got graded on what we knew, not how well we could use the internet. Damn, its no wonder kids slide along in the Education system today. So happy i got my education when the internet , phones and all that stuff wasn't available. We actually graduated knowing the work. I've heard this many times now how the education system is so easy these days. Cheating is too available, too easy. Phones are the way to all the answers ....apparently, so i hear .


I rarely ever cheat. Take for example this weekend: I studied all weekend for my Spanish exam. BTW, the professor overheard someone saying something about cheating on the exam by googling the answers. The professor then responded, "Did you actually believe that B.S. I fed you? Of course, I expected you to cheat on the exam. I just did it to boost your grades. So I don't feel that bad.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

The Great One said:


> I rarely ever cheat. Take for example this weekend: I studied all weekend for my Spanish exam. BTW, the professor overheard someone saying something about cheating on the exam by googling the answers. The professor then responded, "Did you actually believe that B.S. I fed you? Of course, I expected you to cheat on the exam. I just did it to boost your grades. So I don't feel that bad.


That sounds strange for a professor to want to boost grades through cheating. They just don't make teachers and professors like they used to


----------



## alamont (Mar 23, 2011)

*Te versus Ti*

I find it really simple to understandthe differences between the two function-attitudes. Te is focused on planning, and executing the plan. It wants that execution regulated logically so there are no panic moments. I think of it as operationalizing. Ti is focused on understanding precisely. It wants things defined or named as precisely as possible. While both are thinking functions they are focused on totally different things. One might think of it as Ti defines or identifies the goal and Te develops and executes a plan to achieve the goal.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> That sounds strange for a professor to want to boost grades through cheating. They just don't make teachers and professors like they used to


He views it more as "allowing us to use our notes" than he does cheating.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

The Great One said:


> He views it more as "allowing us to use our notes" than he does cheating.


Now I've seen everything!

I used to view STUDYING and TAKING NOTES as cheating. If I do well on a test, it's because I didn't have to look at any material because I knew all of the answers.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

HandiAce said:


> Now I've seen everything!
> 
> I used to view STUDYING and TAKING NOTES as cheating. If I do well on a test, it's because I didn't have to look at any material because I knew all of the answers.


Yeah, he's a pretty interesting professor.


----------



## HandiAce (Nov 27, 2009)

The Great One said:


> Yeah, he's a pretty interesting professor.


And you make interesting judgements which seem supposedly morally sound. ENFP for YOU!


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

HandiAce said:


> And you make interesting judgements which seem supposedly morally sound. ENFP for YOU!



Yeah, you saw what Simulatedworld said. You were there!


----------



## traceur (Jan 19, 2012)

although this has more to do with my Fe then my Ti, i have come to believe that people with strong Fi are most immoral people in my book.

not all of them, but since so many of them believe in the concept of victimless crimes being... crimes, that there are things that are "wrong" for no good reason and without causing anyone harm, and due to that belief, in the process of condemning & prosecuting people who have done no harm to anyone else, they are actually more often then not the only ones doing anyone any harm.

if you let your Fi lead you into believing you have a right to hurt someone who has not hurt anyone else, then your an immoral [insert something i'd probably get an infraction for], and i don't care how your super powers of moral divination tell you that something other people do is "innately wrong".


----------



## alamont (Mar 23, 2011)

To address the original post kregarding understanding Ti moral values. Ti has nothing to do with moral values. Fi is where we find one's moral values. We need to understand that every person uses both Ti and Fi, so everyone has moral values. However moral values differ from person to person and a lot of how they differ depends on how the world is defined for them, and Ti has the responsibility to define things for us.


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

traceur said:


> although this has more to do with my Fe then my Ti, i have come to believe that people with strong Fi are most immoral people in my book.
> 
> not all of them, but since so many of them believe in the concept of victimless crimes being... crimes, that there are things that are "wrong" for no good reason and without causing anyone harm, and due to that belief, in the process of condemning & prosecuting people who have done no harm to anyone else, they are actually more often then not the only ones doing anyone any harm.
> 
> if you let your Fi lead you into believing you have a right to hurt someone who has not hurt anyone else, then your an immoral [insert something i'd probably get an infraction for], and i don't care how your super powers of moral divination tell you that something other people do is "innately wrong".


Interesting. Can you give me some real life examples? I'm not condemning what you have to say? I am just trying to get a better grasp on it.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Adding my .02

Ti - Does this make sense?
Fe - Do other people value this?

Fi - Is this right?
Te - Is this true?

Ti/Fe - Logically considerate action
Fi/Te - Ethically correct action

Ti dislikes Te because Te only looks at what is true and what is not, as opposed to Ti, which tries to make sense of everything.
Fi dislikes Fe because Fe only looks at what other people value, as opposed to Fi which tries to sort out what is right and why.


----------



## mangiferaindica (Jun 13, 2012)

> For instance I'm not one to steal, but one exception I've made is with music when a song I really like is not available for purchase legally, I'd grab an illegal copy. (Justification: nobody is losing money off something they are not even selling)


But if you continue that train of thought, you'll recognize that in the future when they start selling copies, you've effectively stolen from them in the past and robbed them of income. Marketers objectively withhold sales to create anticipation for the product, which you are getting around illegally.

I'm not judging, I do it to.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

mangiferaindica said:


> But if you continue that train of thought, you'll recognize that in the future when they start selling copies, you've effectively stolen from them in the past and robbed them of income. Marketers objectively withhold sales to create anticipation for the product, which you are getting around illegally.


I think that would depend on whether the person bought the product when it became available. This is often a case made with scanlations, for example; those presenting the scans encourage the readers to buy the official licensed copy if one is ever made. Not everyone will, of course, but the idea is there.



