# A TiFe user perception of Te-Fi users



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> Let's say cars for example. Sure they are now much safer and kinda 'better', but there's hate for them. lol I would hate you too for that (not really). Turns out that petrolheads liked simplicity of old cars, their repairability, their lightweightness, pop up headlights, raw feeling, simpler styling, feelings of driving. Yet new cars are safer, but they are fat and heavy, yet may have better engines, may have better suspensions. So Ti-Fe user would say, that new cars are better, while Fi-Te user would say, that older cars are better?
> 
> This is an example and I'm interested in your opinion.


I'm not really sure tbh. The reason for this is that I'm having trouble understanding Jung's introverted perceiving functions. I know Se would have minimal to do with that, and Ne absolutely nothing. My best guess is that Fe would weigh the comfort level of the old cars vs the safety of the new cars and then make a judgement, but I would say the latter would almost always be picked. This is why Fe is dangerous with Ti, you can possibly run extremes like strict utilitarianism. That's hold up hold up hold up, let me catch my breath...ya'll went to far this time."

Fi would have a higher chance of prefering the former I think. I really need to understand the introverted perceiving functions before I can speak on that.

Jung describes introverted sensation as something which is a subjective experience of reality...which all humans naturally do on a certain level... so idk. Also Ni is pretty rough to read too lmao.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Bhathaway said:


> I'm not really sure tbh. The reason for this is that I'm having trouble understanding Jung's introverted perceiving functions. I know Se would have minimal to do with that, and Ne absolutely nothing. My best guess is that Fe would weigh the comfort level of the old cars vs the safety of the new cars and then make a judgement, but I would say the latter would almost always be picked. This is why Fe is dangerous with Ti, you can possibly run extremes like strict utilitarianism. That's hold up hold up hold up, let me catch my breath...ya'll went to far this time."
> 
> Fi would have a higher chance of prefering the former I think. I really need to understand the introverted perceiving functions before I can speak on that.
> 
> Jung describes introverted sensation as something which is a subjective experience of reality...which all humans naturally do on a certain level... so idk. Also Ni is pretty rough to read too lmao.


What learning method do you have? What are your resources? I'm interested myself, because I don't feel perfect. I have no idea how to spot Ne or Fe correctly. Yet I don't really desire to learn that now, I kinda wanna know for sure, which type I fit myself by what Myers wrote, Lenore wrote. In Myers book "Gifts Differing" I kinda look like INFP. I guess, that all this typology stuff is casual to me. When I want I read it, but don't push it if I don't want.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> What learning method do you have? What are your resources? I'm interested myself, because I don't feel perfect. I have no idea how to spot Ne or Fe correctly. Yet I don't really desire to learn that now, I kinda wanna know for sure, which type I fit myself by what Myers wrote, Lenore wrote. In Myers book "Gifts Differing" I I kinda look like INFP. I guess, that all this typology stuff is casual to me. When I want I read it, but don't push it I don't want.


I simply read Jung's original descriptions. I can post them here if you'd like. I find them incredibly easy to understand comparative to all the mbti descriptions which constantly contradict one another(except introverted perceiving functions, still working on those).

Btw I find your valuation of Fi false. Fi is not capable of abstract logic, as it's buddy is Te which lacks in this. Saying Fi is capable of abstract logic is like saying Ti is capable of having subjective feelings towards things. It would mean both have both and there is no difference in perception. An Fi user, according to the original Jung, reacts with feelings rather than thoughts in the abstract. Fi-Te, subjective feeling reactions to objective data and then the base idea of abstract concepts, and Ti-Fe subjective understanding of data based on objective feelings. Though they are both rational.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Bhathaway said:


> I simply read Jung's original descriptions. I can post them here if you'd like. I find them incredibly easy to understand comparative to all the mbti descriptions which constantly contradict one another(except introverted perceiving functions, still working on those).


No need, I have a real book myself in my language.



Bhathaway said:


> Btw I find your valuation of Fi false. Fi is not capable of abstract logic, as it's buddy is Te which lacks in this. Saying Fi is capable of abstract logic is like saying Ti is capable of having subjective feelings towards things.


Maybe in Myer's or Lenore's book there was written, that Fi is rational function, but not logical one. 



Bhathaway said:


> It would mean both have both and there is no difference in perception. An Fi user, according to the original Jung, reacts with feelings rather than thoughts in the abstract.


Fi and Ti are both more abstract decision making functions.



Bhathaway said:


> Fi-Te, subjective feeling reactions to objective data and then the base idea of abstract concepts, and Ti-Fe subjective understanding of data based on objective feelings. Though they are both rational.


Yea rational, I don't recall calling Fi as logical function.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> No need, I have a real book myself in my language.
> 
> 
> Maybe in Myer's or Lenore's book there was written, that Fi is rational function, but not logical one.
> ...


