# Je and Ji: Application vs. Truth



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

This is a thread I've been wanting to make for a while. I believe I have come up with a simple way to distinguish Je from Ji for those who are having trouble with this concept. I could very well be wrong about this, but hey, that's one of the reasons I'm posting this. Feel free to tell me about any inaccuracies.

Anyway, judging functions can be split into extroverted or introverted. Extroverted judgment deals with the external world while introverted judgment deals with the internal world. But what exactly does this mean? What I believe is that Je deals with judgments that can be _applied_ to the real world. Je doms or auxes wish to have a practical, predicable way to deal with the external world. This can take the form of having predictable values (Fe) or predictable logic (Te). Since the real world is complex, Je wishes to simplify it so that it's easier to make decisions. Ji doms and auxes, in contrast, do not care as much about using their judgments in a practical, real-world context. What Ji users care about is _truth._ They want to know something for the sake of knowing something, rather than applying it. They wish to get at the essence of values (Fi) or logical constructs (Ti). There is a strong need to know what is true or false, transcending what is simply practical.

It should be said that just because Je prefers practicality and Ji prefers truth, that does not mean that types that have strong Je cannot search for truth, nor does it mean that Ji users are never practical. It's just that these concerns are _secondary_. Perceiving functions, as well as the complementary J function if well-developed, can make up the difference in this respect. Furthermore, it should be stressed that neither form is superior to the other. Je may want to be practical, but the basis it may be operating from could be incorrect. Ji may believe that they may be getting to the heart of the matter and reaching a truth, but in actuality their judgments are highly subjective and may be ill-formed.

To demonstrate the differences further, let's look at all the judging functions. We'll start with feeling, since I'm a feeler and analyzing the differences between Fi and Fe are what got me here in the first place:

*Fe: *Contrary to popular belief, Fe users aren't necessarily uncritical sheep. This is a misconception. What Fe users want is a set of values that can be applied to people in general. In order to do this, Fe users observe the reactions and feelings of the people around them form their own values based on them. While the result may be gaining values similar to those of the culture around them, a healthy Fe user can adjust their values so that they apply to people from cultures other than their own or to those who simply don't fit into the mainstream culture. I've experienced this myself. Unhealthy Fe can have more trouble dealing with other value systems and may be inconsiderate of them.

*Fi: *Fi, in contrast to Fe, develop their values in a way that is somewhat isolated from the real world. Instead of observing other people's reactions, they observe their own reactions to external events and base their values on those reactions. Fi and Fe can have some overlap in this respect, as both tend to have kindness and integrity as ideals. The difference is the source of those ideals. Healthy Fi works as well as Fe when dealing with people, but unhealthy Fi may be inconsiderate and selfish.

Now I shall go on to thinking. I admit that this is a bit of a weak point for me and I'm not sure if I understand Te and Ti fully, but I shall try to explain them in the context of my theory and see where it goes:

*Te: *Te is actually somewhat similar to Fe, in that it relies on observation of the real world to see what works. However, what they're looking for is different. Te is looking to see if their logic works, rather than if their values work. Healthy Te can be critical and adjust their logic when proven incorrect, just as Fe can adjust values. Unhealthy Te may be dogmatic, as they may resist internal input.

*Ti: *Ti is also somewhat similar to Fi, but again, the internal reactions they're looking for differ. Ti tests external events against their internal logic. Just like the relationship with Fe and Fi, Te and Ti both wish to have logical consistency and accuracy. The only difference is how it is approached. Unhealthy Ti may also be dogmatic, but the basis is internal rather than external.

It's a bit more complex than this (and I think the part about observing is related more to perceiving and judging working in tandem), but I believe that is the gist of it. I hope this is helpful for anyone having trouble with their types due to not knowing which Je or Ji function they're using. ^_^


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

Could you give a concrete example of Je and Ji? Could you pick a value that Fi and Fe might share, and explain how the processes are different in reaching that value?


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

eunoia said:


> Could you give a concrete example of Je and Ji? Could you pick a value that Fi and Fe might share, and explain how the processes are different in reaching that value?


 Sure. Say if someone hit a person. Both Fe and Fi would likely argue that it's wrong. However, the thought process is different:

Fe: People don't like being hurt! That's wrong!
Fi: It's wrong to hurt people! _I_ don't like people being hurt, and _I_ don't like to be hurt! 

