# Fi Originality, Debunking Ti Accusations



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Jennywocky said:


> @OP: That's my question too. What does that have to do with Ti? It's just a lack of social skills.....
> (Of course, Fe has a very different perspective, so that typically doesn't go over well.)


Enjoyed reading your post. Very insightful and enlightening. Your explanation of Ti was easy to understand and I found it very informative. Thanks for the shift in perception. Look forward to reading more of your posts..... :-D


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

Based on what several people say regarding Ti and Fi working at the same plane.

And that what they do is create an internal representation / map of the world.

What exactly are they mapping?

Ti maps the cause-effect net of the objects (like me right now, constructing a "model" in my head and describing it)

Fi maps the cause-effect between some of the objects and the subject.

Thus Ti can tell me what is the logical thing to happen. But as an internal judging function it has a hard time telling me what that most logical thing *means* to me.

Fi can tell me what something means to me, what is its impact on the subject. But it has a hard time telling me how that connects to the world or the future-past in terms of cause-effect.

It seems one completely devote from the other will result in this:

Fi: Joe told me something that made me feel bad, thus Joe is bad. I will not embark on a soul searching mission of a couple of hours to uncover what exactly made me feel bad in what Joe said. Thus I will remain blind to the real issue.

Ti: Joe told me something and I thought of the implications and reasons behind it. I have no idea how I feel about this, I guess I don't care and I will not spend time pondering on the issue and its implications for me. Thus I will remain blind to the real issue. 


You can extrapolate now this imaginary conversation onto a lot of Fi - Ti communication.

Or the fact that Ti and Fi have completely different image of what "truth" is.

I am not sure, should we have one name for this Fi+Ti? With two variations depending on polarity. :tongue:

Does this make sense? 



[RANT]These functions are rather badly expressed* WTH* They sound kind of separate, while in fact they are actually different parts of the same thing. [/RANT]


*EDIT:* My question being:

Does developing Ti or Fi by default include developing the other?


----------



## reletative (Dec 17, 2010)

I think you’re misunderstanding what Ti is.
Ti is making decisions/conclusions based on objective facts
Fi is making decisions/conclusions based on emotional factors
Look at your example this way.

Both you and your sister are looking out for your best interests using each method

Your sister looks at the impersonal facts: I need money. She offered me money. This meets my need. My physical need is more important to me than my emotional well-being. I accept.

You are looking at emotional factors: If I take her money, I will feel guilty. My emotional wellbeing is more important to me than my physical need. I cannot accept.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Ti is simply subjective logic. It looks for logical coherence, rather than external evidence (which is more Te). It has jack shit to do with being selfish.


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

No... Almost everything you said about Ti is completely wrong.



marzipan01 said:


> Ti is not objective because:
> 1. It is fueled by Fe (personal emotions such as "I want" and "WE want"). Thus, the logic is skewed in favor of personalized sentiments.


That's not how functions work. Ti is not fueled by Fe, Ti and Fe are complementary. Sometimes Ti is used, sometimes Fe is used. In Myres-Briggs speak, Ti is simply more strongly preferred than Fe. It has absolutely nothing to do with their fueling each other, just how often they get used.



marzipan01 said:


> 2. Ti is personalized, survivalist logic. Such as, I'm not putting tin foil in the microwave because I would get hurt.


That makes zero sense and has nothing to do with Myres-Briggs. I can't even think of where that came from... Ti is about modeling more than anything else, it has nothing to do with "survivalist" goals.



marzipan01 said:


> This is true. But stop calling it "objective." It isn't objective. It is the epitome of subjectivity.


Like I said above, none of it is true. And it is objective, because it has all the T traits.

Technically, everything we experience is subjective. T tries to find the common objectivity, F looks for how things are subjective. (Over-simplified, but worth repeating.) Ti specifically considers self to be the final arbiter of what things are objective and which aren't. It looks for objectivity, but you could describe it as "egotistical objectivity".



marzipan01 said:


> Just to give an example. My sister, an INTP, came over last night two hours late for dinner. She says as soon as she walks in the door, "Well, if I had known you were going to eat without me, I wouldn't have shown up at all."
> Which was exactly why I didn't tell her that we were going to eat without her.
> We invited her over, she has no respect for anyone else and definitely no objectivity.


That has nothing to do with objectivity, it's just selfishness (or possibly cluelessness). She views coming over as inefficient if you don't dine together, since that's the purpose of coming over. That's what she values, and logically she is correct: If she comes over to dine with you and she can't dine with you, the purpose in coming over is lost. You didn't tell her that you already ate since you knew that dining together was her objective and thus you arguably imposed your own goals on her because you thought they were more important. (If you were interested in helping her achieve her goals, you would've told her you already ate.) Depending on your circumstances, that was potentially very ironic behavior.

She was selfish to show up very late, but it's not about objectivity. Bad example.

Also, I have no reason to assume she's INTP. I wouldn't trust your assessment, based on what you've written.



marzipan01 said:


> The way to deal with Ti users is to explain how something is in their personal best interest, then they will agree or disagree.


