# how Ti can make decisions without haveing values!



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

they say fi is about personal values while ti is about logic, but how can someone makes logical decisions without having personal values/drives to base the logical purpose on? it's absurd..


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

I heard if you don't have Si, you can't remember what you ate for dinner.


----------



## Juiz (Dec 31, 2014)

I think. . The Ti user has values like everyone else, but when deciding on something they like to set aside their own opinions or ideals to be consistent with their framework. Depending on the person and whatever other functions are influencing their decisions, the Ti Fe axis makes logical choices based on external/common values, what is the most ideal practical solution to accommodate everything else it perceives.

For example an Fi Te user may be for vegan-ism, to save the animals or what have you (i am not a vegan so sorry if this is in anyway downgrading or offensive) because they project the subjective values much more strongly as they are aware of their own and "a being's" sense of values. They may decide to uphold a petition or event in expressing their cause for whatever group they resonate with.

On the other hand, an Fe Ti user may not be a vegan, because they see it as "you can't get the cheetah to stop eating the gazelle" or something. It's more based on a truth and overall harmony first before the user can even think of what they themselves actually think about it. Because their's or any subjective opinion isn't as important to an overall logical understanding of the issue.

These may be asymmetric examples.


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

nichya said:


> i heard if you don't have si, you can't remember what you ate for dinner.


i heard if you have ne without se you are living in alternative reality!


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

ach said:


> i heard if you have ne without se you are living in alternative reality!


can't complain


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

venutauri said:


> i think. . The ti user has values like everyone else, but when deciding on something they like to set aside their own opinions or ideals to be consistent with their framework. Depending on the person and whatever other functions are influencing their decisions, the ti fe axis makes logical choices based on external/common values, what is the most ideal practical solution to accommodate everything else it perceives.
> 
> For example an fi te user may be for vegan-ism, to save the animals or what have you (i am not a vegan so sorry if this is in anyway downgrading or offensive) because they project the subjective values much more strongly as they are aware of their own and "a being's" sense of values. They may decide to uphold a petition or event in expressing their cause for whatever group they resonate with.
> 
> ...


but from what i've gut some ti useres if have to decide between the balance of other people SITUATIONS and theIR OWN interest they won't choose the balance


----------



## Juiz (Dec 31, 2014)

@ach

i can probably agree yeah. it really depends on what is being perceived. and people have different ideas or beliefs of morality or harmony etc from person to person. But Ti users who pick something that is less ideally harmonious for others in their/a given *situation* likely means they have thought out a different way in which it will benefit in the long run. Fi users can do the same too, it just depends on the person and what's happening.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ach said:


> they say fi is about personal values while ti is about logic, but how can someone makes logical decisions without having personal values/drives to base the logical purpose on? it's absurd..


My first response would be that Logic has absolutely nothing to do with values. The mere sugestion that logic can't be applied without values is absurd to be honest.

But I won't go there because there's a better answer that will probably also make more sense..... And that is that Ti is just 1 function, while "someone" is a complete function stack. So Ti is not considering any values or drives, but at least one of the other functions in the first 3 function is. (4th function does not have to be considered here.)

Remember, a whole person is always all his/her functions combined and not just 1 function.


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

Peter said:


> My first response would be that Logic has absolutely nothing to do with values. The mere sugestion that logic can't be applied without values is absurd to be honest.
> 
> But I won't go there because there's a better answer that will probably also make more sense..... And that is that Ti is just 1 function, while "someone" is a complete function stack. So Ti is not considering any values or drives, but at least one of the other functions in the first 3 function is. (4th function does not have to be considered here.)
> 
> Remember, a whole person is always all his/her functions combined and not just 1 function.


why you posted this answer? because it's the logical thing to do? if yes could you explain to me your logic


----------



## OtterSocks (Sep 24, 2015)

Ti, despite being majorly logic-driven, is a very subjective function. Jung said that the Ti thought process begins, as with all introverted processes, with a primordial image from the (collective) unconscious that is then actualized through categorization, logical reasoning, and conceptualization. So, Ti can work to bring to light certain archetype-values by virtue of being an introverted, subjective function.

In addition, everyone also possesses a feeling function, at least to a minimal degree. The Ti dom's decisions will be flavoured by their recognition of collective values a la Fe.


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

OtterSocks said:


> Ti, despite being majorly logic-driven, is a very subjective function. Jung said that the Ti thought process begins, as with all introverted processes, with a primordial image from the (collective) unconscious that is then actualized through categorization, logical reasoning, and conceptualization. So, Ti can work to bring to light certain archetype-values by virtue of being an introverted, subjective function.
> 
> In addition, everyone also possesses a feeling function, at least to a minimal degree. The Ti dom's decisions will be flavoured by their recognition of collective values a la Fe.


could please give me an example where TI takes an objective thing subjectively?