MrShatter said:


> Adding my .02
> 
> Ti - Does this make sense?
> Fe - Do other people value this?
> ...


I would amend this to "what they feel is right and why". Fi does not have a monopoly on what is "right and true", as it were; rather, they're more comfortable searching within themselves for that right or wrong than they are with looking to see what those around them value.


----------



## MrShatter (Sep 28, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> I would amend this to "what they feel is right and why". Fi does not have a monopoly on what is "right and true", as it were; rather, they're more comfortable searching within themselves for that right or wrong than they are with looking to see what those around them value.


I was referring to the moral reflection of Fi, the deep excavation of value, not the act of attributing value itself.


----------



## AvocatInTraining (Nov 18, 2012)

The Great One said:


> I am an ENFP. When I do something immoral, I feel awful. When I commit an attrocius act, I will continue to think about it, and think about it, until I do something to rectify that immoral act. It will be almost be as if that immoral act is a thorn in my side and I need to find a way to get that thorn out. In addition, all of my moral values are just automatic, and are very black and white: this is bad and that is good, and no inbetween.
> 
> What I have noticed with Ti users however, is that they tend to have moral values that are in shades of grey. Ti users often say, "Well this is usually bad, but under these certain circumstances, it may be deemed moral". I, on the other hand, am not like that. In my world, what I have done is either wrong or right no matter what the circumstances.
> 
> Also, I've found that when I commit an immoral act, as I said, it bugs me to rectify that immoral act. However, it seems as though this doesn't happen with Ti users. With Ti users, it seems as though that just say, "Well that wasn't good on my part", and then they just move on like nothing ever happened.


Well you're right that's exactly what I'm like. I acknowledge what I've done wrong and that's it really, I can possibly get away with murder if I convince myself it was right. But the only expection is towards my mum, if I hurt her, I feel guilty and apologize straight away, even if I don't really feel sorry because then she'll make my life hell. But generally I couldn't care less, but then I wouldn't get myself in that situation, my Thinking side allows me to think of the consequences so I hardly do anything bad. My number one phrase is 'if only murder was legal' meaning that I don't really care about the morality behind it but the idea of being in jail is what keeps me on the right track. :mellow:


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Moral complex has zilch to do with type. Fi is not morality (it does tend to fall in line with ethical/ideal-serving adjustment toward the ego and its values though (sort of the "what's good for me must certainly have positives in store for the world to live up to in various ways as well" mentality), which Ti doms pretty much completely repress in favor of accepting conceptual truths of adjustment toward the ego and it's values as their guiding force). The fact that Ti doms would prefer the conceptual for this reason so much probably comes from them having a horrible relationship with the Fi version (same would go for Fi doms). The conceptual probably has a strong emotional ring for these types, because it's fundamentally the answer to all of their problems with the valuational. Why this becomes the case with them I don't know. They both might or might not have strong moral complexes though. I think Ti doms are a bit famous for completely denying the possible existence of ethical significance in anything and instead, just substitute this with "the truth" or "people's biggest problems come from them not instinctively caring enough about their own personal realities or personal comfort zones, which they often consider the product of unfathomable stupidity." They might also deny that evaluational ideals have any influence on people's decisions and instead, try to tie this to some ultimate a priori conceptual force that underlies anything that might look like an ethical/emotionally self-centered/narcissistic-looking reasoning phenomenon.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Moral complex has zilch to do with type. Fi is not morality (it does tend to fall in line with ethical/ideal-serving adjustment toward the ego and its values though (sort of the "what's good for me must certainly have positives in store for the world to live up to in various ways as well" mentality), which Ti doms pretty much completely repress in favor of accepting conceptual truths of adjustment toward the ego and it's values as their guiding force). The fact that Ti doms would prefer the conceptual for this reason so much probably comes from them having a horrible relationship with the Fi version (same would go for Fi doms). The conceptual probably has a strong emotional ring for these types, because it's fundamentally the answer to all of their problems with the valuational. Why this becomes the case with them I don't know. They both might or might not have strong moral complexes though. I think Ti doms are a bit famous for completely denying the possible existence of ethical significance in anything and instead, just substitute this with "the truth" or "people's biggest problems come from them not instinctively caring enough about their own personal realities or personal comfort zones, which they often consider the product of unfathomable stupidity." They might also deny that evaluational ideals have any influence on people's decisions and instead, try to tie this to some ultimate a priori conceptual force that underlies anything that might look like an ethical/emotionally self-centered/narcissistic-looking reasoning phenomenon.


Hmmm. So, on the one hand, "moral complex has zilch to do with type" but, on the other hand, "Ti doms are a bit famous for completely denying the possible existence of ethical significance in anything."

Well, you're certainly _flexible_ in your views. I'll say that for you.

Also: In case you've forgotten, you've previously noted (in this very thread):



JungyesMBTIno said:


> This 100%! I've noticed the exact same observations around Fe and Ti with my INTP twin sister and *couldn't be more certain that Ti is an amoral function*.


Meanwhile, for what it's worth, Jung associated what you might call an _internal_ (conscience-driven) sense of morality (in contrast to, e.g., just worrying about getting caught) both with introversion and with the "rational" functions — and especially F.

I'm thinking maybe you should change your name to JungnoMBTIno. Or how about JungMBTIYesorNoDependingonWhichPartofMyPostYouRead?

Anyway, somewhat consistent with Jung, Big Five studies have correlated various aspects of moral scrupulousness with both Agreeableness (the Big Five F equivalent) and Conscientiousness (the Big Five J equivalent, which I'd argue significantly corresponds to Jung's "rational types") — which suggests that TPs might be more prone to amorality than other types.