To be fair, that's how everyone works to some degree. Ts in general are probably more so because they tend to not be interested in things just because someone else is, so they will react better to things that they consider more "inherently interesting". But we all have things that tickle own brains more than others, it's just that some people don't care about something just because someone else does. That's not a Ti thing, just a T thing.



marzipan01 said:


> Now, Ti users have accused me of not having my own opinion and doing things in order to please other people.
> [...]
> _Just because I take other people's feelings and beliefs into consideration, Just because I consider other people's feelings and motives when I make a decision, Just because I try to prevent making actions or claims that would impinge on other people's freedoms and well-being does not mean I am lacking my own opinion._


That's just misunderstanding. Ti is interested in forming their own conclusions based on the information and logic available to them. They value that greatly. They then also greatly value *acting on those conclusions*. Since Ti acts on their own convictions, they see others who don't act on their own convictions as not having them. It's a somewhat naive assumption, but very typical mistake for people who don't understand other people's personalty types.

This is true to some degree of T in general, but Ti specifically. They consider personalized feelings or values to be irrelevant and often don't value acting on those.

But in general, this is just a classic T vs F misunderstanding.



marzipan01 said:


> In fact, I have my own opinion on a lot of things. It just happens that my first and most important opinion that trumps everything else is this very solid opinion that never changes and is always constant:
> 
> If I behave in a manner that hurts other people consistently in order to achieve my own objectives, then I might as well be Adolf Hitler or some other horrible dictator asshole. I don't like that dictator asshole. If I want to like myself, then I can't allow myself to become that dictator asshole. Therefore, I will not be that dictator asshole. And I will learn to deal with dictator assholes when they show up late for a dinner party but I still want them to come.


But you've *completely* missed the point. Your "opinion" isn't on the same plane of opinions that they're talking about. That IS what they're complaining about.

Ti values acting on logically-derived opinions and decisions. They love it. They want to know what _your_ opinions are regardless of other people. Eg, in a vaccum, what do _you_ think? They then value you acting on that, not on the values of others. You're saying that your chief opinion is acting based on other people's opinions, and that's the very thing that Ti is saying that they don't like. They want you make all your decisions by yourself and then follow through on them to the best of your ability.

I'm not saying that's the best perspective, just that that's what Ti's criticism is.



marzipan01 said:


> While I take everyone into consideration, I also take their bias into consideration: my relationship to the person, the way the other person feels about me, what the other person values and how those values relate to my values.


Yes! And that's again, a perfectly classic T vs F. Ti cares nothing about anything you just said there. They don't care about their relationship to the person, or that person's values, or feelings, or whatever. Ti doesn't like those things and considers them irrelevant. Ti wants to make decisions regardless of those things, and they value seeing that done by others as well. They consider it a weakness or shallowness to do those things.

If the world were all Tis, they wouldn't have much need for that since Ti's wouldn't be offended by violating such behavior. It's other types that are offended by it. And everyone has a hard time accepting the different values of other people, some are just quicker at doing so.


I don't think you understand much about T in general, let alone Ti.



OrangeAppled said:


> Yes, when Ti types make this accusation (which many do not, in fairness to them), they are projecting their inferior Fe onto others.


Nope, that's not what Fe does. It's about the values of Ti, see above.


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

@B-Con
This is what I posted in another unrelated ENTP thread LOL

Don't you just like it when we fit the descriptions. I mean, if we didn't the whole MBTI would be a complete lie, right?



Istbkleta said:


> What does "naturally" mean? :laughing:
> 
> 
> EDIT: Be thankful you are not debating with INTPs.
> ...



@n2freedom, sent PM. This is not the place and I don't want a personal argument. Hope you understand.


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

Istbkleta said:


> @B-Con
> This is what I posted in another unrelated ENTP thread LOL
> 
> Don't you just like it when we fit the descriptions. I mean, if we didn't the whole MBTI would be a complete lie, right?


It's a well-known, good, attribute of INTPs. They're the logic-system builders and critiquers. If you say a bunch of stuff that's clearly wrong, we will catch it and outline why it's wrong for you.

It's fun to watch MB types play out over and over on this forum.


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

B-Con said:


> It's a well-known, good, attribute of INTPs. They're the logic-system builders and critiquers. If you say a bunch of stuff that's clearly wrong, we will catch it and outline why it's wrong for you.
> 
> It's fun to watch MB types play out over and over on this forum.


I am just afraid blinded by these obvious commonalities, we might start putting everybody into too tight a box.

It is obvious to me there are some communication issues. The same words have different meanings to different ppl and might we say types. 

Like this thread where so many arguments are concentrated on the exact meanings of words. This is not the first time I am observing this nor am I experiencing it myself. 

Ti lingo vs. Fi lingo

Your posts kind of points me in this direction. And what a stark difference there is between your post and the others. Except @Jennywocky's post LOL

We rly need to work on communication and getting to know each other I guess.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

B-Con said:


> Nope, that's not what Fe does. It's about the values of Ti, see above.


Meh, a lot of MBTI authors who are likely far more versed in Jungian theory & psychology would disagree with you.

You clearly don't understand what "objective" means within the theory either. None of the introverted functions are objective. Go read some books.


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

OrangeAppled said:


> Meh, a lot of MBTI authors who are likely far more versed in Jungian theory & psychology would disagree with you.
> 
> You clearly don't understand what "objective" means within the theory either. None of the introverted functions are objective. Go read some books.


This sounds* bad* in Ti language. You are asking for conformity. Ti will process what's in the books and will accept or reject it based on its internal judgement. Critical thinking. Individualism. 

Certain kind of Te will accept what's in the book without running it through an internal check with what "I am" . 

This sounds like young impatient Te.

*?*


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

OrangeAppled said:


> Meh, a lot of MBTI authors who are likely far more versed in Jungian theory & psychology would disagree with you.
> 
> You clearly don't understand what "objective" means within the theory either. None of the introverted functions are objective. Go read some books.