Of course, people don't usually say that to themselves consciously, lol. It's a bit subconscious. The differences are subtle, but they're there.


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Okay. Say if someone hit a person. Both Fe and Fi would likely argue that it's wrong. However, the thought process is different:
> 
> Fe: People don't usually like being hurt! That's wrong!
> Fi: It's wrong to hurt people! _I_ don't like people being hurt, and _I_ don't like to be hurt!
> ...


Haha, thanks. See, I feel confused by this because I do both. I have basic values that are Fe, I think, but when there are dilemmas or something is tricky, I do the Fi thing. Or perhaps it's a mixture of Fe and Fi. I'm not sure..


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

eunoia said:


> Haha, thanks. See, I feel confused by this because I do both. I have basic values that are Fe, I think, but when there are dilemmas or something is tricky, I do the Fi thing. Or perhaps it's a mixture of Fe and Fi. I'm not sure..


 Yeah, it can be hard. I'm not going to deny that. Both can go into our moral reasoning, I think. (That occurred to me as I was typing out that example.) I suppose it's simply about preference. Good luck!


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Yeah, it can be hard. I'm not going to deny that. Both can go into our moral reasoning, I think. (That occurred to me as I was typing out that example.) I suppose it's simply about preference. Good luck!


Yeah I am 99% sure I'm an INFJ, but still struggle differentiating between Fi and Fe, so I like reading threads like this. Reading it theoretically, it all makes sense. I'm like, oh yeah I'm totally Fe. But I always get tripped up when I think of concrete examples because I'm like...wait. I DO think, "how would I feel." But at the same time, I think, "how would others feel." Just want to understand these functions so I can better describe it to someone who needs real examples!


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

eunoia said:


> Yeah I am 99% sure I'm an INFJ, but still struggle differentiating between Fi and Fe, so I like reading threads like this. Reading it theoretically, it all makes sense. I'm like, oh yeah I'm totally Fe. But I always get tripped up when I think of concrete examples because I'm like...wait. I DO think, "how would I feel." But at the same time, I think, "how would others feel." Just want to understand these functions so I can better describe it to someone who needs real examples!


 Well, another thing has occurred to me with this. Perhaps an Fe user could have a similar response to the Fi user in some circumstances, as I imagine that anyone would say that they don't like others getting hurt regardless of their type. The reason why Fe users don't like others getting hurt is slightly different from and Fi user, however. Fe users don't like it because it disrupts the external harmony they're trying to maintain, while Fi users don't like it because it clashes with their sense of self. Both are hurt by it and dislike seeing it. Both care about the person being hurt. They may look pretty similar in practice, actually. That's why it's important to examine the source of your values. Concrete examples may not always be the best way to look at this, as a person's thought processes aren't directly observable.


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Well, another thing has occurred to me with this. Perhaps an Fe user could have a similar response to the Fi user in some circumstances, as I imagine that anyone would say that they don't like others getting hurt regardless of their type. The reason why Fe users don't like others getting hurt is slightly different from and Fi user, however. Fe users don't like it because it disrupts the external harmony they're trying to maintain, while Fi users don't like it because it clashes with their internal morals. Both are hurt by it and dislike seeing it. They may look pretty similar in practice, actually. That's why it's important to examine the source of your values.


Hm, okay. So what does it feel like to have the external harmony vs internal harmony disrupted? Are you saying a Fe user would feel, "this is just not something that is socially acceptable to be happening right now," while a Fi user would just feel it in their gut (I can't think of a better way to explain Fi..)?


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

eunoia said:


> Hm, okay. So what does it feel like to have the external harmony vs internal harmony disrupted? Are you saying a Fe user would feel, "this is just not something that is socially acceptable to be happening right now," while a Fi user would just feel it in their gut (I can't think of a better way to explain Fi..)?