In case anyone's interested, I go into more detail about why I think TPs might be the most amorality-prone types at the gut level in this post (from a more recent thread about "Which personality type in your opinion is the most prone to being amoral?").


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ugh, just no. While I think young xNTPs more so than xSTPs (xSTPs tend to have more of a living-let-live attitude) can appear as more amoral than other kinds of people, I think this is because Ti does simply not think of things in the way of whether something is morally right or wrong but judges situations based on context and what seems to be the logically appopriate response. 

With that said, I was actually quite prone to black and white thinking as I was younger and I think this is not all too uncommon either, especially until the Ji dominant type develops their auxiliary function.


----------



## Cellar Door (Jun 3, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Ugh, just no. While I think young xNTPs more so than xSTPs (xSTPs tend to have more of a living-let-live attitude) can appear as more amoral than other kinds of people, I think this is because Ti does simply not think of things in the way of whether something is morally right or wrong but judges situations based on context and what seems to be the logically appopriate response.
> 
> With that said, I was actually quite prone to black and white thinking as I was younger and I think this is not all too uncommon either, especially until the Ji dominant type develops their auxiliary function.


I would agree to some extent, but a lot of people are like that when they are younger. As them come of age they're going try to nail down their beliefs and its a process. No one's going to have something nuanced off the bat. I think that the perception of NTP and STP immorality comes from the Fi camp.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Cellar Door said:


> I would agree to some extent, but a lot of people are like that when they are younger. As them come of age they're going try to nail down their beliefs and its a process. No one's going to have something nuanced off the bat. I think that the perception of NTP and STP immorality comes from the Fi camp.


Yes, the point I was making entirely was that I think J dominant types are probably a bit more likely than P types, but I might be wrong XD I'm basing this on that J dominant types are more likely to judge a situation early and when the auxiliary function is not well-developed which is true for young people, you will end up with a person who can be overly black and white because they only trust their internal jugdement without taking in sufficient P data. 

This is true regardless of Ti or Fi in my opinion. You see a lot of young NTs for example being extremely militant when it comes to religiuos beliefs, especially atheism, and I find that at least based off my personal experiences interacting with people when I was myself rather militant, those that were the most militant were actually dominant J types (not all of them took the MBTI and got correct results, I've self-typed them afterwards to confirm). The most accepting person out of the bunch was a dominant Ne type, and he's most likely an ENTP. I know based on how he writes on Facebook XD It's ridiculous at times. So much Ne. The other person who was P dominant was an INTJ and she was a bit aggressive but nowhere near as aggressive as the ENTJ and ISTP were (including myself as well). And I don't think it was entirely symptomic of our specific group as I see the pattern being repeated in general. 

I do however think that Ti dominant types are more likely to feel strongly about values concerning logic rather than morality though, although agian, SeTi types have an extreme living-let-live attitude that is very much often quite no-nonsense and common-sensical, e.g. I have never seen god so why should god exist? While people might say to me that it's a stereotype and not a very good example, I think you should go back and study young xSTP types and see how they really seem to think and reason about this. You will be surprised. 

xNTP types tend to reason more based on theory, e.g. why should we believe in god when it's logically easier to say that there is no god?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Ti doesn't have to have regrets about atrocious actions because Ti, by nature has weighed something out.
Most of the time anyway.


----------



## msg_v2 (Mar 29, 2013)

I'm not sure if these are strictly Ti moral values, but there are definite values that seem to have an emphasis in NTs, or at least INTP's and ENTP's.

One of these is honesty. NT's seem to believe it's very important to be hones especially about emotional and personal matters. You can also see this in the discussion about cheating earlier in this thread! We appreciate directness, and we tend to think it's kinder to be honest than "nice." (Although I certainly understand the importance of tact.)

Another one is fairness. Moral actions take place in a logical system of their own. In particular, I find myself thinking, "I would never expect that of someone is this situation, how dare they expect that of me? Why would they think it's ok to ask that of me?" If someone violates our sense of fairness, we have a tendency to be unforgiving. It doesn't matter what someone's reasons were for violating our fairness system, they shouldn't have done that! They _had _to have known it was a shitty thing to do!

We're also really into meritocracy, and believe, in an ideal world, individuals should succeed based on how competent they are, rather than how much they can charm people or get others to like them, or something else that we regard as superficial bullshit.

I find the characterization of Ti users as amoral sort of hilarious.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I think it's a misconception to think of Ti as being prone towards amorality.

It's just a lens through which morals get evaluated.

If I'm using a "feeling" lens, then morals are quite a different matter, than if I am to evaluate my morals from a strictly logical perspective.

After-all, look at a man like Immanual Kant, someone Jung himself pegged as a clearly Ti-type.



> "Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper."




Well, let's actually _look_ at Immanual Kant then.

Kant is perhaps most famous for his well-known "categorical imperative" - and here we find a man whose _entire life_ was devoted entirely to philosophy and "right" moral reasoning, especially his ideas about *freedom*.

I can't imagine a more clear example of why I strongly disagree with this idea of Ti-types as being labeled as "less moral" than any other type.

Honestly, I imagine that would better apply to a Te-type imo, if you read Jung's description of them. But I won't go that far either, because I don't think that Jung was intending to be as extreme as people are being about all of this throughout this discussion.

While I _do_ believe that, taken to some kind of abstract, metaphysical _extreme_ - we can start to comprehend this "thinking" function as being precisely that - something _truly amoral and without any resemblance to feeling whatsoever._ But that is only useful as a _conceptual distinction meant to offer an extreme contrast only to make the two functions more apparent in actuality._ It would be absurd to assume that such an extreme contrast _actually defines_ these functions the way Jung intended them.