From what basis do you claim that "objective" means anything other than what I've described? It really isn't one of the more complicated aspects -- it's the very definition of T vs F. You can't even get through the first three pages of "Gifts Differing" without having my above (extremely brief) explanation provided.

The introverted functions are indeed subjectively controlled, but their purpose and goals are defined by T as objectivity and F as subjectivity. Ti is an objective function, as it falls under the objective side of the rational dichotomy. That's what MB calls it. If they re-worded some vocabulary from Jung then it's possible this is just semantics, because my knowledge of Jung's vocabulary for subjective vs objective is somewhat fuzzy...



Istbkleta said:


> Like this thread where so many arguments are concentrated on the exact meanings of words. This is not the first time I am observing this nor am I experiencing it myself.
> 
> Ti lingo vs. Fi lingo
> 
> Your posts kind of points me in this direction. And what a stark difference there is between your post and the others. Except @Jennywocky's post LOL


Hm, really? Well.. Aside from the above "subjective" discussion with OrangeAppled above nothing I was writing about is about the MBTI _vocabulary_. The OP's use of "objective" vs "subjective" wasn't even the same as the above... There were a lot of wrong concepts, just just words.

This thread has really been almost all Fs discussing Ti. (Edit: Well, the first two pages were...) You can't really be too surprised if a Ti takes exception.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

B-Con said:


> No... Almost everything you said about Ti is completely wrong.


lmao. Loves it. 




> Technically, everything we experience is subjective. T tries to find the common objectivity, F looks for how things are subjective. (Over-simplified, but worth repeating.) Ti specifically considers self to be the final arbiter of what things are objective and which aren't. It looks for objectivity, but you could describe it as "egotistical objectivity".


Egotistical objectivity, yes that is how I will describe in the future. Thank you. 




> Also, I have no reason to assume she's INTP. I wouldn't trust your assessment, based on what you've written.


I didn't type her. She took the test and fits all the type relations with others. 


> But you've *completely* missed the point. Your "opinion" isn't on the same plane of opinions that they're talking about. That IS what they're complaining about.
> 
> Ti values acting on logically-derived opinions and decisions. They love it. They want to know what _your_ opinions are regardless of other people. Eg, in a vaccum, what do _you_ think? They then value you acting on that, not on the values of others. You're saying that your chief opinion is acting based on other people's opinions, and that's the very thing that Ti is saying that they don't like. They want you make all your decisions by yourself and then follow through on them to the best of your ability.
> 
> I'm not saying that's the best perspective, just that that's what Ti's criticism is.


But there is an egotistical objectivity to the argument that you're missing here: 
It isn't about other people's opinions. I'm not taking their "opinion" into consideration. I take their "world" into consideration. Totally different. 
Example, a friend of mine was freaking out the other day because of a relationship predicament he believed he had found himself in. I told him point blank, "Dude, you don't have anything to worry about, she's using you." 
That's my honest opinion and exists completely separately from his opinion but it takes his "world" into consideration to formulate the opinion.
Just like you're saying that Ti finds it's own logical reasoning, I find my own reasoning, too. And it's based off a lot evidence but it is uniquely my own. 




> Yes! And that's again, a perfectly classic T vs F. Ti cares nothing about anything you just said there. They don't care about their relationship to the person, or that person's values, or feelings, or whatever. Ti doesn't like those things and considers them irrelevant. Ti wants to make decisions regardless of those things, and they value seeing that done by others as well. They consider it a weakness or shallowness to do those things.


It's shallow to consider ethics, morality, and where other people are coming from? 
Actually, ethics/morality/empathy arguments are considered the epitome of "depth." When you enter a literature class, you will find students entering "deep" conversations. My sister, the INTP logician, shudders at the word "deep." She says that "deep" conversations (literature, ethics, etc.) are unintelligent/untrue because only logic is true. Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that everyone has emotions. Fi is the only function that can analyze emotions.
Fe feels them but Fi analyzes them--says: why is this person feeling this way, why do I feel this way?
Ti-Fe users can't explain why they dislike something. It's so frustrating. That's the frustrating part of this whole argument. None of you can tell me why it feels the way it does, where the emotion comes from, what it means or how to solve the problem!!!!!
You're right, Ti doesn't take other people's "opinions" into consideration. That's why there is a problem right here. This whole conversation is what I consider to be a problem that needs a solution. 



> If the world were all Tis, they wouldn't have much need for that since Ti's wouldn't be offended by violating such behavior. It's other types that are offended by it. And everyone has a hard time accepting the different values of other people, some are just quicker at doing so.


I shudder to think what the world would be like if the whole world were Ti's--or if the world were only one of any type. That would be a very strange/boring/terrible world, indeed. 



> I don't think you understand much about T in general, let alone Ti.


I'm actually much better with Te (most of my friends are Te users) but yes, to use T is fairly draining.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Jennywocky said:


> One trademark of Ti as a primary is autonomy. People are individuals, and they are all free to act and take care of themselves. Any decision made by a person is thus their own responsibility. The initial position of Ti (before tempered by life experience) is that people who make decisions have thought through those decisions and are making them as an expression of choice/will... and that if they haven't, then they should have done so in the first place. (That's where Ti bias comes in.)
> 
> So, in this situation, your mom's offer is assumed to be a conscious, autonomous choice on her part. It's not seen as "taking advantage of someone," it's letting them make their own decision about whether or not to give, and if she didn't want to give it, she should stop giving it. Ti would likely not care either way; it just takes advantage of its own set of choices to make.
> 
> As I experience it, Ti primary does resent people not acting from autonomy but out of a need to create obligation in others. If Ti primary perceives that this is happening, there are a few typical responses: (1) Don't ever accept ANYTHING from that person, to avoid their attempt to ensnare you, or (2) take whatever you can from that person but not respond to the inherent obligation, because it should have been offered freely to start with.