I'll answer this in a bit. I'm trying to sort my thoughts out lmao. I misunderstood your original statement.

If you can make sense of the introverted perception functions that Jung wrote please do for me. I am having so much trouble with them plus I work alot and dont have time. What is the opposite of a possibility? What is the opposite of fully conscious sensing of an object?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Bhathaway said:


> I'll answer this in a bit. I'm trying to sort my thoughts out lmao. I misunderstood your original statement.


OK, it's fine that you can acknowledge your own mistakes and don't start fights



Bhathaway said:


> If you can make sense of the introverted perception functions that Jung wrote please do for me. I am having so much trouble with them plus I work a lot and don't have time.


I started to reply from bottom lol. So I explained Se and Si at the bottom. Ni explanation is hard to me. I don't really can explain or comprehend it properly (so maybe look at bottom first). Overall iNtuition is about what can't be sensed. Let's say Ne user may go for a walk at night. He will see light changing directions in the sky and consider that being UFO. Yet sensor will know, that some bros have big projectors and play with those at night for some reason. I'm really don't know what Ni user would do, but maybe really crazy conspiracy idea may come to his mind lol. Difference between Ne and Ni is that Ni is personalized perception of iNtuitive stuff. Just like Si is for sensory things. Ni may perceive stuff, that Ne doesn't. Ni user may come to class and after being in it a bit may have a theory, that something bad happened here just a bit before coming to it. You see it's a 'hunch', but it's not objective. It feels like it's true to the user himself. Maybe even it is true, but by it's nature is subjective and may not be felt to Ne user. Overall Ne user will pick out some iNtuitive details from somewhere, while Ni user will pick up Se details and will have individualized perception of stuff. This can be weird, inaccurate, but sometimes may be even called prophetic. It may happen, when Ni user would have a 'hunch' about future and it turns out being truth, but it may not be truth. That's why it's a stereotype. Ni doms or users aren't prophets. My describing skills doesn't work so well with iNtuition as they worked with Sensing descriptions. Anyway comments are welcome. Maybe it was enough for you.

I can advise you to buy Lenore Thompson's book about typology. It explains stuff really well (at least to me), but it's really pricey. Well to me it explained a lot, but that price is really steep (around 30 bucks or 25 euros if you are European). 



Bhathaway said:


> What is the opposite of a possibility?


If you are talking about Ne, then Si is considered as it's opposite. Otherwise if you are talking about word possibility itself, then not having possibility. That may lead you Sending in Jungian terms. It doesn't consider possibilities.



Bhathaway said:


> What is the opposite of fully conscious sensing of an object?


You can't really sense object unconsciously. Sensing in itself is pretty conscious. It may be hard to keep yourself conscious of them if you are Sensing dominant. Then it just happens to you. You basically don't think about that and it just happens naturally to you. That's it. If you meant Si, then it's still pretty conscious function. It kinda compares what was sensed and what is sensed. Also Si will have irrational view of sensory information. Intensity of what has been sensed may not be measured correctly by objective measurements. *closes the book, because it started to become complete non sense*. In other words Si will be personal and individualized perception of sensory stuff. Let's say Se dom and Si dom get a book. Both are asked to comment it's size. Se dom may say, that it's around 300 pages. Si dom may say, that it's a very thick book. They both may respond differently, but that will be their iNtuitions or judging process working. As you can see it's Si that make's objective stuff personal. I hope, that I make some sense here. It's hard for me to explain it. My mom is ISTJ and I'm XSFP (leaning towards ESFP currently). There's a lot of differences between us, but still it's hard to describe. Oh one more example.

My family went to Greece on summer holiday. After some days I complained about one thing. The thing was that my Si dom mom and unknown type dad were wasting their type lol. Most of the time they both were just laying near hotel's pool and rarely getting into it to swim, they would rather just cool down in it or be very long sunbathing. That was okay and relaxing for Si dom and dad, but not to me. I almost went a bit crazy and always requested them to do something. Let's say swim a lot, don't lay so much doing nothing. I was really forcing them to get up and do something or don't do anything at all. Se in me objectively wanted something, while Si in my mom appreciated something I couldn't or showed disgust to something I couldn't. Same happened with food. I wanted variety and maybe to go to town to eat something else, but no, they always went to hotel's restaurant, where everything was free, but really boring and not too tasty. You probably now see where the difference is in sensory stuff. One more thing. I wanted to explore that goddamn island a bit. Jeez I complained a lot to them and finally pushed them outta that hotel and city. Well it wouldn't have happened if they both weren't planned to that too before even flying here. Then I was somewhat satisfied, but still not much. As you probably see. There is a big conflict between objective sensation (Se) and subjective sensation (Si). Si understands value differently and independently from objective information. I hope you get what I'm trying to say here.