----------



## msg_v2 (Mar 29, 2013)

Yes. There is a well-defined systematic aspect to my morals. Like, if Stacy gets really upset about me discussing X with her, and then a few weeks later, starts discussing X with me, this is going to rub against my morals the wrong way. I'll start to dismiss Stacy as narcisstic, or selfish, or unfair, by expecting behavior patterns in me that she herself makes no effort to conform to. I realize that seems silly to other types, and it's perhaps a very wrong-headed way to go about it, but this is the way I tend to operate. 

There's a systematic aspect to my morality that often annoys Fi users. It appears to strike them as "inauthentic". I get the sense that they look at it as a robot that programmed himself to handle morality to get on the good side of people, because it's not more "situational". A lot of it is like, "I owe person x for this, because they did y for me"', and "I do not owe person x this, because we do not have that sort of relationship."


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

msg_v2 said:


> Yes. There is a well-defined systematic aspect to my morals. Like, if Stacy gets really upset about me discussing X with her, and then a few weeks later, starts discussing X with me, this is going to rub against my morals the wrong way. I'll start to dismiss Stacy as narcisstic, or selfish, or unfair, by expecting behavior patterns in me that she herself makes no effort to conform to. I realize that seems silly to other types, and it's perhaps a very wrong-headed way to go about it, but this is the way I tend to operate.
> 
> There's a systematic aspect to my morality that often annoys Fi users. It appears to strike them as "inauthentic". I get the sense that they look at it as a robot that programmed himself to handle morality to get on the good side of people, because it's not more "situational". A lot of it is like, "I owe person x for this, because they did y for me"', and "I do not owe person x this, because we do not have that sort of relationship."


I believe this is because, as an introvert, your feelings - when conscious to you - tend to be introverted as well.

I've stressed this a lot on these forums, but I'm under the impression that just whatever function you happen to be conscious of at any given moment is going to most strongly reflect whatever the overall attitude of your consciousness is - this, I believe in direct conflict with MBTI, which I do not accept for this reason. I've studied enough Jungian psychology to firmly disagree with MBTI in this respect - if only because MBTI is focusing on _who we are from an outside-in perspective._

I think, on the other-hand, a great many Ti-types I have met will tend to express themselves _as if_ they were extraverts whenever it comes to their ideas or feelings, if only because they are trying to "meet in the middle" with other people and "speak their language" if you follow what I mean here.

I think that just reflects the overall pressure introverts face living within Western society, which Jung described as "extraverted to all hell!"

I _know_ a few INTPs, and they have very personal values that they've thought _a lot_ about - in fact, you might even say they _over-think_ their morals, because lacking that kind of feeling emotion to ground their morality, they have to instead find some kind of a conceptual "anchor" for it, and the funny thing is that this doesn't change the fact that they are still acting out their own emotions - it's just, being a leading Ti-type, naturally they are _unconscious of this fact_ and instead, it "just is" a matter of pure reason to them.

If I sat down and tried to convince an INTP, for instance, that his _elaborate and very logical morals_ were, in fact, just very, very good ways of _rationalizing human emotions, _he'd probably go on and on trying to refute me. It just reflects the way that a Ti-type _needs the world to be logical and reasonable._ They're no less human, and they feel emotions _no less intensely_ - it's just that they try very hard to repress them, or to find what they logically determine to be acceptable ways of expressing them.

Oh, and welcome to PerC btw!  Just noticed your post count, lol.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> If I sat down and tried to convince an INTP, for instance, that his _elaborate and very logical morals_ were, in fact, just very, very good ways of _rationalizing human emotions, _he'd probably go on and on trying to refute me. It just reflects the way that a Ti-type _needs the world to be logical and reasonable._ They're no less human, and they feel emotions _no less intensely_ - it's just that they try very hard to repress them, or to find what they logically determine to be acceptable ways of expressing them.


A tree desperately trying to explain why they are a machine.


----------



## msg_v2 (Mar 29, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Oh, and welcome to PerC btw!  Just noticed your post count, lol.



Thanks! I debated whether or not to post in the introduction section, and I realized I just didn't want to the deal with whole "nOOb" thing. I just wanted to make posts and get recognized that way. How INTP of me.

Yeah, anyone who says NT's don't have emotions is full of shit, even (especialy, actually) if they are NTs themselves. Right, I'm sure you never get angry. 

Regarding MBTI, I've been re-reading the Socionics stuff a lot recently (in which I'm an INTj), and it's actually helped me get a much stronger grasp on what the functions actually _are_. Although, I'll admit that Fi still mystifies the fuck out of me, which, as a super-ego function in Socionics, makes perfect sense. 

Regarding the example in the initial post, I'm baffled by the fact that Fi users expect "feeling really bad about it" to count for something. To me, if someone cheated on me, but said "they felt really bad about it" wouldn't make much of a difference. It doesn't change the fact that you cheated. About the only thing that would mollify the situation for me would be if the Fi user would come clean about relatively quickly. To me, my partner, if they really care about me, should not be thinking of how bad it makes them feel, but rather, what would be the way for me to deal with the situation as painlessly as _possible_. Not telling me about infidelity for months, because you're worried that I'll break up with you, strikes me as selfish. The truly selfless thing to do is to tell me about what you did, even if there's a possibility that you may not like the consequences. It seems as though Fi users think that the fact that the care about me and feel guilt is enough, which I disagree with strongly. I could never shake the fact that, if they cared about me so much, why did they cheat to begin with?

Notice all the logical, if-then statements. It's as though I start with a specific proposition, and then I branch out with logic to arrive at an emotional "conclusion". I seek "explanations" for my emotions.

Just to be clear, I've never been cheated on, but this is very likely how I would react if it had happened to me. i have noticed the women with Fi as a first or second function I have dated expect the inner feelings of themselves and others to "count" for a lot. 