----------



## OtterSocks (Sep 24, 2015)

Preface:


> For this kind of thinking facts are of secondary importance; what, apparently, is of absolutely paramount importance is the development and presentation of the subjective idea, that primordial symbolical image standing more or less darkly before the inner vision. Its aim, therefore, is never concerned with an intellectual reconstruction of concrete actuality, but with the shaping of that dim image into a resplendent idea. Its desire is to reach reality; its goal is to see how external facts fit into, and fulfil, the framework of the idea; its actual creative power is proved by the fact that this thinking can also create that idea which, though not present in the external facts, is yet the most suitable, abstract expression of them. Its task is accomplished when the idea it has fashioned seems to emerge so inevitably from the external facts that they actually prove its validity.


Jung's theory of psychological types is an example of one such Ti construct. Because it focuses not on facts, but on finding a "best-fit" subjective truth, it is subject to the subjective blindspots and influences of the author/creator/Ti user. If Ti were pure, indisputable, machine-like reasoning, psychological types, among other things, would not be as controversial as they are.


----------



## giorgaros2 (Sep 2, 2014)

Ti isnt based on subjective values , it is based on objective values.Ti is actually connected unconsciously to the need to be loved by others and/or help them(Fe),


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

giorgaros2 said:


> Ti isnt based on subjective values , it is based on objective values.Ti is actually connected unconsciously to the need to be loved by others and/or help them(Fe),


Every introverted function is a subjective function however every -developed- introverted function and only such are able to reach the global truth (as opposed to extroverted functions and lower function roles) Shouldn't the strongest unconscious function of an INTP be Ni?


----------



## giorgaros2 (Sep 2, 2014)

nichya said:


> Every introverted function is a subjective function however every -developed- introverted function and only such are able to reach the global truth (as opposed to extroverted functions and lower function roles) Shouldn't the strongest unconscious function of an INTP be Ni?


What do you mean , i didnt mean unconsciously like that.I was just talking about the connection between Ti nd Fe.
Also i think ENxPs have Ni as their first unconscious , it makes more sense.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

giorgaros2 said:


> What do you mean , i didnt mean unconsciously like that.I was just talking about the connection between Ti nd Fe.
> Also i think ENxPs have Ni as their first unconscious , it makes more sense.


The id function, could be related to Freud & Jung's id (among ego and super ego) and is unconscious however strong as much as ego, maybe more but disvalued by the person. It happens to be Ni for the INFP & INTP, Fi for INFJ etc. I am not sure for extroverts as ego & id/persona should be same for extroverts in theory I suppose, not sure


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man

Therefore Socrates is mortal

What value would I have used to come to that conclusion?


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

PaladinX said:


> All men are mortal
> Socrates is a man
> 
> Therefore Socrates is mortal
> ...


Ti is considered a decision making process, what decision have you made here?


----------



## giorgaros2 (Sep 2, 2014)

ach said:


> Ti is considered a decision making process, what decision have you made here?


no Ti is considered a judging process


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

giorgaros2 said:


> no Ti is considered a judging process


judging processes are used when making decisions


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ach said:


> Ti is considered a decision making process, what decision have you made here?


That Socrates is mortal.



ach said:


> judging processes are used when making decisions


And what do you think a judgment is?


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

PaladinX said:


> That Socrates is mortal.


are you omnipotent?



PaladinX said:


> And what do you think a judgment is?


i don't have a definition in english, enlight me


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ach said:


> are you omnipotent?


Naturally.





> i don't have a definition in english, enlight me


You make a distinction between judging and deciding. I am trying to understand what that means to you.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ach said:


> they say fi is about personal values while ti is about logic, but how can someone makes logical decisions without having personal values/drives to base the logical purpose on? it's absurd..


Given that this is based on some fundamentally flawed assumptions, I must assume that you don't know much about the theory you are critiquing. It is very odd that you'd have such strident confidence in them, given that.

Anyway, Jung said that all functions (functions being Feeling, Thinking, Intuition, and Sensation) more or less exist in equilibrium, until one or more differentiates. When this is the case, that function gains a discernable Attitude, Extraverted or Introverted, and the corresponding Function gains the converse Attitude and is suppressed, and thus more likely to only have unconscious influence. So, right there your premise is totally shot. We all process value and logical judgments in real time, regardless of our type. It is just that a strongly differented Thinker will strongly suppress Feeling into the unconscious, and thus expressions or notions of Feeling will simply 'happen' to them, outside of conscious control or direction. 