Se mini conclusions are:
Se - intensity, quantity
Si - impression

Se song equivalent:





Beat is getting faster, more intense. More, stronger, more intense, that's night of fire for you. If you want, you can call special mode of Se 'being on fire'. Happens, when person is stimulated perfectly, may give almost a super power.

Si song equivalent:





Beats are slow and rare. Yet are holding a lot to say. That beat makes environment special, mysterious, but it's not measured in quantity.
The elegance of what it holds may impress Si user to like this song a lot. I haven't discovered special mode of Si, but I have a suspicions that it may be different from Se. Si may feel perfect at something sensory, that is graceful disregarding quantifiable things like beats in the song. (That's my guess of what Si user may like)

Yet same songs may appear to be liked by both, so what happens? Well Si may understand sensory fulfillment very similarly to how Se does. Or Se may understand Si's understanding. Overall those functions aren't opposites. Rather just differences in perceived sensory information.

If you want to see example with what we both agree. Well I have it in song format. (note: neither of us watched video, we had a disc way before this day, so your attention should be focused only on heard sensory information):





Intro of song is elegant, graceful and beautiful. Also song packs lots of feelings. Yet to me it's bit too long to listen usually to the feel excitement. Anyway, beauty of it could be understood by both of us. I like the voice tone of first singer and my favourite part is when there's a big change of whole song in the end and some matrix like dude starts to sing it extremely intensely. It's not all. Beat gets serious, hyped, powerful and intense. It's 'on fire'. Slash completely makes guitar scream at it's limits to make it pleasurable for me lol. One dude even inserts piano a bit. The end is where the climax for Se user like me is, yet to Si user I dunno, but the fact is that we can both enjoy this song. Now you probably can see how I myself trying to describe sensory stuff. It's detailed and clear. Literally no unconscious stuff. Pure and raw specialties. I usually don't think of those at all. They just happen to me without effort. I can only speculate, that iNtuitive person may have hard time comprehending things the way Sensing dominant person does. Probably iNtuitive may have a hard time to be aware to all this stuff and may not really value it. Stereotypes may tell you, that Sensors are only party animals or just just don't give a flying fuck about iNtuition. Well it's somewhat true. Why would one care about iNtuition, when Sensing is really fulfilling person? Unfortunately we care about iNtuition too (making it harder for you lol), it's important and to healthy Se dom it shouldn't be ignored. Even if it's not natural or even forced. To me personally iNtuition helps out to those things, where Sensing is just incapable of having power. Anyway I hope, that you liked song examples. One more thing is that Se doms may like to get feedback about stuff they put effort into, so I would be glad if you wrote an opinion. Yet I may not be 100% accurate here.

If you really liked song examples I maybe have more, but perC limits videos in posts, so you could contact me via Private Messaging (PM).


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

@The red spirit

I generally know how Fi works and it's motivations but I'm a little confused as to the process through which it occurs. Ti literally just thinks logic. Premise->conclusion/new premise-> repeat until conclusion with nothing more left. How does Fi do this consciously with feelings? I guess I kind of have a slight ego reaction to "logic" being used by other types because as a heavy ti user it is really the core of my being. It is my thing, so when others say the use it to an equal level it makes an ego reaction. I'm sorry about that. I should have asked to understand further what you meant. How is Fi rational? I know it is, but how? What form?

I'll answer your big post once I'm off work btw


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Bhathaway said:


> I generally know how Fi works and it's motivations but I'm a little confused as to the process through which it occurs.


It's considered being abstract, rational, but it's all about those feels.




Bhathaway said:


> Ti literally just thinks logic. Premise->conclusion/new premise-> repeat until conclusion with nothing more left.


so computer alike... :kitteh:



Bhathaway said:


> How does Fi do this consciously with feelings?


It just happens to me lol. I feel that I place value on that, but logically it rarely makes a sense. It's not really conscious to me. Well it's considered abstract. If you want really untasteful and raw description, then it's an internal map of valued stuff. Imagine Fe, but instead of Fe's caring about well-being of many people, Fi cares about one unique humanoid. Fi is is like Ti of feels. Doesn't understand simple concept, like just giving a present to mom on Mother's day, well, no bitch he has to rethink relationship worthiness and may come to conclusion, that this humanoid prefers to have his few bucks in pocket, rather than spending on flowers. Needs to over complicate those demn feelz. Very much like Ti does in logic. May have really controversial feelings like liking enemy in movie or loving Hitler lol. Fi may say, that it likes lightweight cars, but may only like some of them, ignoring other lightweight cars, that are just 'wrong'. Also Fi may be like 'I like green color, but damn I like red this time. Shit I can't say that'. Yeah really bad at logic, but it's rational and abstract. It's subjective. It just has some beliefs, it thinks (well somewhat), just literally operates on feelings. Those feelings appear to individual to be serious and 'dead serious' a lot of times. I make it sound like a joke, but feels just can't be logic. I even feel good at bullying myself this way lol. Your Ti shouldn't comprehend this well.