I like this very much. Thank you.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Khys said:


> Ti is making decisions/conclusions based on objective facts
> Fi is making decisions/conclusions based on emotional factors
> Look at your example this way.
> 
> ...


I liked this description very much. Emotional facts--yes!!! Thank you


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Istbkleta said:


> Fi: Joe told me something that made me feel bad, thus Joe is bad. I will not embark on a soul searching mission of a couple of hours to uncover what exactly made me feel bad in what Joe said. Thus I will remain blind to the real issue.


Fi: Joe said: "You are a condescending c***." Why did Joe say that? He probably said it because he was angry. Why was he angry? Was there something I did that made him angry? Did I attack Joe? 
Then, Fi reconstructs all the possible things that has happened in Joe's life today. Perhaps, Joe is just having a bad day and was feeling oversensitive. Perhaps I said something that led him to believe that I truly am what he said I was. In that case, I must deconstruct what was said and how it was said in the context to see how I could have rephrased it. 
Fi tells me: I like Joe. I don't want Joe to hate me/stop talking to me. I want us to continue our relationship. Sure, I'm condescending sometimes. Maybe he can't deal with it. If that is the case, I'm sad we can't be friends. I hope we can work through this. 

*I just had to correct the view of Fi.

Please, let me know if you still think Fi keeps one blind to the real issue because I disagree until shown otherwise.


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

marzipan01 said:


> But there is an egotistical objectivity to the argument that you're missing here:
> It isn't about other people's opinions. I'm not taking their "opinion" into consideration. I take their "world" into consideration. Totally different.


I think that's a splitting of hairs. Ti sees the entire world as binding together and making sense. To consider someone's opinion is to consider their entire world. And vice versa.

[edit]
Well, wait a second... Maybe not a splitting of hairs. By "entire world" I think you're including their well-being. And that's where Ti can get into trouble. Ti can be too focused on being correct and logical that they sacrifice someone else's well-being because the other person should see to it that their well-being isn't harmed by someone else being correct and logical. So that can be a stereotypical pitfall of the Ti (definitely true for the INTP).

But outside of the physical well-being, and to some extent the emotional, those are the same.
[/edit]



marzipan01 said:


> Example, a friend of mine was freaking out the other day because of a relationship predicament he believed he had found himself in. I told him point blank, "Dude, you don't have anything to worry about, she's using you."
> That's my honest opinion and exists completely separately from his opinion but it takes his "world" into consideration to formulate the opinion.
> Just like you're saying that Ti finds it's own logical reasoning, I find my own reasoning, too. And it's based off a lot evidence but it is uniquely my own.


TBH, I'm not really sure what that example illustrates... You considered his feelings, yes, but that's just in how you convey the message, that's not really what you do in life. Ti is more concerned with conformity of dress, to pick a random example. You can be strong Ti and still be nice.



marzipan01 said:


> It's shallow to consider ethics, morality, and where other people are coming from?


No, they are not shallow. But Ti doesn't really care. :-D

Really it's all about logic systems for Ti. Once you leave those behind, the Ti stops caring. For example, INTPs are generally good at allowing people to lead their own lives on their own moral basis -- so long as they make logically consistent decisions. For example, maybe Bob values "feeling good" and drinking helps him relax. John doesn't care to be relaxed and also thinks drinking is wrong, but they're both INTPs and John doesn't harass Bob for Bob's decisions.

That's why INTPs are great consultants. Give them the base starting parameters and they can quickly see where it leads and what is necessary. They care about the analysis way more than where they actually started.

That's why they're called "The Thinkers". That's what they like to sit and do... The most important two words to an INTP are "if" and "then".



marzipan01 said:


> My sister, the INTP logician, shudders at the word "deep." She says that "deep" conversations (literature, ethics, etc.) are unintelligent/untrue because only logic is true.


Yes, just like I said above! That's Ti. The logic *is* interesting, the initial assumptions are *not*.

Now, a lot of people love to dwell on those things, but Ti quickly realized that no one can prove anything. You can sit and dissect them for 30 years, but you will never show how one set of feelings, emotions, or values is _better_ than another. You can only analyze how they work and whether or not we like how they work. That's the Ti's objectiveness at work -- "prove to me how one set is better than other" it says. Out of practicality it then says to pick whichever one yields the best results. But Ti is more interested in analyzing the systems on top of those base assumptions than the base assumptions themselves.



marzipan01 said:


> Ti-Fe users can't explain why they dislike something. It's so frustrating. That's the frustrating part of this whole argument. None of you can tell me why it feels the way it does, where the emotion comes from, what it means or how to solve the problem!!!!!


Wait, solve what problem? We've just discussed what Ti does... No personal feelings are involved here. Are you asking for help dealing with a specific problem?



marzipan01 said:


> You're right, Ti doesn't take other people's "opinions" into consideration. That's why there is a problem right here. This whole conversation is what I consider to be a problem that needs a solution.