 I changed "internal morals" to "sense of self" and added something about how hard it is to observe a person's thought process. An edit ninja is I. :tongue:

I think may be it, but for some reason, I hate the wording "socially unacceptable." How about "THAT'S NOT HOW YOU TREAT PEOPLE!!!1111oneone" XD


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> I changed "internal morals" to "sense of self" and added something about how hard it is to observe a person's thought process. An edit ninja is I. :tongue:
> 
> I think may be it, but for some reason, I hate the wording "socially unacceptable." How about "THAT'S NOT HOW YOU TREAT PEOPLE!!!1111oneone" XD


haha, ah okay. Yeah, I had some trouble with typing "socially unacceptable" as well. Okay, how about this.. I've seen some people explain Fi as "subjective morality" and Fe as "objective morality," and so some Fi users think Fe users can come off as righteous and dogmatic. But I think Fi users can come off the same way. Both can be pretty pushy or not pushy. I'm not sure where the conception comes from in regards to Fe users. Any thoughts?


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

eunoia said:


> haha, ah okay. Yeah, I had some trouble with typing "socially unacceptable" as well. Okay, how about this.. I've seen some people explain Fi as "subjective morality" and Fe as "objective morality," and so some Fi users think Fe users can come off as righteous and dogmatic. But I think Fi users can come off the same way. Both can be pretty pushy or not pushy. I'm not sure where the conception comes from in regards to Fe users. Any thoughts?


 Well, I think one sees the other as pushy and dogmatic because each one is facing a viewpoint they're not compatible with. I suppose this conception in regards to Fe users because Fe tries to be more generalized (i.e. they want a set of rules to apply to people in general) while Fi users see the exception to the rule. However, the Fi user can easily be as wrong as Fe. It just depends on the situation.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Hmm...actually, let's do some examples with that!

Example 1:
Unhealthy Fe User: It's wrong to do drugs! 
Fi user: Why?
Unhealthy Fe User: Um..because it is?
Fi user: -_-U 

Example 2
Unhealthy Fi user: Look, I'm not dealing with your crap. You're irritating me!
Fe user: Show some respect! 

A bit simplistic, but that's the best I could come up with off the top of my head.


----------



## eunoia (Nov 19, 2010)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> Hmm...actually, let's do some examples with that!
> 
> Example 1:
> Unhealthy Fe User: It's wrong to do drugs!
> ...


I was trying to explain my thought process when it came to morality but there were so many "ifs" and "buts" and complexity that I confused myself so I'm going to have to think about it and come back to it. 

In terms of your example, I'm interested to see an example of an argument between a healthy Fe user and healthy Fi user. Because that's where it gets tricky.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> This is a thread I've been wanting to make for a while. I believe I have come up with a simple way to distinguish Je from Ji for those who are having trouble with this concept. I could very well be wrong about this, but hey, that's one of the reasons I'm posting this. Feel free to tell me about any inaccuracies.
> 
> Anyway, judging functions can be split into extroverted or introverted. Extroverted judgment deals with the external world while introverted judgment deals with the internal world. But what exactly does this mean? What I believe is that Je deals with judgments that can be _applied_ to the real world. Je doms or auxes wish to have a practical, predicable way to deal with the external world. This can take the form of having predictable values (Fe) or predictable logic (Te). Since the real world is complex, Je wishes to simplify it so that it's easier to make decisions. Ji doms and auxes, in contrast, do not care as much about using their judgments in a practical, real-world context. What Ji users care about is _truth._ They want to know something for the sake of knowing something, rather than applying it. They wish to get at the essence of values (Fi) or logical constructs (Ti). There is a strong need to know what is true or false, transcending what is simply practical.
> 
> ...


I think this a pretty good explanation for the differences between Ps and Js, Js need a external context for their evaluations while Ps prefer a personal context for evaluations, here is something I said on another forum that is relevant to this thread:



> It is interesting how Ji can be both very laissez faire and unyielding, it has a very live and let live attitude about other people because Ji respects other's personal identities and their own right to personal freedom(this play's into alot of IPs being usually passive and laid-back in demeanor). It really is externally flexible, maybe too externally flexible in some ways, but boy is it internally stubborn, when it's forced into a situation where it has to compromise it's principles, it will go down with the sinking ship if it has to stay consistent with itself.
> 
> The same with Je expecting others to follow a externally imposed guide and living up to other's expectations, it expects everyone to conform to varying degrees to external standards it sees as trustworthy, sometimes with no exceptions, we all know that uptight principal stereotype(Ji usually recognizes it's personal principles is not for everyone else, it sees this kind of thing being personalized). But at the same time Je is very internally flexible, it will come off as very uptight because it has a kind of convential approach compared to Ji but it will but aside it's own personal grievances for the broader goal, it sets that goal and will try any approach it sees fit to achieve it, usually this can be good but sometimes it can lead to questionable actions. That is why alot of IPs have a big problem with Je, it looks downright hypocritical at times.