Bhathaway said:


> I guess I kind of have a slight ego reaction to "logic" being used by other types because as a heavy ti user it is really the core of my being.


Well ego may be translated to healthiness of your feeling function and overall ability to maintain 'healthy' situations in society.

Look at this. You may find it being interesting.

Link: Ego Development - Cognitive Function Theory
Link to other theory (maybe? I dunno, but this one may be where first link originated from): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loevinger's_stages_of_ego_development



Bhathaway said:


> It is my thing, so when others say the use it to an equal level it makes an ego reaction. I'm sorry about that.


I didn't notice something really bad with you at all.



Bhathaway said:


> I should have asked to understand further what you meant.


I can give you some information, but your head will have to comprehend it. I'm not responsible for comprehension.

^strange leafing^



Bhathaway said:


> How is Fi rational? I know it is, but how? What form?


Mother's day example extended:
It came. Yup the problem appeared. I kinda have to give a present, but I don't want to do it. I value having more money. Also I don't think, that my relationship with mom was really good enough. On top of that, I'm not comfortable buying flowers from strangers. Maybe I shouldn't do it. Doesn't feel alright, but it's better than losing money, plus it's not 'serious holiday'. *Proceeds to not buy flowers*

Fi showed itself, when 'money>flowers'. I will be honest, it didn't feel alright at first, but later 'hell yeah I got my money'. It just seemed useless to buy flowers as they don't really serve purpose and is useless thing (Fe will see purpose). There was mini internal conflict, but here you go the reasoning of Fi-Te combo. I think, that money is more valuable thing to me than flowers. This is cruel, but rational. Seems cold and it is to some degree. Well it worked out good enough, Thinking parents weren't too mad. Fe user will really want to judge this behaviour as inappropriate. Seems negative to Fi, but as example it may work. Also Ti dom can act same way, but will do it more logically and won't really feel as much as I did. If this example is confusing to you, I may try to remember something else. Anyway, this short story happened irl and as bad as I am... I don't really buy flowers on most of holidays. I kinda try to keep it for birthdays only, but even then sometimes fail to do that. Now I rationalize, that it's bad and shouldn't be done, but time comes and I will forget that. I probably won't buy flowers, when I am supposed to buy.




Bhathaway said:


> I'll answer your big post once I'm off work btw


:kitteh:


----------



## Eset (Jun 7, 2016)

> A Ti-Fe user perception of Te-Fi users


Probably see us as simple minded since we don't need to question every action and thought process we take,
also because we heavily rely more on other's sources of information than our own opinion on said thing;
I often get Ti users complaining to me when I teach typology to others that all I do is cite sources and not write everything in my own words; it's not that I can't, it's just that I find more efficient in many aspects and I'm less likely to be prone to bias when teaching others through my methods.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> Mother's day example extended:
> It came. Yup the problem appeared. I kinda have to give a present, but I don't want to do it. I value having more money. Also I don't think, that my relationship with mom was really good enough. On top of that, I'm not comfortable buying flowers from strangers. Maybe I shouldn't do it. Doesn't feel alright, but it's better than losing money, plus it's not 'serious holiday'. *Proceeds to not buy flowers*
> 
> Fi showed itself, when 'money>flowers'. I will be honest, it didn't feel alright at first, but later 'hell yeah I got my money'. It just seemed useless to buy flowers as they don't really serve purpose and is useless thing (Fe will see purpose). There was mini internal conflict, but here you go the reasoning of Fi-Te combo. I think, that money is more valuable thing to me than flowers. This is cruel, but rational. Seems cold and it is to some degree. Well it worked out good enough, Thinking parents weren't too mad. Fe user will really want to judge this behaviour as inappropriate. Seems negative to Fi, but as example it may work. Also Ti dom can act same way, but will do it more logically and won't really feel as much as I did. If this example is confusing to you, I may try to remember something else. Anyway, this short story happened irl and as bad as I am... I don't really buy flowers on most of holidays. I kinda try to keep it for birthdays only, but even then sometimes fail to do that. Now I rationalize, that it's bad and shouldn't be done, but time comes and I will forget that. I probably won't buy flowers, when I am supposed to buy.


So you might say that Fi makes the value judgments that act on the data collected by Te. In the case of Fe/Ti, it seems that Ti makes the value judgments based on impressions from Fe, though that relation is less clear to me. Te is externally focused and collects facts, but those facts are by nature neutral to a decision. Making the decision requires a more subjective take. The way I describe it, Fe/Te almost sound like perceiving functions. The difference lies in that (for me) Se governs _how_ I take it in and Te governs _what_ I take in. Ni governs _how_ I process it and Fi governs _what_ I take from it.

This just came to mind from your example though, so I may be off-base here.