Well, no offense, but I consider this conversation (between the two of us) to be you ranting about Ti and me correcting your understanding of Ti. I don't have any feelings invested in it at all. Maybe I missed something in the other posts...



marzipan01 said:


> I shudder to think what the world would be like if the whole world were Ti's. That would be a very strange world, indeed.


Everyone says this about functions that aren't their own. Including myself. ;-)


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

marzipan01 said:


> *I just had to correct the view of Fi.
> 
> Please, let me know if you still think Fi keeps one blind to the real issue. Because I disagree.


No. I agree with your description of an experienced Fi. 

Will a 6yo Fi think like your example or like mine?

Just like a 6yo Ti might react very differently from a 16yo Ti or from a 26yo Ti.

I was trying to verify if Ti and Fi don't actually become more and more like each other as time passes. That was my heretic question.





B-Con said:


> Everyone says this about functions that aren't their own. Including myself. ;-)


And about functions that are our own. The world would not survive long 




B-Con said:


> No personal feelings are involved here.


You don't believe that yourself :tongue: I am calling you on your BS :dry:


----------



## B-Con (Dec 24, 2010)

Istbkleta said:


> And about functions that are our own. The world would not survive long


I think INTJs and ISTJs would survive wonderfully on their own. Besides them... Hm... Well, that's another topic. 



Istbkleta said:


> You don't believe that yourself :tongue: I am calling you on your BS :dry:


I do. This entire conversation, as I am involved, is about correcting understanding of the Ti function as explained by MB. It's a discussion of a theory, no emotions necessary. Maybe someone else is looking for emotions to analyze or has emotional investment, but it's not me...

Once we start talking about how any of this makes us feel, well, I'm done. ;-)


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

Istbkleta said:


> This sounds* bad* in Ti language. You are asking for conformity. Ti will process what's in the books and will accept or reject it based on its internal judgement. Critical thinking. Individualism.
> 
> Certain kind of Te will accept what's in the book without running it through an internal check with what "I am" .
> 
> ...


No, I'm asking for a person to inform themselves, not conform. I don't accept everything I read as truth; but it's certainly useful for not living in a bubble. I'm a Fi-dom - critical thinking, internal judgment, individualism, checking things against an internal standard - that's the way I approach things also.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Istbkleta said:


> @n2freedom, sent PM. This is not the place and I don't want a personal argument. Hope you understand.


See another example of why I have the opinion you consistently engage in passive aggressive maneuvers. This post implies an attempt of playing nice and civility. But, as I look closer I am curious as to why do you need to post this here when the first notification you receive are emails. So, basically I would have gotten your email notification well before seeing the notification of a "mention" in a post thread. Secondly, after what I perceive as two rants one in general and the other one directed to me, you suddenly have an epiphany this is not the place? Thirdly, I responded to your last rant and indicated to you that this is a *public* forum. And, from what I can tell threads get derailed many times. 

I am really leaning toward posting the PM that you sent me because it certainly doesn't reflect what your "place nice" statement above indicates. The more I observe your actions the more I'm convinced of my *opinion* of you...and that is you habitually engage in passive aggressive maneuvers. FYI...

*"You can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, BUT you can fool ALL of the people ALL of the time."

*


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

n2freedom said:


> See another example of why I have the opinion you consistently engage in passive aggressive maneuvers. This post implies an attempt of playing nice and civility. But, as I look closer I am curious as to why do you need to post this here when the first notification you receive are emails. So, basically I would have gotten your email notification well before seeing the notification of a "mention" in a post thread. Secondly, after what I perceive as two rants one in general and the other one directed to me, you suddenly have an epiphany this is not the place? Thirdly, I responded to your last rant and indicated to you that this is a *public* forum. And, from what I can tell threads get derailed many times.
> 
> I am really leaning toward posting the PM that you sent me because it certainly doesn't reflect what your "place nice" statement above indicates. The more I observe your actions the more I'm convinced of my *opinion* of you...and that is you habitually engage in passive aggressive maneuvers. FYI...
> 
> ...


Oh, please humor us. I have cookies, with sugar on top ; ) I enjoy watching this guy making a complete ass of himself ; D


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Istbkleta said:


> I was trying to verify if Ti and Fi don't actually become more and more like each other as time passes. That was my heretic question.


I know that I've suggested that Fi that tries to accommodate external necessity and Ti that tries to accommodate internal inclinations as legitimate both do end up looking similar the more they develop.



n2freedom said:


> See another example of why I have the opinion you consistently engage in passive aggressive maneuvers. This post implies an attempt of playing nice and civility.


Probably not worth wasting your time.

He only quoted the few paragraphs of my comments that he could agree and totally failed to engage the rest, as if that somehow showed complete solidarity -- not a show of good faith that would encourage more investment in this conversation. *shrug*


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

n2freedom said:


> See another example of why I have the opinion you consistently engage in passive aggressive maneuvers. This post implies an attempt of playing nice and civility. But, as I look closer I am curious as to why do you need to post this here when the first notification you receive are emails. So, basically I would have gotten your email notification well before seeing the notification of a "mention" in a post thread. Secondly, after what I perceive as two rants one in general and the other one directed to me, you suddenly have an epiphany this is not the place? Thirdly, I responded to your last rant and indicated to you that this is a *public* forum. And, from what I can tell threads get derailed many times.
> 
> I am really leaning toward posting the PM that you sent me because it certainly doesn't reflect what your "place nice" statement above indicates. The more I observe your actions the more I'm convinced of my *opinion* of you...and that is you habitually engage in passive aggressive maneuvers. FYI...
> 
> ...