This is the reason that debates between extreme Thinkers often show in those Thinkers an immaturity, a neurosis, or a general imperception of feeling-tones. 

Moral of the story: it isn't a binary. It is about suppression and subjugation of one by the other, which is natural and inevitable. 

I also get the feeling that you are going to push a highly reductive and literal interpretations of the function-attitudes (Fe, Se, Ti, etc.. which are the functions (S N F T) in a particular attitude (i or e)). You might say, 'Fi' represents 'personal values' and thus anyone who doesn't have Fi in their notations thus doesn't have 'personal values' and since most or all people can be said to have personal values, then the system is absurd. I am just guessing that you will do this, but if you do, you do so in error. That is because Fi is not personal values. Everyone has personal values. Fi means that when the person processes rationally in the arena of value, they tend to do so subjectively (that is, with great influence from the psyche, rather than external objects as they are) and abstractly. Their judgments seem detached from objective things, peculiar to them, contrary to generally accepted flows (I'd say that they are neither contrary nor in tune, but that the influence that leads to synchronization of values is suppressed in them), etc. Their Feeling, then, has an Introverted Attitude. 

Everyone has personal values, but the Fi has values that are more difficult to relate or to comprehend for others, and that are generally not even shared at all, due to the omnipresence of the internal psyche in their formation and context. One gets the impression of a deep well, so deep that it often robs that individual of the luxury of quick coherent or broad judgments, but offers a great strength of nuance and impression. 

I can give examples of well-known Fi-dom types if that will help you gain context for what I am saying.


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

PaladinX said:


> Naturally.


That explains alot about the world catastrophes 






PaladinX said:


> You make a distinction between judging and deciding. I am trying to understand what that means to you.


 you judge something by assigning a value"not an accurate word" to it, and decisions are based on these assigned "values".


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

Psychopomp said:


> Given that this is based on some fundamentally flawed assumptions, I must assume that you don't know much about the theory you are critiquing. It is very odd that you'd have such strident confidence in them, given that.
> 
> Anyway, Jung said that all functions (functions being Feeling, Thinking, Intuition, and Sensation) more or less exist in equilibrium, until one or more differentiates. When this is the case, that function gains a discernable Attitude, Extraverted or Introverted, and the corresponding Function gains the converse Attitude and is suppressed, and thus more likely to only have unconscious influence. So, right there your premise is totally shot. We all process value and logical judgments in real time, regardless of our type. It is just that a strongly differented Thinker will strongly suppress Feeling into the unconscious, and thus expressions or notions of Feeling will simply 'happen' to them, outside of conscious control or direction.
> 
> ...


First of all, i'm not criticizing, i typed my thought to open the discussion so i can understand functions better. when you don't like something just because it's associated with a bad event, is it Fi?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ach said:


> First of all, i'm not criticizing, i typed my thought to open the discussion so i can understand functions better. when you don't like something just because it's associated with a bad event, is it Fi?


It depends on how it plays out. I don't think any particular function-attitude is required for what you describe.... other than that it speaks to Introversion (though not necessarily an Introvert, or Introverted Feeling). 

If a woman is assaulted by a tall guy in a green shirt in a hallway.. and then a week later a similar man in a similar shirt of a similar height approaches her in a similar hallway, she might feel quite out of sorts. This is ostensibly associated with Si, but even an Se-dom could and might feel this... unless they were a truly extreme case, perhaps? Thus, literally anyone could or might experience this. It is thus perfectly outside of the scope of function-attitudes... just like flinching when someone jumps at you is entirely outside the scope of function-attitudes.

However, your scenario hints at more. It hints that this person might be this way generally, or particularly... or toward bad events that are not so visceral that they might cause this reaction in people generally. If so, you might consider that this person is inclined to Si... because it is ostensibly an example of both subjectivity and abstraction of Sensation.


----------



## Sparkling (Jul 12, 2013)

ach said:


> they say fi is about personal values while ti is about logic, but how can someone makes logical decisions without having personal values/drives to base the logical purpose on? it's absurd..


Ti is for fairness; giving everyone equal chances and treatment. I often notice IxTPs people to own own ethical code. Just look at definition of Ti: 
*Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.**
*Aren't morals principles?