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Bhathaway said:


> @The red spirit
> 
> I generally know how Fi works and it's motivations but I'm a little confused as to the process through which it occurs. Ti literally just thinks logic. Premise->conclusion/new premise-> repeat until conclusion with nothing more left. How does Fi do this consciously with feelings? I guess I kind of have a slight ego reaction to "logic" being used by other types because as a heavy ti user it is really the core of my being. It is my thing, so when others say the use it to an equal level it makes an ego reaction. I'm sorry about that. I should have asked to understand further what you meant. How is Fi rational? I know it is, but how? What form?
> 
> I'll answer your big post once I'm off work btw


Sorry for cutting in, I know you didn't direct the question to me but this is a topic that fascinates me and I've spent a few years trying to figure out exactly how Fi and Ti are different. I think it sort of relates to that whole "Narcissistic View of the Self in Regards to Demonic Personality Complex" Beebe talks about. 

I think the best way for you to get tho understanding the dynamics of rational decision making through Fi is through your own F function. So start there. Think of a scenario where you made a emotion based rational decision. Remember that rational doesn't necessarily mean logical in the strictest definition. That could be as simple as seeing someone you care about upset and trying to comfort them or cheer them up. For an INTP, or any T-dom, such a scenario is likely to be accompanied by a lot of stress and it's also possible that an emotion could feel undealably intense, unmanageable, and could feel like it's compelling action. So try to focus on a scenario that it wasn't as intense and was less stressful to deal with. It could have been a very simple scenario, something small like deciding you feel lonely so calling up a friend. 

Such a scenario follows the logic path: Premise (friend is hurt) -> Help them. 
The exact mechanics are a little weirder and have to do with how human empathy works. I don't know if you've studied the neuroscience behind how empathy works but in case you haven't humans have particular neurons called Mirror Neurons which mimic the emotions another person is feeling when we witness them feeling those emotions. Basically the information comes in through the sense or the imagination and is compiled pre-consciously and then the Mirror Neurons fire to mimic the manifestations of emotions that we're witnessing, making us feel a bit of what the person is feeling. I see a crying person and my brain mimics crying to figure out the emotion that the person is experiencing and then informs my conscious mind of that emotion by making me feel it, albeit to a much lesser degree and with the added knowledge that the feeling doesn't belong to me. 

Sadness feels bad. I don't like feeling sad. Healthy people don't. I also don't like seeing people who are important to be upset. Healthy people don't. But I also know what sadness is. I have a very well developed understanding of sadness from having personally experienced it and having empathized with people who were experiencing it quite often. I know the dynamics of how sadness works and things that can be done about it. So I do something about it. 

Friend is hurt; this is upsetting; I know this feeling and what to do about it having experienced it, empathized with it, experimented with it, and studied it; I apply the knowledge to support my friend. 

Negative emotions inform us that there is something wrong. The particular sort of negative emotions can read an enormous amount of information about what exactly is wrong and the rest can be determined from context. 

All that's simple. That's something most people do. An Fe user typically stops there and then focuses on taking action to actually resolve the scenario, the way a Te user is likely to stop at a solution that is "good enough" and then work diligently at implementing it. This is where both Fe and Te tend to care about real world applicability a little more. 

This is where Fi does something else. It introverts the whole conclusion and compares it to the conclusions it's drawn in other scenarios relating to sadness. Of course, emotional reactions to things aren't just sadness or happiness: we also formulate value judgement about things by assigning emotional value to concepts or things besides just people. So you can take those emotional values assigned to various things and compare them to other related concepts and ideas to see compare and contrast the feelings. If you compare those feelings to how other feelings feel in other scenarios you can start drawing conclusions: e.g. seeing two guys who were ostensibly friends break out in a fist fight felt shocking, similarly to a gunshot or my Sensei kiaing at me or my dad yelling at me. All of these experiences are violent. This informs me that yelling at someone close up is an act of violence. I can look at television or books to see how damaging violence is but I don't really have to: I can feel the effects in my body when someone is violent towards me. Comparing and contrasting the emotional responses leads to the understanding that I shouldn't yell at someone unless they're doing something worth eliciting a violent reaction. 

So I've decided not to yell at people unless they really deserve it but can we take it further? This premise relates to subjects like the moral or philosophical question of when someone deserves to have violence enacted against them, it relates to what techniques work for dealing with upset people, it relates to how anger makes us unconsciously raise our voices (which in turn relates to questions of when anger is a morally acceptable emotion to display, which relates to questions of emotional control, which relates to emotion suppression/repression, etc), etc. 

And in this way, through extensive cognitive exploration of emotional premises by comparing and contrasting emotions and scenarios, one eventually finds a few moral values that prove successful (i.e. successful in the same way that a scientific theory can be successful: it's something that we've never found, at least for ourselves, to be circumstantial.) 

