# Fe-Ti and Te-Fi



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

I heard these can look really similar. Is there a good way of telling them apart? Why would they seem similar?


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Some people evaluate them as being very similar.

Understand what Te is.
Understand what Fe is.
Understand what Ti is.
Understand what Fi is.

If you can verify via working with external reality instead of against it you are already one step ahead.

If not, it becomes harder but far from impossible.

I'd argue that people sometimes ignore the differences in order to focus on the similarities, and in doing so shoot their capacity to deal effectively with the situation in the foot. I think both differences and similarities need to be appreciated if you want to do a good job of it, but I could be wrong.


----------



## soppixo (Jun 29, 2011)

I'm not sure about others, but I tend to use the Fe / Fi as a measuring stick. They have a bigger tell than Te / Ti to me. Because I'm a Ti-dom and there is this weird disconnect when I interact with Fi users. Meeting another Fe-user for me is like that scene where E.T touches fingers with that kid- both of us just start glowing in weird places.

Analyzing me (ISTP, Fe inferior) and my friend (ISFP, Fi dom)

Fe tends to be friendlier, more expressive and more likely to accomodate others. They give off a more natural, uncontrolled vibe. In unfamiliar situations, you can see the Fe straining for connections- to know where they stand and how they should feel in regards to the people around them. Fe doesn't really deal well with rejection, it can get very messy but a Fe is more likely to mend bridges and give second chances than Fi.

Fi on the other hand, a lot more controlled and "expressionless". They seem almost robotic with the calm they give off, though this doesn't mean they don't know how to cut lose and have fun. They don't adapt as well to unfamiliar situations as Fe, slower to establish connnection but on the other hand less likely to have a messy F-plosion. Their method of showing displeasure tends to be stonewalling the offending party.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

It's important to differentiate the roles of the functions in the psyche. I can't even explain how much it irritates me when people try to compare Fe with Fi or Te with Ti. Fe and Te have the same role in the psyche but different criteria, Ti and Fi have the same role in the psyche but different criteria. Fe should be compared with Te and Ti should be compared with Fi.

The Ji function is concerned with discernment, discrimination, analysis, evaluation. Ti operates based on true/false, logical/illogical criteria, while Fi operates based on important/unimportant, like/dislike criteria. Ji creates one's values and principles. 

Fe or Te are not your freaking values or principles! Je is one's manner of executing things.
Je is concerned with articulation, execution, manifestation of decisions.
Fe operates with the human factor in mind, Te operates with the efficiency factor in mind.

Both Fe and Te are oriented toward manifestation and concrete results, they just go about it in different ways.
Fe anticipates the reaction of other humans and accommodates their needs in its execution. This can manifest itself in being genuinely considerate with other people or just plain manipulating them into believing that their needs and feelings had been considered and acknowledged.

Te asserts itself by presenting others the most efficient way of doing things, which - if successful - results in putting others between a rock and a hard place because once others recognize the most efficient method, superimposing their emotions in the decision making would be deemed unreasonable so the other party concedes. If not successful, conflict arises and then it's about overpowering the other person (Jung's description of Te's adherence to formula is great).

Te in its execution considers practical/impractical, resource saving/wasting, efficiency etc.
Fe in its execution considers polite/rude, tolerant/intolerant, cooperative/not receptive etc.

I think we need to stop describing Fe as evaluating by an external standard (however the external standard came about in the first place...) and Te as external logic (whatever that means...).

The sense of self worth of Je doms depends on either the reputation and acceptance they have in their community or the concrete accomplishments which symbolize the steps of the ladder in their perceived value hierarchy. This is not due to strong Je but to inferior Ji. 
Ji is weak, thus the person's values are not as precisely formulated as it is the case with Ji doms. Their values are like templates, more general and they are supposed to be applicable in every situation. As soon as this is not the case and a situation requires discernment of either logical or emotional subtleties, the inferior function is being triggered because more effort is required in that respect than usual and this is not the natural state for a Je dom.

With the Ji dom it's the opposite. Things need to be first and foremost internally consistent by chosen criteria. The more intricate and sophisticated the inner model becomes, the harder it is to apply it in the external world = weak Je.

Ji - creating values and principles
Je - application of decisions


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

tine said:


> I heard these can look really similar. Is there a good way of telling them apart? Why would they seem similar?


Similar? God no. Someone who prefers Fe is going to be a Feeler (an FJ to be precise) and will have all the attributes that Feelers share (Interested in understanding other people's motivations, interested in helping others, interested in emotional connections, interested in the world of relationships, etc.) while someone who prefers Te is going to be a Thinker (a TJ to be precise) and will have all the attributes that Thinkers share (Interest in efficiency, disinterest in "niceties", etc.).