I think that has something to do with Fi as a function, but I'd be happy to be corrected, lol. It could be that I'm just shit at understanding people.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Moral values are a defense of the ego as a whole, not function-specific (I would argue Fi types tend to exhibit more of a defensive inner morality though, perhaps due to the fact that they really tend to break their feeling motives away from the herd). When something is logically deduced, why need it be defended by morality if it makes sense? There should be no arguing with it.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> I _know a few INTPs, and they have very personal values that they've thought a lot about - in fact, you might even say they over-think their morals, because lacking that kind of feeling emotion to ground their morality, they have to instead find some kind of a conceptual "anchor" for it, and the funny thing is that this doesn't change the fact that they are still acting out their own emotions - it's just, being a leading Ti-type, naturally they areunconscious of this fact and instead, it "just is" a matter of pure reason to them.
> 
> If I sat down and tried to convince an INTP, for instance, that his elaborate and very logical morals were, in fact, just very, very good ways of rationalizing human emotions, he'd probably go on and on trying to refute me. It just reflects the way that a Ti-type needs the world to be logical and reasonable. They're no less human, and they feel emotions no less intensely - it's just that they try very hard to repress them, or to find what they logically determine to be acceptable ways of expressing them._


_

_Yes and this sort of situation is where my relation to Ne comes in. My intuition is probably the least definitively differentiated in terms of attitude. I would force myself to generate and generate and generate perspective (which I tend to consider almost disposable noise, but necessary in interactions with others) on whatever I am being dealt until it is forced into the sort of image my Ti has deemed absolute. Me personally, I'm very conscious of the emotional roots, this may have to do with my enneagram heart type, which at least I believe is what led me to type as an NF initially.


----------



## AliceKettle (Feb 2, 2014)

I thought that I was Fi-Te, but this thread is making me think Ti-Fe because most of my morals are circumstantially based, too. Of course, there are certain things that I think are just _wrong_, no matter what, like picking fights with, or killing innocents, harm cruelty against small children or animals, rape, torture, emotional manipulation, slander, polygamy (at least for me, personally, other people can have polygamous relationships, if it makes them happy, and I don't care), bigotry, infidelity (unless, the two partners in the main relationship were permanently separated or in the process of getting a divorce), pedophilia, greediness, envy, false advertising, propaganda, substance/drug abuse, and racism. I can make excuses for things, such as physical abuse, dishonesty, murder, thievery, selfishness, and betrayal, if it's in self-defense or the situation warrants one's safety or spares their feelings if I don't know them well enough.


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

To add to this the new “Intentional Styles” concepts that have been introduced since the topic died down, TiFe is “Aligning” assessments, while TeFi is “Ordering”. So this captures what has been pointed out here, that TiFe will be more “situational”, where it “aligns” with particular situations. TeFi's approach will be more about implementing broad principles.


----------



## reybridge (Feb 24, 2014)

AliceKettle said:


> I thought that I was Fi-Te, but this thread is making me think Ti-Fe because most of my morals are circumstantially based, too. Of course, there are certain things that I think are just _wrong_, no matter what, like picking fights with, or killing innocents, harm cruelty against small children or animals, rape, torture, emotional manipulation, slander, polygamy (at least for me, personally, other people can have polygamous relationships, if it makes them happy, and I don't care), bigotry, infidelity (unless, the two partners in the main relationship were permanently separated or in the process of getting a divorce), pedophilia, greediness, envy, false advertising, propaganda, substance/drug abuse, and racism. I can make excuses for things, such as physical abuse, dishonesty, murder, thievery, selfishness, and betrayal, if it's in self-defense or the situation warrants one's safety or spares their feelings if I don't know them well enough.


All of your morals are conceptual and come from our shared world, this means you are in Ne group. Ti/Fi depends on how you will react to something violating these morals. If you react impulsively to violation of your morals, you use Fe. If you don't impulsively react, but only think on how you should react, you use Ti. If you don't react, but feel bad as if you are the one in the scene, you use Fi. Te people won't even care whether it happens or not, except it disturbs their activity, then it is their problem.


----------



## RoboticForest (Feb 12, 2017)

Well, I don't know about other Ti-Fe users but I do have my own moral system based on logical concepts. Basically I don't ask, "What do I feel about this?" on a moral question. I ask, "What is most likely (Ti truth based statement) to make the largest number of people have the largest amount of satisfaction (Fe.)"

For example, it's possible for people to focus on not lying as just a rule. What I emphasize is the probable evolutionary reason for being honest - to establish trust with other people. If everyone lied, the world would go into chaos and no one would be able to work with one another. It would be an objectively useful reason not to lie but not all the time.

For example, my mom would like me to tell her my deep emotional issues more. Not only do I find intimate talking like that gross, I also find it wrong in the principle above. Knowing her, she'd probably overthink things and worry about me a lot more. Not to mention an annoying number of wanting updates on my life. (Which means probably not much satisfaction for her and me.) She is kind but she is a terrible problem solver, when compared to me and google search. Also specific advice sites I could go to. She is also prone to overwork when it comes to helping people so a no no. If the purpose is to establish trust and work together, then this choice would make it a bad idea since we wouldn't be able to work together well. 

Which is why I tend to say when she says, "How's school?" "[Good stuff] [Bad but not serious stuff] [Amusing stuff]. Lololol." Though I tend to ask for my privacy sometimes to think on my interests. Meh. My mom isn't some priority in my life because she's family. At least most of the time. What I focus on is the greatest number of people's satisfaction. And my mom is just one of those people. Which is a more controversial but still logical argument to me. And another reason why j don't care about nationalism and country pride. Just another number of people. Who cares about them specifically? Not that I lack closeness or discourage it. People in general need close relationships to feel happy which fits into the greatest number of satisfaction for the greatest number of people. But I seem to lack a need for closeness when compared to a sense of community for some reason.