Anyways, it's late, I don't know how clear I was, I hope it made some sense and I hope it made things clearer.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

PiT said:


> So you might say that Fi makes the value judgments that act on the data collected by Te. In the case of Fe/Ti, it seems that Ti makes the value judgments based on impressions from Fe, though that relation is less clear to me. Te is externally focused and collects facts, but those facts are by nature neutral to a decision. Making the decision requires a more subjective take. The way I describe it, Fe/Te almost sound like perceiving functions. The difference lies in that (for me) Se governs _how_ I take it in and Te governs _what_ I take in. Ni governs _how_ I process it and Fi governs _what_ I take from it.
> 
> This just came to mind from your example though, so I may be off-base here.


lol I think, that you are confused now, but you maybe say truth. Te collects info (commands perception) then Fi does decision. It makes sense, since it's believed, that all functions in person compliment person's dominant function. Can make sense, but I'm not completely sure if it works that way.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Whatexists said:


> I think the best way for you to get tho understanding the dynamics of rational decision making through Fi is through your own F function. So start there. Think of a scenario where you made a emotion based rational decision.


The difference you are looking for is that this exact thing never happens.

There is no "emotion-based rational decision", there are just rational decisions, because, prior to the decision-making process, emotions get rationalised. And that's really not semantics, because the difference is precisely that our definitions differ -- of what constitutes an "emotional" or a "rational" decision. Hence I also have to amend your scenario, because there indeed is no direct link between "see upset" and "action": The pipeline is,

Seeing that I hurt a friend --> becoming aware that I feel upset about that --> realising I feel that way because I did not mean to hurt them --> therefore concluding I need to go over, explain, and apologise.

That is not an emotional or even an emotion-based decision. That is 100% reason, taking into account an emotional input; and you see how important the distinction is when in different circumstances, the second step leads just as easily and comfortably to the conclusion that _despite_ feeling upset, I do _not_ need to go over, explain, and apologise.

You can't argue with "empathy" for Tis. It misses the point. In the purest form, there is nothing, no emotion demanding (non-)action, no moral stop light in the way you understand it, that says "Don't hurt him, because that's wrong". What there is (hopefully) is rational principle so strong and overwhelming that the sentence "Don't hurt him, because that makes no sense" provides the same unwavering sense of direction as the instinctive wrong/right knowledge does for you. As rigid and troubled in real life situations as they are, Kant's ethics of reason do form one foundation of how we work. The immoral person is the irrational one. Not the one lacking instinctive (empathy-induced) morals.

And as an aside;


Whatexists said:


> For an INTP, or any T-dom, such a scenario is likely to be accompanied by a lot of stress and it's also possible that an emotion could feel undealably intense, unmanageable, and could feel like it's compelling action.


I have no idea where this comes from, but it doesn't describe reality as I experience it. My emotions are not, and will not ever be, "unmanageable". They can't be, because by definition I manage them. I have not experienced such intense emotions as you described, ever, but even if I did, I would manage them. If I can't or don't, I'm not healthy. It could be a mental illness, for instance.


Anyway, regardless of that, I enjoyed reading about your decision process. It did seem to make sense; I have to think about it some more.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

@Bhathaway you forgot something


----------



## Whatexists (Jul 26, 2015)

Northern Lights said:


> The difference you are looking for is that this exact thing never happens.
> 
> There is no "emotion-based rational decision", there are just rational decisions, because, prior to the decision-making process, emotions get rationalised. And that's really not semantics, because the difference is precisely that our definitions differ -- of what constitutes an "emotional" or a "rational" decision. Hence I also have to amend your scenario, because there indeed is no direct link between "see upset" and "action": The pipeline is,
> 
> ...


I think we're talking past eachother a little bit. When I said, "Emotion-based rational decision" what I was trying to get at and what I meant, in my 3 am raddled head, was basically exactly what you just described: An entirely reasonable decision making process based on an emotional input. 

The F-function is a rational decision making process concerned with emotions, morals, and humane subject matters. It's _not_ about making impulsive decisions based on instinct instead of rational ones. 



Northern Lights said:


> You can't argue with "empathy" for Tis. It misses the point. In the purest form, there is nothing, no emotion demanding (non-)action, no moral stop light in the way you understand it, that says "Don't hurt him, because that's wrong". What there is (hopefully) is rational principle so strong and overwhelming that the sentence "Don't hurt him, because that makes no sense" provides the same unwavering sense of direction as the instinctive wrong/right knowledge does for you. As rigid and troubled in real life situations as they are, Kant's ethics of reason do form one foundation of how we work. The immoral person is the irrational one. Not the one lacking instinctive (empathy-induced) morals.


I think you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. You're drawing a false assumption that T means "Rational decision making" and that F means "instinctual gut reaction decision making." And on the basis of that false assumption you're making another false assumption that the principles which would stop me from hurting my friend are instinctive wrong/right impulses instead of rational principles I've deeply thought through. And, most importantly to the point I was making in my last post, you've also drawn a false dichotomy between rationality and empathy based morals. 