LOL :crazy:

That's an interesting point you make there.





Jennywocky said:


> *Probably not worth wasting your time.*
> 
> ... not a show of good faith that would encourage more investment in this conversation. **shrug**



Yes. This has been my desire for several weeks. It's not working.





MuChApArAdOx said:


> Oh, please humor us. I have cookies, with sugar on top ; ) I *enjoy* watching this guy making a complete ass of himself ; D


Yes. I do. When I engage functions I am not comfortable with.

Why are you deriving pleasure from that?

You enjoy watching other ppl screw up.

What is with you?


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Istbkleta said:


> LOL :crazy:
> 
> That's an interesting point you make there.
> 
> ...


Karma, that is all. 

No, i enjoy watching you bury yourself. I lost respect for you when you disrespected the ENFP, from day 1
Don't bother trying your famous manipulation tactics on me , they won't work, i can see right through you.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Oh, please humor us. I have cookies, with sugar on top ; ) I enjoy watching this guy making a complete ass of himself ; D


As much as I want to, I won't. And, believe me Muchaparadox, I want to. It's futile and I know from personal experience. However, I will post what passive aggressive behavior is so that others might understand this crazy making behavior.



> Passive aggressive behavior stems from an inability to express anger in a *healthy way*. A person's feelings may be so repressed that *they don't even realize* they are angry or feeling resentment. A passive aggressive can drive people around him/her crazy and *seem sincerely dismayed when confronted with their behavior*. *Due to their own lack of insight into their feelings the passive aggressive often feels that others misunderstand them or, are holding them to unreasonable standards if they are confronted about their behavior.*
> *Common Passive Aggressive Behaviors:*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I lost respect for you


*Exactly!*

*So do what normal ppl do and ignore me. *

It's *not* normal to derive pleasure from watching ppl screw up with a function they have no experience of. 

I mean. What you are doing is simply ... being hateful and cruel. 

That's my issue.

You are simply not ... normal. No normal person would devote their time to watching ppl struggle and feel good about it.


Do you see it? 

I am not your problem. 

Whatever it is it can't be solved by hating a stranger on an online forum.

You are *not* feeling better when thinking about me. *Don't*. It's that simple. 

Let it go.

Move on.




@n2freedom

What exactly are you doing?

Bashing me for struggling with my 3d function.

Good job. 

I guess you also laugh at babies when they fall down while trying to walk.

Or kids when they get the wrong result.

*Or people learning something new?*

That is why my opinion of you is so low. You know what you are doing and still choose to do it. 

I am guessing I am not the first person you put in their "place".


On another note: I am thinking about your remarks. I am not saying they are factually incorrect. They are just malicious. 


That's it.

Further discussion is just derailing this thread. Move on.

Say bye.

*Bye*


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

n2freedom said:


> As much as I want to, I won't. And, believe me Muchaparadox, I want to. It's futile and I know from personal experience. However, I will post what passive aggressive behavior is so that others might understand this crazy making behavior.


I knew you wouldn't, as i wouldn't either. I was just having a laugh  Thanks for posting this. Even if 1 person reads it and gets some use from the information, it was well worth posting. I enjoyed reading and have learned a few things myself XD


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

You are _all_ being passive-aggressive.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Hey Marzi I know we aren't in the ENFP forum but I figured you'd be okay with it anyway:

*BIG HUGS!!!!


----------



## Berdudget (Mar 24, 2011)

marzipan01 said:


> Sounds that way is the key.
> I'm going to blow this up so you can see what it looks like from my perspective: If someone follows you around and says, "I can spoon feed you mashed potatoes." Then it's like: "Are you trying to say that I can't feed myself? Do I look like a paraplegic? If I were one, would you have to ask me that question? Get away, please."
> 
> She is forever meddling. I don't want someone to follow me around looking for ways to help.
> ...


(sry no paragraph breaks) I understand what you're saying here. I definitely do this. I'm sure it affects my ENTP husband the same way it affects you. I am trying very, very hard to communicate differently. I am starting to understand the inherent flaw in my trying to present something in what I perceive to be the most appealing packaging. Your mini rant is helpful. Thank you. Don't feel bad about it. I am on this site to gain insight into the perspectives of others. I value directness from others but have difficulty providing it in return at times. The good news is, practice makes functional.  Now I know that when my husband asks me what I want and I tell him directly and he proceeds to ignore my want, he probably just wanted the data in case it might affect his decision. I guess. But I shouldn't avoid directly telling him, say, which restaurant I want to go to for lunch in case he disregards my choice and goes somewhere else. I should just freaking let him make decisions the way he makes decisions instead of trying to figure out which restaurant he wants me to want to go to. Gosh it's silly.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Istbkleta said:


> *Exactly!*
> 
> *So do what normal ppl do and ignore me. *
> 
> ...


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Istbkleta said:


> @_n2freedom_
> 
> What exactly are you doing?


Something that I really know better than to do....force awareness.



Istbkleta said:


> Bashing me for struggling with my 3d function.
> 
> Good job.


I don't see it as a struggle with your 3d function. I see it as a struggle with repressed anger manifesting as passive aggressive behavior. For instance, this whole post is conflicting and ambiguous. First you ask me a question. Then you accuse me while simultaneously playing the role of victim. Then, you make a really sorry attempt, in my opinion, of trying to insult me. Also, you stated it's derailing the thread but you continue making comments because in my opinion it is killing you not to have the last word.