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

blue_moon said:


> Ti is for fairness; giving everyone equal chances and treatment. I often notice IxTPs people to own own ethical code. Just look at definition of Ti:
> *Analyzing; categorizing; evaluating according to principles and whether something fits the framework or model; figuring out the principles on which something works; checking for inconsistencies; clarifying definitions to get more precision.**
> *Aren't morals principles?


me too, i notice fairness in ixtp attitudes, but extp seem to be not concerned with fairness, at least from my limited observations


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

Psychopomp said:


> It depends on how it plays out. I don't think any particular function-attitude is required for what you describe.... other than that it speaks to Introversion (though not necessarily an Introvert, or Introverted Feeling).
> 
> If a woman is assaulted by a tall guy in a green shirt in a hallway.. and then a week later a similar man in a similar shirt of a similar height approaches her in a similar hallway, she might feel quite out of sorts. This is ostensibly associated with Si, but even an Se-dom could and might feel this... unless they were a truly extreme case, perhaps? Thus, literally anyone could or might experience this. It is thus perfectly outside of the scope of function-attitudes... just like flinching when someone jumps at you is entirely outside the scope of function-attitudes.
> 
> However, your scenario hints at more. It hints that this person might be this way generally, or particularly... or toward bad events that are not so visceral that they might cause this reaction in people generally. If so, you might consider that this person is inclined to Si... because it is ostensibly an example of both subjectivity and abstraction of Sensation.


to give an example, a person whose name is Alessandra has done harm to a person when he was young, consequently the person doesn't like the name Alessandra


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ach said:


> to give an example, a person whose name is Alessandra has done harm to a person when he was young, consequently the person doesn't like the name Alessandra


Uhm, don't like the NAME? If it was bad enough of trauma, I think any type might have this aversion. If not, and it feels subjective to you, then probably Si. 

The judgment itself isn't subjective. It is perfectly objective. It is objective as not liking the person Alessandra themselves... what is subjective is the association of the objects themselves. This is abstraction, not of logic, or even of value... but of PERCEPTION. Thus, if it is anything it is probably Si.

EDIT: It really really depends on how it plays out.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

nichya said:


> I heard if you don't have Si, you can't remember what you ate for dinner.


I just read your signature, and I hope you understand that Socionics INFp is MBTI INFJ. EII is the one you are looking for if you can't be bothered to research Socionics thoroughly.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Ninjaws said:


> I just read your signature, and I hope you understand that Socionics INFp is MBTI INFJ. EII is the one you are looking for if you can't be bothered to research Socionics thoroughly.


Thanks for your -idea- however socionics is NOT MBTI, the functions are evaluated/defined differently, it is a different system despite being both based on Jung's functions. Socionics also take more input for id/display functions which is why quadra is important in typing a person, for example. Me being IEI is highly consistent with quadra behaviors. Please read more on the J/P switch or the lack of. Using a simple minded switch to align functions does NOT convert MBTI to socionics. I have a sense that you meant well thank you but having no doubt whatsoever over man-made systems when none is perfection itself is really interesting. I see your type is unknown, you could actually benefit from finding your quadra first, good luck.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> All men are mortal
> Socrates is a man
> 
> Therefore Socrates is mortal
> ...


Murder kills people
Therefore it is wrong to kill

It is a form of value, but it is logically derived, no?



nichya said:


> Thanks for your -idea- however socionics is NOT MBTI, the functions are evaluated/defined differently, it is a different system despite being both based on Jung's functions. Socionics also take more input for id/display functions which is why quadra is important in typing a person, for example. Me being IEI is highly consistent with quadra behaviors. Please read more on the J/P switch or the lack of. Using a simple minded switch to align functions does NOT convert MBTI to socionics. I have a sense that you meant well thank you but having no doubt whatsoever over man-made systems when none is perfection itself is really interesting. I see your type is unknown, you could actually benefit from finding your quadra first, good luck.


Why are you implying he is stupid for simply disagreeing with you? His argument is perfectly logically sound and simply referring to the J/P switch and how it works in socionics is arguable in the first place since it entirely questions the fact of how you see each system. 

If you are of the belief that Jungian Fi is the same throughout, then there is no disagreement, especially once you get past bad Fi stereotypes of "wanting to be authentic". Fi, especially Jungian Fi, is certainly not about authenticity but it's a form of evaluation of how to understand the self and the world. 

Seen a lot of type 4s who are Fe ego and often end up typing as Fi because the 4ness make them care for authenticity; however, Fi is certainly not about authenticity. Consistency in values perhaps, but certainly not authenticity. That's just a 4 thing.

I would highly recommend reading up on Lenore Thomson's understanding of Fi. I think her description is quite accurate and it certainly offers a more nuanced view than the typical shallow MBTI jargon.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Murder kills people
> Therefore it is wrong to kill
> 
> It is a form of value, but it is logically derived, no?


How so?

This is not a logical conclusion. Why is it wrong to kill?


----------



## Worriedfunction (Jun 2, 2011)

ach said:


> they say fi is about personal values while ti is about logic, but how can someone makes logical decisions without having personal values/drives to base the logical purpose on? it's absurd..