So very, very different. I can't even imagine mixing them up.


----------



## Ellis Bell (Mar 16, 2012)

soppixo said:


> I'm not sure about others, but I tend to use the Fe / Fi as a measuring stick. They have a bigger tell than Te / Ti to me. Because I'm a Ti-dom and there is this weird disconnect when I interact with Fi users. Meeting another Fe-user for me is like that scene where E.T touches fingers with that kid- both of us just start glowing in weird places.
> 
> Analyzing me (ISTP, Fe inferior) and my friend (ISFP, Fi dom)
> 
> ...


It's interesting--I relate to Ti-Fe in a similar way (no surprise). When I interact with Fi, it seems very strange. But imagine being an Fi; Ti probably seems strange and unnatural to them as well (and the same with Fe-Te).


----------



## Cheesecoffee (Mar 22, 2012)

Te-Fi strikes me in an odd way sometimes


----------



## littleblackdress (Feb 24, 2013)

It might be that when comparing within one perceiving group the lead function dominates... So, ENTPs appear similar to ENFPs.. and INFJs can seem similar to INTJs - because of that shared lead perceiving function...


----------



## Nackle1 (Apr 26, 2012)

Cheesecoffee said:


> Te-Fi strikes me in an odd way sometimes


How so? I'd be interested to know. Because I usually find Fe-Ti un-relatable, especially in the ESTP


----------



## littleblackdress (Feb 24, 2013)

To continue - I think that perceived similarities likely have more to do with the OTHER functions - the, presumably shared dominating perceiving functions (either Si or Ni...)... Because I also find Ti and Te very different, and Fi and Fe very different - in ways described above. I would actually say that T/F has less to do with interests, though - there are "People T's" out there... I find a lot of Fs make a lot of decisions based on "this is what my mother did" or "this is what feels right " or "this doesn't make me feel bad..." (aka, meshes with my traditions or values) - whereas Ts tend to make decisions based on " well, if I do this, it has a 40% chance of this outcome, but doing that will have a 90% chance of that outcome... which I want..." Thinkers are more likely to make bad decisions based on bad facts, but Fs are likely to make bad decisions based on not having acquired or developed a solid value system.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

tine said:


> I heard these can look really similar. Is there a good way of telling them apart? Why would they seem similar?




They aren't that similar, but people aren't so black and white that you can always peg exactly what they are doing. The outcomes of the two can look strikingly similar, two Fe-Ti types can find each other unreasonable and an Fe-Ti and Te-Fi type can find each other reasonable. That would really depend on the _outcome_. How they think and where they access objectivity and where they access subjectivity are a different story, and to be honest, the only reliable person to really realize that is the person himself/herself.

We can get vibes about how these things externalize, sure.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Hmm, I don't know if I was clear...
I meant the combination of Fe-Ti and then Te-Fi can seem similar. If someone has Fe-Ti they can come across as someone with Te-Fi. Is that the case? Also, why?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

tine said:


> I heard these can look really similar. Is there a good way of telling them apart? Why would they seem similar?


Well considering that you are a intuition dominant. It would be fairly similar to you, because they are your auxiliary functions. As such you more or less can justify your motives with Thinking and Feeling evaluations of both types, whenever you want to. It's just that with Ti-Fe is the ones that you use more often.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to understand the differences between them though. If you know what you are looking for. The only reason why you would confuse them is simply because when the introverted perspective takes elements from the extroverted one, and thus can look extroverted to the outsider.


----------



## daringcherry (Apr 23, 2013)

Yedra said:


> Fe anticipates the reaction of other humans and accommodates their needs in its execution. This can manifest itself in being genuinely considerate with other people or just plain manipulating them into believing that their needs and feelings had been considered and acknowledged.
> 
> The sense of self worth of Je doms depends on either the reputation and acceptance they have in their community or the concrete accomplishments which symbolize the steps of the ladder in their perceived value hierarchy. This is not due to strong Je but to inferior Ji.
> Ji is weak, thus the person's values are not as precisely formulated as it is the case with Ji doms.


I personally don't believe that someone's acceptance seeking is a matter of cognitive functions. I believe it has more to do with lifetraps . I posted a life trap test in the personality tests sub forum see more there. Acceptance seeking is one lifetrap. For me personally it is a core problem even though I believe I am an infp. It was really strong when I was a kid. It was often like I didn't have my own opinions I just observed others and tried to do what I thought would make others happy.*

I am still this way in many situations its difficult to overcome. When I present my own opinions I feel overly worried that I will be disliked.

Sorry about poor quality writing I'm on mobile.

Editing:

*Example: If someone asked me whether I wanted a piece of cake, I didn't even know what I personally wanted - I just tried to observe others and figure out what I was expected to do.