But, after this post, if you should decide to post again, I choose to let you have that satisfaction that it seems you so desperately crave along with a high need of attention...(again this is my opinion).



Istbkleta said:


> I guess you also laugh at babies when they fall down while trying to walk.
> 
> Or kids when they get the wrong result.
> 
> *Or people learning something new?*


In my opinion, this is an example of illogical reasoning (irrelevant conclusion) at it's best. I have no clue how these statements have anything to do with my impression that you engage in passive aggressive behavior. That is what I have basically been saying all day and yesterday. 

I believe you are angry because when you posted that first rant about F's you didn't get the response you expected. I believe you posted that to bait someone to get riled up so that you could then play victim and accuse them of over-reacting.

I asked you questions about the statements you made so emphatically. Then you posted a second rant directed at me. Buy a clue please, I own my emotions, I choose them. And, I'm not going to exert my emotions because an adult is engaging in childish temper tantrums by submitting inflammatory posts. 



Istbkleta said:


> That is why my opinion of you is so low. You know what you are doing and still choose to do it.
> 
> I am guessing I am not the first person you put in their "place".


Again, as I responded to you in the PM. You are entitled to your opinion. Yes, I know what I am doing...*directly* challenging the passive aggressive maneuvers being employed by you.



Istbkleta said:


> On another note: I am thinking about your remarks. I am not saying they are factually incorrect. They are just malicious.


Okay. I would ask you how did you come to that conclusion. However, I believe it would be futile because it seems to me you are emoting and not really interested in having a discussion. 

Because I believe if go back and read the posts you will realize that I have been asking you questions, labeling your behavior NOT YOU, expressing *my* beliefs and/or opinions, with the exception of my condescending mirror mirror on the wall statement....I was really trying to get your goat with that one. Looks like it worked to....I can be quite naughty like that at times.



Istbkleta said:


> That's it.
> 
> Further discussion is just derailing this thread. Move on.
> 
> ...


Time will tell....if you will honor "just derailing this thread". But, again if you decide to respond, I chose to let you have your last word. Enjoy your evening! Thank you for your business!!:tongue: Oops! I did it again...I must stop doing that!


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

lirulin said:


> You are _all_ being passive-aggressive.


LOL :crazy:

I haven't *even* consciously realized it before n2freedom pointed it out. Guess something good came out of this.

I am proly PA more often than I think, it must be my perception of the world.

There will be some old post reading later ... I am going to catch that bugger Fe no matter how it wriggles. 

But thank you for putting it in such "polite" words :tongue: This was refreshing! :crazy: 

Thanks.




n2freedom said:


> Time will tell....if you will honor "just derailing this thread".


*DEAL!*

You can challenge my PA any day you care. Just say it ... like you'd like it said to you.

Love you :tongue:

*Bye.*





MuChApArAdOx said:


> LOL. Are you wanting me to feel sorry for you ? Ah, funny how you can go from being all brave and cool, to tears. Look its like this dude, until you stop trying to manipulate the ENFP's, i will following you around and be your biggest nightmare. You came into this forum as if we owed you a favor, with all your typist, snarky condescending attitude towards the ENFP. The almighty superior logical one. Yet when you get called out , you cry and whine like a little girl. Man up, if you can dish it, take it. Its just a manipulating game for you, you and I both know that. . You think we're here to follow your rules, we're not. If i was the only ENFP using my Ne to see exactly what you're doing, i would reconsider my thoughts. Obviously i'm not, because others are seeing exactly the same thing i am.
> 
> I know it hurts you to think we're not as stupid as you try and spread here there and everywhere, we're always a step ahead of you, that's your problem dude.
> 
> ...



Yes. That's still my opinion. You, as a person, have issues.

Deal with them. I can't help you with that. Nor am I your issue.

I guess there is no point telling you bye. You don't seem to do it like that.

Nah.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Istbkleta said:


> Does developing Ti or Fi by default include developing the other?


Yes and no. 
Fi is a function of putting things into emotional order. But if you learn to cultivate your Ti to analyze your Fe, then you've got enough to have a pseudo Fi. 
Furthermore, Fi is concerned with how to be good. 
The more you are yourself and comfortable with who you are, the more "good" you become.
My reasoning: 
Being yourself = more energy. 
More energy means you can spend more time doing things that make you happy. 
When you are happy, you are nice to other people and feed them positive Fe vibes. 
So, go forth, be happy, be yourself.


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

Muchaparadox and Istbkleta:
I can't say I totally understand what's going on here. 
But what I make up of it is that 
Istbkleta has said some pretty typist things about Fi. 
Istbkleta the solution to your problem is to apologize. This is the way to make up with people. Unless you want to continue to argue and have a hateful relationship, you should back down and admit you were wrong and say your sorry. I know I appreciate that. Muchaparadox is a very awesome person I admit every time I see her avatar I get excited. I'm sure she would forgive you if you just apologized. Then you could honestly say you loved her. 
Muchaparadox is after all a really awesome person. 
She just got upset when you attacked her personality.
And I realize that perhaps you only did this because you are insecure about not having a function or an understanding of a function. But it's really not important enough to hurt other people in the process of discovering. 
Accusing an entire group of people of being immoral/cruel isn't logical, correct, or getting you anywhere. 
But then, see, I know this because I've done the same thing. 
You see? 
So, now, we can all admit that none of us is perfect. 
Let's all get along and have a big hug.


----------



## Istbkleta (Apr 30, 2011)

I say that thought and believed wrong and that is my apology. To my conscience.