----------



## Fenty (Jun 17, 2014)

Probably one of the best videos out there that makes the distinction clear and i know the video is extremely long and she isn't everyone's fave out there but her content is really good. 

One of her statements in the video to sum it up was (paraphrased) " i don't kill because its wrong, that's Fi, they have moral rules they follow, i don't kill people becasue i enjoy living and its only respectful if i give that same desire to someone else, that's Ti."


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

I dunno. 

I tend to view Fi as seeing things in moral terms--good, bad, right, wrong, black or white, as well as many shades of all, in between. In other words, in terms of the nature of things. Something "is" good or whatever, even if it "acts" wrongly. And such things are universal and unchanging, insofar as there is not some, overwhelming and compelling reason to consider otherwise.

Ti, in my experience, has tended to express or view thing in ethical terms—helpful, not helpful, constructive, not constructive, positive or negative. It focuses on the behavior or outward manifestations, rather than on their nature. Something "acts" inappropriately. It is also situational and fluid, rather than universal.

I'm not entirely sure where Fe fits into this. Maybe what I'm describing is actually inferior Fe, but the Ti-dominant types (and, I suppose, auxiliary, if I include my son) are very much like what I described for Ti.


----------



## Monroe (May 13, 2016)

I agree with @ferroequinologist. 

I think Fi is more of an absolute function with Ti is more dynamic. However, I do have certain codes/ideas/lines I won't cross. For example, I personally did fight with a group member in a school project but I couldn't give him a low grade because it truly wasn't warranted. Even despite my feelings, I couldn't accept the inequality of it. So I would say Ti is a balancing act. It does care about what is fair, maybe more than necessary 'right'. I find both Fi and Ti analyse these concepts but Ti is fair, Fi is right. (in my opinion)


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

I think the difference is more that Ti values will try to exclude feeling from judgement to one degree or another. From Ti values you get people like Kant who prioritize bare ethical principles, arrived at rationally, above actual situations or even people. They're actually profoundly unconditional (he called his ethical principle the _categorical imperative_). Though Kant represents a pretty extreme case, where he apparently had anxiety about feeling corrupting or misleading our judgement with things like favouritism or what he would consider 'prudential concerns' (like our thriving) over what he saw as our ethical duty.

With Fi values you sort of get the opposite picture, for example Fi values are more likely to produce a system like ethics of care where human relationships actually necessitate a higher level of ethical responsibility, and Fi ethical systems are instead more likely to see the _removal_ of feeling from our ethical judgement as the biasing influence. And in fact they're probably more right about that, at least Kant's ethical system based on things like "respect for moral law" seems to have not been very successful in any practical sense. People _generally_ aren't constituted in such a way that they find their ethical motivations in the same place that Kant seems to, and our immediate judgements of value and experiences of pleasure and pain, empathy, etc, _seem to be_ more or less an integral part of our moral reasoning, or at least a sentiment like that seems like adequate grounds for criticizing someone like Kant.

So I'd say they're both principle driven, but they differ in how they obtain their principles. Ti principles tend to be characteristically bloodless, or pale, or drained; while Fi principles are more flush and breathing.


----------



## Monroe (May 13, 2016)

Ironically, I agree with Kant quite a bit and wrote a paper on his practicality. So you are saying that Fi is more Utilitarian? 
@umop 3pisdn

I would say we have a lot of blood metaphorically speaking in Ti. Ti dislikes inequality and falsehoods and will fight on that behalf pretty hard. I think human beings have great inclination for empathy starting out young at least, and they are formed later on to cut their losses out of a society that enforces certain ideas. But humans have empathy in their logic a great deal of the time or else this world--as bad as it can seem--would be immensely worse.


----------



## umop 3pisdn (Apr 4, 2014)

Monroe said:


> Ironically, I agree with Kant quite a bit and wrote a paper on his practicality. So you are saying that Fi is more Utilitarian?
> @umop 3pisdn
> 
> I would say we have a lot of blood metaphorically speaking in Ti. Ti dislikes inequality and falsehoods and will fight on that behalf pretty hard. I think human beings have great inclination for empathy starting out young at least, and they are formed later on to cut their losses out of a society that enforces certain ideas. But humans have empathy in their logic a great deal of the time or else this world--as bad as it can seem--would be immensely worse.


I didn't mean more utilitarian (though I did mention pleasure and pain, which is probably misleading), I actually associate utilitarianism more with a thinking preference, because it tries to make moral value entirely commensurable. For someone with a feeling preference (whether Fe or Fi), I think they'd be reluctant to adopt such a system because it seems like trying to force moral value into a preestablished rational mould. Preference utilitarianism might be an exception, but I don't know a lot about that.

Instead I had in mind someone more like Adorno, who claimed that our ethics rely largely on a moment of 'shock' (or suffering) to provide their aseity. He wrote a lot about the holocaust, for example, and how to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. And with respect to morality he has a pretty nuanced picture of how conceptuality and empathy contribute. For example, it's a common sentiment that people or animals in their 'natural' state actually have more empathy, and that society or civilizing influences actually present us with the means to 'think away' the moral sensitivity provided to us from basic empathy. Rousseau (another Fi type), had that idea, but Adorno doesn't think that we can return to some kind of basic primordial empathy. We live in a world of concepts now, and in fact concepts mark out and distinguish the things we can see in the world, which presents us with both benefits and costs. They also serve as a kind of reminder of the past, since the old concepts that we have now surely emerged from some kind of immediate necessity, even if we've since forgotten it. So then a critical part of this picture is memory, or _not forgetting_ that moment of 'moral shock'.