Now that I'm grown-up, I'm very value-driven and principled. I am becoming a vegetarian, post lots of politics things on Facebook even though I know it's totally irritating in many people's opinion, etc. I'm still very worried about how others will perceive me but it doesn't stop me from acting on my principles.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

daringcherry said:


> I personally don't believe that someone's acceptance seeking is a matter of cognitive functions. I believe it has more to do with lifetraps . I posted a life trap test in the personality tests sub forum see more there. Acceptance seeking is one lifetrap. For me personally it is a core problem even though I believe I am an infp. It was really strong when I was a kid. It was often like I didn't have my own opinions I just observed others and tried to do what I thought would make others happy.
> 
> I am still this way in many situations its difficult to overcome. My self worth often depends on what others think of me and when I present my own opinions I feel overly worried that I will be disliked.
> 
> Sorry about poor quality writing I'm on mobile.


We all want to be accepted and liked by other people to some extent and we all have our insecurities. That's not the issue. People might be sad or even depressed if they don't find acceptance but certain people consider themselves outright failures if they don't succeed in that. That's the difference. 

I remember a discussion with an ESFJ. She said that the most important thing in life is to fit in. She said if you're not accepted by others, you're getting nowhere. While I see how that could make life easier and maybe more pleasant, I don't see how it would be the most important thing ever. She then said that even in the animal world this can be observed. She gave an example how a sick animal is left behind and excluded from the pack, how the "weak" animal is useless and ends up alone. I responded that the exclusion of the animal from the pack doesn't say anything about the animal's worth and value, just the disposition of the pack towards that particular animal. She then said what is it worth to be the best person in the world if no one likes you and I said what is it worth living if you're accepted by everyone but are not at peace with yourself. Just two different worldviews.

I've seen this just too many times. Je doms tie their identity to their productiveness. They feel most validated when influencing and directing their environment. I bet that these types find it the hardest to go into retirement because they feel without a purpose in life at that stage. To find value from within one needs differentiated introverted judgment and in the case of Je doms it's the inferior function and most difficult to develop.


----------



## daringcherry (Apr 23, 2013)

Yedra said:


> We all want to be accepted and liked by other people to some extent and we all have our insecurities. That's not the issue. People might be sad or even depressed if they don't find acceptance but certain people consider themselves outright failures if they don't succeed in that. That's the difference.
> 
> I remember a discussion with an ESFJ. She said that the most important thing in life is to fit in. She said if you're not accepted by others, you're getting nowhere. While I see how that could make life easier and maybe more pleasant, I don't see how it would be the most important thing ever. She then said that even in the animal world this can be observed. She gave an example how a sick animal is left behind and excluded from the pack, how the "weak" animal is useless and ends up alone. I responded that the exclusion of the animal from the pack doesn't say anything about the animal's worth and value, just the disposition of the pack towards that particular animal. She then said what is it worth to be the best person in the world if no one likes you and I said what is it worth living if you're accepted by everyone but are not at peace with yourself. Just two different worldviews.
> 
> I've seen this just too many times. Je doms tie their identity to their productiveness. They feel most validated when influencing and directing their environment. I bet that these types find it the hardest to go into retirement because they feel without a purpose in life at that stage. To find value from within one needs differentiated introverted judgment and in the case of Je doms it's the inferior function and most difficult to develop.


But I'm like that, too! I've been depressed because I felt unappreciated. I have felt worthless and considered myself a failure because I thought I wasn't good enough because of not having accomplished enough.

I would never say to someone else that they need to fit in or that fitting in is an objectively important value but it's been really important for myself.

I get the feeling that there's more than type to your ESFJ friend's worldview. Perhaps a lifetrap.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Yedra said:


> I
> I think we need to stop describing Fe as evaluating by an external standard (however the external standard came about in the first place...) and Te as external logic (whatever that means...).


I am not sure if it's specifically referring to me since I tend to do this, but I am not sure what you have written in fact disagrees with this. Judgement functions are that, judgement functions. Their primary role in the psyche is to judge incoming data collected by our perceiving functions, shift and sort that through, systematize and evaluate what we think is rational (logical) to us. This is also why the judging functions are considered rational.

Je deals with the external world since it's extroverted. The cognitive bias lies towards extroversion. When judging data people who prefer Je as the dominant function are going to look for external structures to make sense of the data gathered by their perception. This is also why Jung claims that Je is in a sense, a posteriori because Je can only look at what already exists, whereas Ji is a priori in that Ji systematizes based on standards only known to the Ji dominant. 