But you want me to say that *"I"* was wrong.

Only *I* pass judgement on "I".

This whole argument is because of this.

You can't make me pass "your" moral judgement on "me". You have got to be delusional.


EDIT: Explaining Ti to Fi types
Weak Ti shows through but still good.


----------



## Monkey King (Nov 16, 2010)

I must admit, I'm actually having difficulty in understanding both Fi and Ti in this thread, especially Ti based on how you've described it. However, I can relate with this: 



> Thus, my opinions are formulated based on a careful calculation of:
> What I want right now
> What I want in the long term
> Who I want to be right now
> Who I want to be in the long run


I've recently experienced something in my life to force me to develop my inferior function and found myself really asking myself those questions. "Who I want to be right now," seemed to be the hardest to figure out.


----------



## Nonconsensus (May 19, 2011)

I don't see Ti vs Fi either. It's just T vs F.



n2freedom said:


> I am really leaning toward posting the PM that you sent me because it certainly doesn't reflect what your "place nice" statement above indicates.


This is why I don't share my personal feelings and thoughts. I don't know where they'd end up afterward.



I had originally thought that the OP's thread is an attempt to explain Fi, and it's interesting to see Ti through Fi lens. But now I have difficulty understanding the purpose of this thread. The motive is now suspect.

Here's a little T perspective: Having our motives suspected all the time is what makes us tick in the first place. Drowning our ideas in a sea of motives is perhaps an equivalent to, what is to Fs, drowning your perspective in a sea of "emotionless logic." We need as much benefit of doubt as any individual out there needs.


----------



## n2freedom (Jun 2, 2011)

Nonconsensus said:


> This is why I don't share my personal feelings and thoughts. I don't know where they'd end up afterward.


Good point and I respect your viewpoint. And, I agree for the most part especially with strangers and people I do not trust. However, there have been times when it has been worth the risk to discover a different perspective. And, many times it has lead to life changing breakthroughs in my thinking. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Nonconsensus said:


> Here's a little T perspective: Having our motives suspected all the time is what makes us tick in the first place. Drowning our ideas in a sea of motives is perhaps an equivalent to, what is to Fs, drowning your perspective in a sea of "emotionless logic." *We need as much benefit of doubt as any individual out there needs*.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## susurration (Oct 22, 2009)

I think the point of OP was to suggest that the Ti-doms in her experience view Fi through the lens of Fe. I think that Marzipan is putting her opinion across that intps? view her "feelings" as consensus driven and based on other people think, as opposed to the fact that OP experiences said feelings as being oriented within. 

It comes across as too rant-ish in the OP which is why the thread went haywire of course... it's a pretty innocuous premise really, it just got obscured in the personal stories and judgements. The fi/ti thing though reminds me of that opposing thread simulated world made about fi types trying to understand Ti types. It's been done before... 

As has been said, it's not just a matter of ti/fi but of fi/te and ti/fe...


----------



## tgniewek (Jun 12, 2011)

Okay I didn't read your whole rant but I see where you're coming from. It just bothers me to suggest that Ti is entirely subjective. It's capable of objective considerations... I mean being human and having feelings is always a factor, but how would we have all of these objective theories if someone hadn't thought of them at some point? A person with the right mindset can hone their Ti to being mostly objective.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

^ @tgniewek

Yes, it is hard to swallow at times that Ti is completely subjective (believe me, I know!). 

But it's true. Ti in isolation is completely subjective. According to Jung, the realm of Thinking deals with facts and ideas. Introverted Thinking:


> is neither determined by objective facts nor directed towards objective data -- a thinking, therefore, that proceeds from subjective data and is directed towards subjective ideas or facts of a subjective character. [...] This parallel subjective process has a natural tendency, only relatively avoidable, to subjectify objective facts, i.e. to assimilate them to the subject.


 Concern with objective facts is purely the realm of extraverted Thinking. Ti-dominants' and Ti-auxiliaries' objective judgment function is actually extraverted Feeling. (Source: *here*)

Also, I think the confusion about objective vs. subjective arises from two things: 

1) the misconception that the objective/subjective dichotomy is what differentiates T/F (which is not the case)
2) the misunderstanding of what Jung meant by objective and subjective in his writings.

Most people believe that objective means "expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations" (entry 3a, Merriam-Webster online) and subjective means "(1)peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background" (entry 4a, Merriam-Webster), or the more negative connotation that I pick up from the word is "biased and groundless". 

But what I gather from Jung, is that by objective, he meant "being concerned by objects apart from the self, or being concerned with the external world" (i.e. extraverted); and subjective meaning "being concerned with the subject, or the self" (i.e. the internal world or introverted). 

Or to phrase it differently, "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>" (entry 1b, Merriam Webster) compared to "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind" (entry 3a, Merriam Webster) .


----------



## marzipan01 (Jun 6, 2010)

madhatter said:


> ^ @tgniewek
> 
> Yes, it is hard to swallow at times that Ti is completely subjective (believe me, I know!).
> 
> ...


Thank you!!! Exactly. 
That's how I understand objective vs. subjective --from the Jungian definition. 
Just because something is subjective doesn't mean that it isn't factual and true. 
It just means it is factually relevant to the subject (function user). 
Thus, Ti users are more concerned with the facts related to the subject.
Ti users then go to Fe (emotional fact in regards to the object)
Fi users are more concerned with the emotional facts related to the subject. 
Fi users then go to the Te (logical fact in regards to the object.)


----------