Basically, I think that ethics for Ti are something like a second language, and that's exactly the unique benefit that Ti has with ethics. Ti, in trying to 'translate' ethics into reason, makes them more broadly intelligible. And we see that all the time. I mean how did your parents try to reason with you to not do harmful things as a child? "How would you feel if that creature hurt you, like you're hurting it now?" That's basic Kant. Kant makes perfect sense, it's what is so wonderful about him. But it can't capture that initial human experience, that moment of shock, it can only explain around its boundaries and hope that we have some 'memory' of that bare moral recognition or empathy that lies in the centre. For Fi this is closer to its mother tongue.


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

@ferroequinologist

Very interesting! So Fi-Te: fundamentalist (no not as in religious fundamentalism, but as in pertaining to the fundamental qualities of a thing), and Ti-Fe: behaviourist!

Fi-Te: I am who I am
Ti-Fe: I am what I do

This makes so much sense! As an Fe user I never saw much value in 'being myself', because I'm not even sure that there's a self to be! What I do is so much more important than who I am! Also I don't think you can separate Fi-Te and Ti-Fe, but have to always regard them in pairs. I would say that Fi-Te is emotionally subjective, and Ti-Fe is emotionally objective.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goodthankyou said:


> @*ferroequinologist*
> 
> Very interesting! So Fi-Te: fundamentalist (no not as in religious fundamentalism, but as in pertaining to the fundamental qualities of a thing), and Ti-Fe: behaviourist!


That's actually what it means religiously as well. It's just the media that converted it to mean religious extremism, and applied it to every right-wing religious group. (and why it's never applied to extreme left-wing groups which are every bit as fundamentalist as any right wing group, I'll never know) anyway...





> Fi-Te: I am who I am
> Ti-Fe: I am what I do
> 
> This makes so much sense! As an Fe user I never saw much value in 'being myself', because I'm not even sure that there's a self to be! What I do is so much more important than who I am! Also I don't think you can separate Fi-Te and Ti-Fe, but have to always regard them in pairs. *I would say that Fi-Te is emotionally subjective, and Ti-Fe is emotionally objective.*



(agree entirely with the bold part, btw)

I'm not sure this can be entirely aligned to the axes like this. From my experience, Te is every bit as much a "you are what you do", aka performance based, as anything. I see this more of an introversion vs. extraversion thing. Extraversion, by focusing on the external, sees behavior first, and aligns with that. Since the extraverting judging functions are also judging functions, therefore, they both would tend to judge people in this way, rather than on the fundamental nature. 

Also, since their primary perceiving is introverted, their inner world would also be more chaotic, and passive, thus reinforcing the extraverted concept of judging the external world, which there is more order. And where there is less external order, the judgment is lowered. 

As to the axes being involved. Fi-Te and Te-Fi are more of the sort that they expect everybody to have their own agenda, and to be unique or having even, conflicting priorities. For Fi, however, these are accepted, if not embraced, while Te desires to bring order and mastery, thus making its own agenda primary. I.e. Te doesn't care about your fundamental qualities.

Fe-Ti and Ti-Fe tend to view everybody as cut out from the same cloth, as having more uniting them than separating them. Fe makes unity their primary goal, at the expense of understanding the unifying principles, while Ti seeks the unifying principles underlying things. 

Ti focuses on the unifying principles, while Fi focuses on the fundamental uniqueness and difference. 

But yeah, when it comes to the feeling side of things, they would align with Fe in that "you are what you say and do" but their grasp of this is rather primitive and "black and white" (which can actually make them seem Fi).


----------



## Arzazar Szubrasznikarazar (Apr 9, 2015)

Monroe said:


> I agree with @ferroequinologist.
> 
> I think Fi is more of an absolute function with Ti is more dynamic. However, I do have certain codes/ideas/lines I won't cross. For example, I personally did fight with a group member in a school project but I couldn't give him a low grade because it truly wasn't warranted. Even despite my feelings, I couldn't accept the inequality of it. So I would say Ti is a balancing act. It does care about what is fair, maybe more than necessary 'right'. I find both Fi and Ti analyse these concepts but Ti is fair, Fi is right. (in my opinion)


That's Fi vs. Fe also. Because Fe has a code of conduct.


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

@ferroequinologist

I came up with this today!

Fi: good/bad
Ti: true/false
Fe: moral/immoral
Te: legal/illegal


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

goodthankyou said:


> @*ferroequinologist*
> 
> I came up with this today!
> 
> ...


Sounds good to me, so long as we are looking at how things are considered "good" or "bad" via the functions. But Te sounds a bit strong to me, somehow. Maybe right/wrong. So, there's a "right" way to do things and a "wrong" way to do things. It embraces the legal/illegal, and goes a tad bit further, but is also more neutral--like true/false. What thinkest thou?


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

goodthankyou said:


> @*ferroequinologist*
> 
> I came up with this today!
> 
> ...


I guess I had never posted how I see it in this thread, but:

Judgment in general: right/wrong
T: true/false (impersonalized "right/wrong")
F: good bad (humanized "right/wrong")
In either case:
e: stimulated by the environment (external standard, such as consensus)
i: stimulated by the individual model (internal standard, such as one's own filter)

So Fi can deal in "morals", only it will be an internal "model" or morality (based on "universals" that anyone can know), while Fi si about what's agreed upon; and what's "legal" can be Fe; it will be "laws" about social morality, where Te will be laws about impersonal things such as rules of trade, etc. (and these areas overlap, where morality has an impersonal element in areas such as trade, and trade is a human interaction).