Proper morality is achieved when you make a rational decision, taking into account both emotional and non-emotional sources of information. Empathy is essential to this because Empathy is a tool we have to gather useful information for making a decision, and because using and paying attention to Empathy and emotional information will regularly remind us of certain facts of how humans operate that we have to deal with, being human. We can deny instincts, and it is often moral to do so. We can rewrite them too (to some extent anyways). However, doing these things is not without a cost that must be factored into our rational decision. Understanding these costs comes most easily through the use of Empathy to gather information about how human beings operate. Empathy is a tool for gathering information which can be cultivated through practice and training much as our legs are a tool for mobility which can be cultivated through practice and training. Rationality is about how much thought and reason go into make your decisions. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means. On the contrary, they work best when used in concert.

The thing is, I don't have a moral stoplight. Not the way I think you think I do. I don't have instinctual senses of right and wrong. I have positive feelings and negative feelings, same as anyone. But these are entirely under my control and do not dominate or control my decisions, only help inform them. I was not born with a strong sense of right and wrong. I was born with a sense of ignorance, with a feeling of knowing nothing but wanting to learn. I _do _have principles so strong and overwhelming that they provide unwavering senses of direction (I _really_ like that language, btw.) But they are not from any sort of instinctive right/wrong knowledge. They are formulated from many years of study and meditation and deliberation, tempered by years of experience attempting to implement them in many scenarios and many more years of imaginative exploration of different perspectives and scenarios. If you asked me what they were I might be able to state them simply, but they are not simple or trite phrases that I know to be right because they struck a cord with me or because I was told as such by others I trust. If I can state them simply it is a vast oversimplification of a deeply complex idea formulated from a hundred thousand perspectives and reasons down the years I simply cannot recount to you all at once. And many of those reasons are going to be based on emotional data, and many others are based on theoretical information I've either figured out myself or learned from others about humane subject matters such as emotions, social issues, morals, etc. And much of that information was gained through empathy. 

Thinking you can come to an accurate moral decision without empathy is like thinking you can solve a puzzle without half the pieces because those pieces aren't important. Empathy is a tool for gathering information and the information it gathers is important to moral reasoning. Attempting to make a moral decision without it is intentionally choosing to make an insufficiently informed decision. It simply doesn't make sense.



Northern Lights said:


> And as an aside;
> 
> I have no idea where this comes from, but it doesn't describe reality as I experience it. My emotions are not, and will not ever be, "unmanageable". They can't be, because by definition I manage them. I have not experienced such intense emotions as you described, ever, but even if I did, I would manage them. If I can't or don't, I'm not healthy. It could be a mental illness, for instance.
> 
> ...


It comes from Beebe's model of ego complexes surrounding cognitive functions. Once again, it is not accurate to say that a T type is rational and an F type is instinctual. Both are rational. A T-type has a set of ego complexes that places lower priority on humane subject matters than on technical mastery of inhumane subjects. An F-type has a set of ego complexes that places lower priority on technical mastery of inhumane subjects and higher priority on humane subjects. That's what the difference is. Not whether or not they're rational. All healthy adults are rational the majority of the time. 

(for further reading I suggest this article: Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model) )


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> Comprehensive response to my question


I really liked reading this and the videos. The differences between si and Se I think are very pronounced in your post especially your mention of the vacation. Does lower-on-the-functional stack Se behave similar to Si? Since Se is about hype do you tend to steer clear of mellow music because of it's lack of extreme stimulation or even really large stimulation? How much do you experience your introverted intuition? Sorry for so many questions, lmao it's just that your post answered alot and described alot and more curiosity. The subjective nature of Si can be so hard to describe I imagine because each person will experience it differently given it's subjective.

Also sorry about taking a bit to respond. Had work again todaty and friends invited me out last night and tonight. I'm sure you can relate as an Se user lmao


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

The red spirit said:


> Mother's day example extended:
> It came. Yup the problem appeared. I kinda have to give a present, but I don't want to do it. I value having more money. Also I don't think, that my relationship with mom was really good enough. On top of that, I'm not comfortable buying flowers from strangers. Maybe I shouldn't do it. Doesn't feel alright, but it's better than losing money, plus it's not 'serious holiday'. *Proceeds to not buy flowers*


Lol, it's like a pros and cons list of values. I hardly ever think in terms of values. I really liked "Fi looks at one humanoid." Now in your mind, when you were going through that pros and cons list, is it in a picture form/feeling form or is it conscious thought that produces feelings?