When it comes to external evaluation then, Je looks at things contextually in a broad sense. What has worked for most will also work in this situation. One could say as such, Je tends towards generalization. The external standard Je evaluates against is thus already one that already exists. Yes, one can ask how that came to be, but I think it would be akin to asking where social rules came from in the first place if we consider an Fe perspective, and by social rules I don't just mean various forms of code of conduct but also social organization and so on and eventually how societies form and organize at a macro-level, as an example.

I assume that Jung would most likely consider the source of origin the collective consciousness either way, externalized in the objective world.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

LeaT said:


> I am not sure if it's specifically referring to me since I tend to do this, but I am not sure what you have written in fact disagrees with this. Judgement functions are that, judgement functions. Their primary role in the psyche is to judge incoming data collected by our perceiving functions, shift and sort that through, systematize and evaluate what we think is rational (logical) to us. This is also why the judging functions are considered rational.
> 
> Je deals with the external world since it's extroverted. The cognitive bias lies towards extroversion. When judging data people who prefer Je as the dominant function are going to look for external structures to make sense of the data gathered by their perception. This is also why Jung claims that Je is in a sense, a posteriori because Je can only look at what already exists, whereas Ji is a priori in that Ji systematizes based on standards only known to the Ji dominant.
> 
> ...


No, it wasn't directed at you and honestly I don't remember seeing you say it. But it gets thrown around a lot and not just on PerC. I just don't agree with it, never have.

Terms like "external evaluation", "external logic", "subjective logic", "logic in the outside world" seem meaningless to me and it also appears to me that people like to throw around generic terms to avoid explaining what something really is because they themselves don't know or don't know how to explain it and in the process they confuse others.

I stand by what I said about the J functions. Ji is analysis, Je is realization. Ji is sorting information, Je is applying decisions.
It's just something where we will obviously have to agree to disagree.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@_Yedra_: you can stand by what you stand by, though one thing to consider is you're going for a particular meaning with your definitions of the functions. Terms like "extroverted judgment" and "introverted perception" are extremely general things as far as what meaning they _suggest_. Hence why so many different versions of explaining them arise. You have chosen a framework that works for you, and what I'd discourage is the idea of getting so frustrated with the vaguer terminology, because I see it as vague for a reason.

I suspect this is why the explanations you read are seemingly "meaningless" - they are coherently strung together, but if you had to really point to any one of them and get a feel for it, you'd have to see it in action in some shape or form. It can be tempting to adopt a framework of definition that best suits how you see it in action, but I also see value to keeping our notion of the terms general, because it avoids situations where we _force _a best-fit type on ourselves based on such a framework when expanding our framework could lead to a more insightful view of our structure.


----------



## Yedra (Jul 28, 2012)

bearotter said:


> @_Yedra_: you can stand by what you stand by, though one thing to consider is you're going for a particular meaning with your definitions of the functions. Terms like "extroverted judgment" and "introverted perception" are extremely general things as far as what meaning they _suggest_. Hence why so many different versions of explaining them arise. You have chosen a framework that works for you, and what I'd discourage is the idea of getting so frustrated with the vaguer terminology, because I see it as vague for a reason.


How am I not being general when I say Ji=analysis, for example. I'm not frustrated by vague terms. What bothers me is that we don't get beyond vague terms because no one knows what they mean in the first place but it kinda sounds fancy, so yeah. The inability to go from general to specific, to examples, is the problem. It happens to me all the time that I somehow just know something is true but can't really put it in words but that doesn't fly in the real world.
I don't function based on "what works for me". I'm not interested in that kind of thinking. I'm interested in what is true and what is false. Truth is independent of us. Right now I think I see what's true in this particular case. Should I be presented evidence that should prove otherwise, I will adapt accordingly. 



bearotter said:


> I suspect this is why the explanations you read are seemingly "meaningless" - they are coherently strung together, but if you had to really point to any one of them and get a feel for it, you'd have to see it in action in some shape or form. It can be tempting to adopt a framework of definition that best suits how you see it in action, but I also see value to keeping our notion of the terms general, because it avoids situations where we _force _a best-fit type on ourselves based on such a framework when expanding our framework could lead to a more insightful view of our structure.


It is one thing presenting general principles and an entirely different thing spouting mumbo jumbo.
It's like mathematical formulas. Once you have a formula the numbers are interchangeable. You can do countless operations but the general principle - the underlying mechanism - is always the same.
And this what I don't see here. 
For example, a person asks to be typed and then they get suggestions like "do you use logic in the outside world or is your logic more subjective"... What is a person supposed to gather from that?

Terms like subjective/objective, extraversion/introversion are completely misinterpreted, imo. People always say "read Jung's functions/Chapter 10". Well, I suggest everyone read Chapter 11 first.


----------