It's just a matter of degrees.

All decisions are made in emotional content to an extent because the value of one choice over another is emotionally induced. However the degree to which someone indulges in emotional content for their decisions and what information they base those decisions around is where the differences come in.

Taken to an extreme, for example, nothing we do has an objective importance. But I think there are spectrums of objectivity too and those who make decisions (or the illusion of them) closest to objectivity tend to be thinkers.

However there is essentially a given framework of being human that we find very difficult (many would say impossible) to look outside of, so whatever objectivity might be in a situation, it is generally just the subjective and human interpretation of objectivity.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ach said:


> you judge something by assigning a value"not an accurate word" to it, and decisions are based on these assigned "values".


To me what you are describing is value judgment and a decision is choosing actions or behaviours based on those value judgments.

FWIW, Jung described thinking as "what does it mean" and feeling as "what is its value."



> The essential function of sensation is to establish that something exists, *thinking tells us what it means, feeling what its value is,* and intuition surmises whence it comes and whither it goes.


Here's a longer description/comparison if you are interested:



> The next function that is distinguishable is thinking. Thinking, if you ask a philosopher, is something very difficult, so never ask a philosopher about it because he is the only man who does not know what thinking is. Everybody else knows what thinking is. When you say to a man, 'Now think properly', he knows exactly what you mean, but a philosopher never knows. Thinking in its simplest form tells you what a thing is. It gives a name to the thing. It adds a concept because thinking is perception and judgement. (German psychology calls it apperception.)
> 
> The third function you can distinguish and for which ordinary language has a term is feeling. Here minds become very confused and people get angry when I speak about feeling, because according to their view I say something very dreadful about it. Feeling informs you through its feeling-tones of the values of things. Feeling tells you for instance whether a thing is acceptable or agreeable or not. It tells you what a thing is worth to you. On account of that phenomenon, you cannot perceive and you cannot apperceive without having a certain feeling reaction. You always have a certain feeling-tone, which you can even demonstrate by experiment. We will talk of these things later on. Now the 'dreadful' thing about feeling is that it is, like thinking, a rational function. All men who think are absolutely convinced that feeling is never a rational function but, on the contrary, most irrational. Now I say: Just be patient for a while and realize that man cannot be perfect in every respect. If a man is perfect in his thinking he is surely never perfect in his feeling, because you cannot do the two things at the same time; they hinder each other. Therefore when you want to think in a dispassionate way, really scientifically or philosophically, you must get away from all feeling-values. You cannot be bothered with feeling-values at the same time, otherwise you begin to feel that it is far more important to think about the freedom of the will than, for instance, the classification of lice. And certainly if you approach from the point of view of feeling the two objects are not only different as to facts but also as to value. Values are no anchors for the intellect, but they exist and giving value is an important psychological function. If you want to have a complete picture of the world you must necessarily consider values. If you do not, you will get into trouble. To many people feeling appears to be most irrational, because you feel all sorts of things in foolish moods: therefore everybody is convinced, in this country particularly, that you should control your feelings. I quite admit that this is a good habit and wholly admire the English for that faculty; yet there are such things as feelings, and I have seen people who control their feelings marvelously well and yet are terribly bothered by them.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

nichya said:


> Thanks for your -idea- however socionics is NOT MBTI, the functions are evaluated/defined differently, it is a different system despite being both based on Jung's functions. Socionics also take more input for id/display functions which is why quadra is important in typing a person, for example. Me being IEI is highly consistent with quadra behaviors. Please read more on the J/P switch or the lack of. Using a simple minded switch to align functions does NOT convert MBTI to socionics. I have a sense that you meant well thank you but having no doubt whatsoever over man-made systems when none is perfection itself is really interesting. I see your type is unknown, you could actually benefit from finding your quadra first, good luck.


IEI uses Ni base and Fe creative. EII uses Fi base and Ne creative. Do you value Ne or Ni? They aren't that different in Socionics or MBTI (especially Ne), so that one should be fairly clear to you.

The quadras are interesting. Thanks to a typing thread I'm fairly certain of ESI (still have to update that), but in terms of quadra interaction descriptions, I think I like Alpha or Delta the most (a focus on fun and enjoyment rather than achievement).


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Murder kills people
> Therefore it is wrong to kill
> 
> It is a form of value, but it is logically derived, no?
> ...


I was answering him with the tone he wrote that message and precisely because I didn't want to go in further detail, yet give some information for starters. 