Ti very much rationalizes stuff like that much faster and more logically/detached. Almost no level of valuing goes in except trying to avoid them being upset rather than valuation of your relationship entirely with their values and mine.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

PiT said:


> So you might say that Fi makes the value judgments that act on the data collected by Te. In the case of Fe/Ti, it seems that Ti makes the value judgments based on impressions from Fe, though that relation is less clear to me. Te is externally focused and collects facts, but those facts are by nature neutral to a decision. Making the decision requires a more subjective take. The way I describe it, Fe/Te almost sound like perceiving functions. The difference lies in that (for me) Se governs _how_ I take it in and Te governs _what_ I take in. Ni governs _how_ I process it and Fi governs _what_ I take from it.
> 
> This just came to mind from your example though, so I may be off-base here.


So Fe and Te aren't perceiving functions because they evaluate data. Te valuation of efficiency and objective logic, while Fe is a valuation of the contribution to interpersonal harmony or objective feeling. 

I'm a Ti-Fe user(as said before), and the way it works for me as a Ti dom is a shortcut made in Fe. We take data and make an understanding of the world that is subjective, and of course it has to be logical, and then we feed it into Fe and say "given this understanding...how do I please everyone" it has no valuation on individuals whatsoever. Fe evaluates by fe qualities(equality....my lower Fe probably stops me from seeing many other values of Fe), and then a solution is decided that produces the best Fe outcome. Two judgement functions, main one for me is "is it logical" if it isn't logically sound it is deemed useless. Second is "does this forward my harmony." Being my inferior sometimes I can override this and just simply do what is logical.

For Fi-Te I have found that they may hold opinions that are not logically sound(such as belief in free will) AND recognize that it isn't logically sound, and yet they will still believe in it. I have had it described as "my mind says no but my heart says yes." After I inquired further I found he held the opinion of "it may not be logically sound but it doesn't do anything negative so it doesn't matter whether someone believes in it or not, it is a way for them to create meaning in their life." This is an example of the selfishness of Fi though on a certain level because it doesn't think in terms of harmony like Fe. My fe recognizes free will as inhibiting harmony amount people and progress towards harmony, even if the idea itself would be no problem given people were perfect.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

Whatexists said:


> Sorry for cutting in, I know you didn't direct the question to me but this is a topic that fascinates me and I've spent a few years trying to figure out exactly how Fi and Ti are different. I think it sort of relates to that whole "Narcissistic View of the Self in Regards to Demonic Personality Complex" Beebe talks about.
> 
> I think the best way for you to get tho understanding the dynamics of rational decision making through Fi is through your own F function. So start there. Think of a scenario where you made a emotion based rational decision. Remember that rational doesn't necessarily mean logical in the strictest definition. That could be as simple as seeing someone you care about upset and trying to comfort them or cheer them up. For an INTP, or any T-dom, such a scenario is likely to be accompanied by a lot of stress and it's also possible that an emotion could feel undealably intense, unmanageable, and could feel like it's compelling action. So try to focus on a scenario that it wasn't as intense and was less stressful to deal with. It could have been a very simple scenario, something small like deciding you feel lonely so calling up a friend.
> 
> ...


It was very clear. It is a web of constructs that have emotionally assigned values and by determining their situation you can use this web to essentially recreate their emotion inside of yourself. Very interesting. You were also right about an Fe user just figuring out what is going on and then taking that information and going into action to solve it(or in the Ti case they will say "this is your problem, this is how you solve it). It's because it is focused on harmony, not individual understanding of their emotion. Once the problem is solved harmony is returned.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

Northern Lights said:


> The difference you are looking for is that this exact thing never happens.
> 
> There is no "emotion-based rational decision", there are just rational decisions, because, prior to the decision-making process, emotions get rationalised. And that's really not semantics, because the difference is precisely that our definitions differ -- of what constitutes an "emotional" or a "rational" decision. Hence I also have to amend your scenario, because there indeed is no direct link between "see upset" and "action": The pipeline is,
> 
> ...


As an IXTP I completely agree with everything said here. Emotions are rationalized instantly for us. They simply become an input into a logical equation.

In response to the "the immoral person is the irrational one" is tough and is something I find I disagree with IF you have certain values. I believe that that statement is written in the mindset of the Ti dominating and repressing their Fe, because we can start getting into utilitarianism and other questionable ethics forms which are entirely rational yet are obviously not particularly desirable. It's the same when Te overpowers Fi. Also people are entirely logical and thus entirely rational. You and I simply experience emotions differently than them and so our rational behavior is different than theirs. If one behaves rationally you take into account feelings, and for them feelings are of much greater rational value(assuming by rational behavior at any one time we are refering to that which produces the most happiness)

In response to the empathy thing, I find it halarious. I once said "empathy is the most useless fucking thing" because it solves fucking nothing. It just makes them feel better which is like...okay sure but it doesn't fix the problem. I don't get why people don't feel better after being told a clear solution....so frustrating. They just want to talk about their feelings and how sad they are..

I will fix anything wrong or illogical in this post in the morning. I just read like 10 huge posts and I'm tired.


----------