----------



## Robopop (Jun 15, 2010)

> Te: Te is actually somewhat similar to Fe, in that it relies on observation of the real world to see what works. However, what they're looking for is different. Te is looking to see if their logic works, rather than if their values work. Healthy Te can be critical and adjust their logic when proven incorrect, just as Fe can adjust values. Unhealthy Te may be dogmatic, as they may resist internal input.
> 
> Ti: Ti is also somewhat similar to Fi, but again, the internal reactions they're looking for differ. Ti tests external events against their internal logic. Just like the relationship with Fe and Fi, Te and Ti both wish to have logical consistency and accuracy. The only difference is how it is approached. Unhealthy Ti may also be dogmatic, but the basis is internal rather than external.


To add to this, the soundness and validity of Te depends heavily on the external sources/authorities the Te user puts stock in, if those external sources don't provide constructive criticism to the Te user's idea's and only provide mostly positive feedback to everything they say, the Te user will think their thinking is "correct". If those external sources provided some much need constructive criticism the Te user would easily change their beliefs/idea of correctness, this shows the internal flexibility of Je. But they should have a balancing Pi perspective to challenge what the external sources agree is correct if it does not go with their previous contextual associations(Ni) or instinctual sensory experience(Si). This might result in TJs being more stubborn about external standards until the people they consider experts in the particular subject change those external standards, be they laws, tests, contests rules, ect.

I think alot of TJs would actually appreciate someone they trust to constantly correct them and criticize their ideas if they are erroneous, some people just might be initially intimidated by their critical and impersonal demeanor.

Ti usually doesn't have this problem with validity because it trust it's own reasoning abilities to see if the idea holds together and is consistent. In a way Ti is a kind of logical self-justification scheme, this shows it's subjectivity, Ti users usually won't agree with a idea if it is inconsistent or in conflict with their previous logical standards of correctness even if most external sources say it is correct. Ti can more readily shift it's ideas and redefine concepts based on experimentation and open-ended broad information sources(Pe), it is more adaptable to the immediate situation at hand, this shows the external flexibility of Ti. If they stay open-minded about the various patterns they observe and information they collect, their ideas can usually be sound too, but Ti is more about the conceptual blueprint and they are good at logical self-justification of ideas they think are correct. This can potentially lead to amazingly complex and elegant ideas that is consistent and could be "possible in theory", but is not really sound and even unrealistic. It could lead to justification of all kinds of crackpot theories that might never be able to be tested in any practical sense or applied to anything. That's why TPs especially need to constantly experiment and test their ideas through trial and error to see what is more sound or probable.

It could be harder to convince Ti it is incorrect until you get on it's own terms, use it's logic against itself.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

As a Te using here is my view on Te vs Ti:

*Te* users adjust their conceptualizations and mental models to fit outside perceptions.

*Ti* users interpret their perceptions in order to force-fit them into their conceptualizations and mental models.


A funny example example of dominant Ti is when Einstein was asked what he would think if Relativity were disproved. He responded "Then I pity the Good Lord, the theory is correct". Essentially Einstein was saying that his mental model was more right that actual empirical data, a mindset he also showed in his dislike of Quantum Mechanics because it violated his belief in a classically deterministic universe.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> As a Te using here is my view on Te vs Ti:
> 
> *Te* users adjust their conceptualizations and mental models to fit outside perceptions.
> 
> ...


It makes me think...

Might the Ti users feel that Te users mutilate their conceptualizations and mental models to force-fit them into outside perceptions?


----------



## Elenita (Feb 25, 2012)

Thanks to everyone who's participated in this thread; there's lots of food for thought here.

Sticky, please?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Fe function is used to connect, external, needs to be used in presence of others. Fi weighs up balance and consistency, can be done both in company (still privately, inside own mind) and alone.


----------



## Senter (Nov 21, 2011)

nice job. been trying to figure out the difference for awhile.


----------