Entropic, I have no desire to prove something but I am only trying to discover more about myself and people around me, their conscious and unconscious. Thanks for your -crash course- on Fi, I suppose. It is, excuse me but quite ridiculous you are assuming I see Fi as -authenticity- and my base is the -typical shallow MBTI jargon- I have however read Jung's definition and it doesn't even sound that lovely but you see I have a case of being one. Also thanks for your source and I would say Lenore Thomson's understanding of Fi, although I have read a brief overview, is indeed good and is actually quite a description most MBTI folks on this forum would -think- is Fe. Also I think you refer to Fe too much in relation with Si, which is quite different in MBTI and socionics.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> How so?
> 
> This is not a logical conclusion. Why is it wrong to kill?


How do you define a logical conclusion?



nichya said:


> I was answering him with the tone he wrote that message and precisely because I didn't want to go in further detail, yet give some information for starters.
> 
> Entropic, I have no desire to prove something but I am only trying to discover more about myself and people around me, their conscious and unconscious. Thanks for your -crash course- on Fi, I suppose. It is, excuse me but quite ridiculous you are assuming I see Fi as -authenticity- and my base is the -typical shallow MBTI jargon- I have however read Jung's definition and it doesn't even sound that lovely but you see I have a case of being one. Also thanks for your source and I would say Lenore Thomson's understanding of Fi, although I have read a brief overview, is indeed good and is actually quite a description most MBTI folks on this forum would -think- is Fe. Also I think you refer to Fe too much in relation with Si, which is quite different in MBTI and socionics.


I was pointing out a tendency of mistyping because I often see exactly that rationale. If it doesn't apply to you, then all right, it doesn't, though personally observing your reasoning process such as how you operate in here (compare yourself to Jinjaws, for example, who most definitely is an Fi dom), I have a hard time seeing that. It's entirely unrelated to how I judge Jung's Fi description in terms of value, anyway, so I have no idea why you even bring that up.

You tend to externalize your emotions by projecting it on the object (see phrasings such as "it is lovely", "to discover myself" which points towards an outer direction of feeling because it is looking at how feeling tones exist outside of the ego/self) which is how Fe is described by both Jung and socionics, so there I fail to see the disagreement between the two. How is your understanding of Fe and Fi different in the MBTI compared to Jung, here?

Also, point out exactly how my description of Fe is biased towards Si? I tend to often just write Fe as it is i.e. focusing on emotional atmospheres and expressiveness. That's how Fe is usually described as it is in socionics, for example. If I want to slant it towards Fe + Si, I'd write it differently by focusing more on say, comfortable atmospheres or competitive ones.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Entropic said:


> The reasoning process, no? I mean, by that logic a Ti ego type would never be able to ever claim to having any sense of morality or moral principles.
> 
> We could replace "wrong" with "incorrect action" but I don't think it makes a difference.


It makes sense to me. I generally claim that I do not have a sense of morality. Other people tell me that I'm a pretty moral person though.

Maybe another Ti person or perhaps a Ti-dom could elaborate on their "moral principles."


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> It makes sense to me. I generally claim that I do not have a sense of morality. Other people tell me that I'm a pretty moral person though.
> 
> Maybe another Ti person or perhaps a Ti-dom could elaborate on their "moral principles."


I've definitely seen Ti egos express thoughts that fall within the realms of morality or how to be a moral person but argued based on logic and Kant wrote books about the subject (ethics), and so did Robespierre. At some level one could argue that even the most detached reasoning process must still rely on a foundation of feeling anyway, since you cannot have thinking without feeling and vice versa.


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

PaladinX said:


> So the dictionary is merely a collection of Mr Webster's or Mr Oxford's subjective experiences?


you get it
note : this is the reality, but i think it's impossible to live a fulfilling happy life keeping that fact in the head.. at least for me


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Honestly I tend to develop both values and my thinking about those values in tandem. Main values are a bit different, these are what drive you every single time you sit down to think about something. "I want to please other people" is a value. 

Now, from here, it's simple to see how any logic would be directed towards this goal...you could successfully build up a set of beliefs around this and the ideas you produce will naturally arise as you go. You will face trade-offs on higher-order values, like comfort, where you have to decide, do we want to sacrifice our current comfort for our future magnificence and luxury (a possible answer: yes, some of it, the non-essentials, but we will go insane without a certain amount of regularity and friendliness of environment). You will have to decide whether freedom pleases people (no, not always). 

Where I see a difference in Fi and Ti is where they make their compromises, because they are basing their higher-order value sets on different things. Fi breaks a Ti system by not really focusing on systemic effects at all. Ti tries to suspend and bring together as many things as possible, so if broken in one part, the thing will go to chaos.