----------



## goodthankyou (Mar 25, 2016)

ferroequinologist said:


> Sounds good to me, so long as we are looking at how things are considered "good" or "bad" via the functions. But Te sounds a bit strong to me, somehow. Maybe right/wrong. So, there's a "right" way to do things and a "wrong" way to do things. It embraces the legal/illegal, and goes a tad bit further, but is also more neutral--like true/false. What thinkest thou?


Hmm yes ... I was a bit unsure about it. Will need to ruminate on it.


----------



## Erik PLAYERik (May 28, 2021)

Well ... I don't think it's that simple. In my opinion, it's not like there is no Fi in Ti users.
Rather, their own morality is heavily displaced, and unconscious values still evoke a "sense of right and wrong," the difference is that Ti-user cannot accept a morality that he cannot logically justify.

I (INTP) believe that I am a very moral person, but almost all my morality is logically explained, without that I would be confused. There is only one element of my morality that I cannot explain logically. It's FREEDOM. I know that I want to be free, but I cannot justify my willingness.

However, the whole logical morality that I have is based on three pillars: freedom, truth, justice.
There is a very simple assumption - rules:

"Don't do to anyone what you don't want others to do to you", and
"Whoever deprives freedom loses the right to freedom, whoever lies loses the right to the truth, whoever is unfair does not deserve justice"
It works as follows: I don't want to be killed (true / false? True), probably others (people in general) don't want to be killed either (true / false? True), so killing is wrong. You must always compare yourself to the general human race, not just rely on yourself.
I may want someone to do something to me, but that doesn't mean that others want it too. This should be verified. Nevertheless, there are cases when killing is not bad, as I mentioned earlier - whoever takes away freedom, gives it up himself. Life is part of freedom, as is private property. I am not allowed to hit anyone without serious cause, because then I infringe someone else's private property. The body belongs to its user. So I am also violating freedom.

When it comes to cheat. It is unacceptable. I've never cheated on any woman, I give 200% loyalty and expect the same in return. To me, even flirting is cheating.
Have you been carried away by emotions? I know that feeling. Being stoned on hormones. But I still have my mind.
If I didn't do something with the other woman in front of my woman, it means that I shouldn't be doing it at all because it is a betrayal.
If I don't do or say something in front of my woman, it's cheating and I can't do it or say it when she's not there.
If I got carried away emotionally and cheated on a woman, I would never forgive myself. And if a woman does not provide you with what you need, there is no argument or excuse for the cheat.
If you are not satisfied with this woman, you are not satisfied, leave her. Don't cheat. There is no excuse for cheating in a relationship. I would not forgive a betrayal in a relationship. And I would never expect forgiveness if I did. The only thing that could justify the cheat would be if someone forbade you to leave and threatened to kill you. But it probably isn't. You can always leave.
And no, don't use the kids as an excuse that you can't leave, so you cheat. Don't use children as a shield.
There is only you, the person you are with and you are to be 200% loyal to each other.
There is no other person in the world who is meant to be as important to you as the person you are in a relationship with. It is with this person that you share your life.
Not with your mother, not with your father, not with the children who will grow up and move out.
But with the wife / husband.
This requires 200% loyalty.

So yeah. I see morality in a gray way. Not all killings are bad. The murder of a murderer isn't even gray, but it's good. Nevertheless, 90% of the things I do in my life are in the middle. Neither good nor bad. They just are. Truly neutral.

But in theory, there is also no such principle that ALWAYS works and is always appropriate. You have to look situational. For example, if you starve and steal food, that is the lesser evil. If your children are starving and you steal, you have done bad and good at the same time to save them. On average, gray.


----------



## Astrida88 (Jun 6, 2019)

goodthankyou said:


> @ferroequinologist
> 
> Very interesting! So Fi-Te: fundamentalist (no not as in religious fundamentalism, but as in pertaining to the fundamental qualities of a thing), and Ti-Fe: behaviourist!
> 
> ...


Interesting point. It explains why I had so much trouble explaining to a Fi user how I am able to not believe in God and still not be a bad person. My message "It doesn't matter what you believe, It matters what you do, what kind of person you are towards others" just wouldn't sink in.

Well, I also refused to believe in a God that sends people to hell for selfish reasons such as not beliving in him. It just makes no sense. Either God is a good father that loves his children and simply expects them to be good people or God is a freakin dictator, torturying people for not fearing him and not giving him respect he expects, regraddles what kind of people they are. Apparently you go to hell just because you refuse to believe in God (not knowing about God is a different thing, but I was born in a christian country and in christian family) even if you spent your whole life helping others and never done anything else that could be considered a sin - what kind of reasoning is that?

Haha. It reminds me how much trouble I had before the 1st confession (the one religious people do in church) when I was 8. It was pretty traumatic because I couldn't figure out what kind of sins an innocent child like me would do. I knew I can't go to confession without any sins (then I wouldn't be able to participate in the first communion with all of my classmates and I would be a misfit). I barely ever lied (knowing one thing and saying the other was not something that come naturaly for me, I was honest to the fault at first, till my Fe kicked in and I realized sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut for the sake of harmony), I didn't steal (someone would miss it and feel hurt - I didn't want that), I didn't eat too much, I was not envious or anything like that (if someone had something nice I was happy for them and might want this too but not in an envious way but simply by inspiration).

I knew there is probably a sin that I commit repeatably - not doing what your father and mother say - but I was not doing that for selfish reasons but because I considered their orders stupid and unreasonable and making no sense so even if I confessed that the confesion wouldn't be valid because in the further part you say you are sorry for all the sins and promise to avoid them in the future and I didn't feel sorry about not listening to stupid, illogical orders of my parents at all and I knew I will be commiting the "sin" again and again in the future.


----------