----------



## Hycocritical truth teller (Aug 29, 2011)

ach said:


> they say fi is about personal values while ti is about logic, but how can someone makes logical decisions without having personal values/drives to base the logical purpose on? it's absurd..



usually pros and cons...that's how this is usually described. This doesn't mean that F-pips can't do pros and cons, it means they won't make a decision based on them (in most cases).


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ach said:


> why you posted this answer? because it's the logical thing to do? if yes could you explain to me your logic


Because I like the subject of the MBTI I participate in this forum. You asked the question how someone can use logic without having personal values. I basically explained that a person doesn't use 1 single function, but always uses all functions. And with that personal values are part of the person. That by it self should be enough of an answer.

But you choose to try to prove your point by trying to show I have some kind of personal value as a motive to answering your question. You specifically choose to ignore the explanation and just try to enforce your point.

I'll give you one more chance. Logic is just rules in the form of IF AND OR NOT THEN. These rules can be applied to everything, including morals, values, etc.

One of the things that I have written about in this forum is that Feeler brains also use logic. What makes a feeler a feeler and a thinker a thinker is not how the brain's basic functions (on a brain cell level) work, but on what preferences exist to what input data is prioritized. Thinkers don't give a whole lot of priority to the emotional sides of things. They just don't have that preference. Besides that, in a Thinker brain, comunication paths don't include a lot of feelings. In a Feeler, during cognitive processes, the brain comunicates to other parts of the brain by creating feelings in the body, which are perceived by other parts in the brain. Feelers are perfectly fine with this and to them it's normal. But to Thinkers this is a strange thing. Thinkers do perceive their feelings as well of course, but rarely their brains will create feelings in the body in order to become aware of something. This just doesn't happen (a lot) in a T brain.

This just explained the basic difference between T and F which is separate of the idea that logic can't be applied without values. Your question was a good one, but your statement "It's absurd" is wrong.

But I should have known that you weren't actually curious about understanding this because you already made up your mind, which you actually made clear by adding "It's absurd" to your question. I'm an INTJ and Fi is my third function. Your "It's absurd" comment annoyed me. That's why I repeated the word absurd in the first paragraph of my reply.

I doubt you'll change your mind on this subject, but I write it all down because it helps me put into words what I already know.

Rarely in this forum I reply because I have some dumb need to help people. Occasionally though it is the motive for replying. Not in this case though.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

Isn't it interesting how most questions are answered as a cause contributed to functions?


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

Peter said:


> Because I like the subject of the MBTI I participate in this forum. You asked the question how someone can use logic without having personal values. I basically explained that a person doesn't use 1 single function, but always uses all functions. And with that personal values are part of the person. That by it self should be enough of an answer.
> 
> But you choose to try to prove your point by trying to show I have some kind of personal value as a motive to answering your question. You specifically choose to ignore the explanation and just try to enforce your point.
> 
> ...


 believe it or not i really didn't read the second part of your first answer, i'm really sorry don't get pissed of, it's absurd . 
my mind wasn't made up, i just wrote my thought so people share their opinions with reason and help me better understand mbti, and i really did get a better understanding thanks to all who answered! even though the motive behind some answers might not be to help


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ach said:


> believe it or not i really didn't read the second part of your first answer, i'm really sorry don't get pissed of, it's absurd .
> my mind wasn't made up, i just wrote my thought so people share their opinions with reason and help me better understand mbti, and i really did get a better understanding thanks to all who answered! *even though the motive behind some answers might not be to help*


Wauw, this is like one House episode where House explains that motives don't matter.






Who's right? The one that saves more lives because he likes to figure out things or the one that saves less lives but saves them because he wants to save lives?

How can motive be more important than result?

The answer: Because having values matters more to most people.

It is why people are against abortion for example. 

It's sad but true.


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

Peter said:


> Wauw, this is like one House episode where House explains that motives don't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i think generally results matter way more than motives, while motives are essentionally important in personal relations, especially long term ones..
btw, i've never watched dr.House but it seems interesting


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ach said:


> i think generally results matter way more than motives, while motives are essentionally important in personal relations, especially long term ones..
> btw, i've never watched dr.House but it seems interesting


In long term relationships it is wise to not explain motives for everything that you do, or to lie about it. (white lies) In fact, people in relationships often know the other one is lying, and prefer it that way. Total honesty in a relationship guarantees it won't be long term. (Ofcourse, cheeting and lying about it,.... not a good thing.)


----------



## ach (Dec 28, 2015)

Peter said:


> In long term relationships it is wise to not explain motives for everything that you do, or to lie about it. (white lies) In fact, people in relationships often know the other one is lying, and prefer it that way. Total honesty in a relationship guarantees it won't be long term. (Ofcourse, cheeting and lying about it,.... not a good thing.)


You are right, however what i meant is : in mariage for example, knowing that a person love you is more important than knowing that there is a mutual benefit "although the latter is also important" do you agree?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

ach said:


> You are right, however what i meant is : in mariage for example, knowing that a person love you is more important than knowing that there is a mutual benefit "although the latter is also important" do you agree?


Love alone isn't enough. Love doesn't put food on the table. Mariage is about much more than love alone, though without love marriage isn't a good idea either.


----------



## aphinion (Apr 30, 2013)

Okay, so people with Fi wonder how people with Ti can make decisions "without having values" (which is already a false statement, of course we have values.) But I'm wondering, how do you create your values? What do you base them on? Fi has a strong basis on personal values where people can simply state with complete certainty that something is right or wrong, but I don't know how you do that. 

It seems to me that Fi gives you sort of a gut feeling about what's right and wrong, but do you ever try to logically understand your values? I'm not trying to sound disrespectful in any way, I just literally don't know how you do it. I've spent a lot of time building my own opinion/philosophy of the world and working my morals around it, but I logically broke down every part before deciding that something was right or wrong, and even then there's some grey areas I might never categorize. 

I decide if something is right or wrong by the logic of the decision. Generally speaking, murder is wrong because destruction of human life is extremely harmful (in the sense that you decrease the population, decrease the population's effectiveness, cause emotional distress to others, and a billion other obvious reasons.) But murder in the case of self-defense is not wrong because you're simply attempting to preserve your own life in a bad situation that you didn't instigate. I create thought processes like this for all of my morals because I try to base my decisions on logic, not a gut reaction that I generally don't have anyway. 

Also, if I was forced to make a tough decision, I'd try to make it as logically as possible while avoiding any personal feelings or emotions I had. For example, if I had the massively unfortunate luck of having to choose who would die: my brother who I love more than anyone in the world, or ten people I've never met, my Ti tells me that I shouldn't kill ten people just to spare my own emotional pain. I don't know if I could do it, but my own personal set of logically based values tells me that killing one person is better than killing ten people (assuming we're not talking about children, criminals, terminally ill people, or basically any other variables that might drastically affect the value or length of someone's remaining life)

Then again, I'm an ENTP, and we allegedly don't have any morals. So there's that...


----------



## Eric B (Jun 18, 2010)

ach said:


> they say fi is about personal values while ti is about logic, but how can someone makes logical decisions without having personal values/drives to base the logical purpose on? it's absurd..


Everybody uses both logic and values. What determines the typological "preference" is the ego structure. If the dominant ego position, or the auxiliary "support" state prefer to see things through logic, then the "values" are still there (in a state called "undifferentiated"), only the emotional weight (and yes, emotions are still there too) is behind the logical conclusions. If values are preferred, they will be taken for their own sake. 

Other (less connscious) ego states will focus on the opposite perspectives, but even aside from those, the T vs F (and S or N as well) products are implicit in all the data, not the type. Type is simply where the different ego states focus on one or the other more.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

This thread seems to rely on the presumption that Ti's logic is applied in the pursuit of goals deemed worthwhile by some system of valuation. I get why it seems that way, but as human beings we do still follow our instincts without necessarily evaluating their worth. Ti could very easily serve the purpose of employing logic in an attempt to follow those impulses.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

ach said:


> they say fi is about personal values while ti is about logic, but how can someone makes logical decisions without having personal values/drives to base the logical purpose on? it's absurd..


Ti Dom users make decisions???


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Apple Pine said:


> It seems Fi is highly misunderstood. I too often see "Fi is not...!!". Where are actually good descriptions of it? Wouldn't mind to read them. I don't think I have that good understand of it either.
> 
> Or perhaps someone has like a list of good sources for functions? Like, even if they are short. Length does not define the quality after all.


I have a work in progress blog that has details about all the functions in it.
(Notes I'm taking from various books for self-study.)

There are a few Fi things in there so far, I've yet to add more. Feel free to take a look.
http://personalitycafe.com/blogs/lunacik/self-help-guide-mbti-function-stacks-40930/


----------



## Endologic (Feb 14, 2015)

How can someone make a logical decision when they're driven by emotion? What you said, that's what's absurd here.


----------



## Kiriae (Oct 2, 2015)

<- Ti dom, Fe inferior here.

Ti alone:
It is possible to kill other people.
People who kill other people go to jail.
I won't kill other people because I don't want to be punished.

Ti+Fe:
It is possible to kill other people.
When a person dies their families are sad.
I won't kill other people because I don't want to make their families sad.

No "right" or "wrong" here. Only "value" here is peace of own body and mind.


----------

