# How does Fi make decisions?



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

One thing that puzzles me about Fi-doms is their rationale. When asked for an explanation of why they do certain things, they always say "I don't know" or some other illogical statement. They can never pin down the reasoning behind something. It boggles my mind how Fi can be used to "make decisions". When someone KNOWS that they're being irrational, how can they _choose_ to continue?


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

More of an evaluator personally than a decision maker although evaluations are orientated from a holistic standpoint, something many find difficult to understand at an authentic level. 

Fwiw, I find fi to be more rational than say Ni who cannot always explain it's reasoning. My experience is different to yours in that I can explain why I came to the decision I did.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

I guess it just feels right to you.


----------



## Zee Bee (Aug 19, 2014)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> One thing that puzzles me about Fi-doms is their rationale. When asked for an explanation of why they do certain things, they always say "I don't know" or some other illogical statement. They can never pin down the reasoning behind something. It boggles my mind how Fi can be used to "make decisions". When someone KNOWS that they're being irrational, how can they _choose_ to continue?


I guess the question is the same thing to you but in reverse.

How do you ever manage to have any "rational" when you are in a constant battle with your "irrational" 3rd function?

However you manage, it would be one-third MORE difficult for us!


----------



## Zeta Neprok (Jul 27, 2010)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> One thing that puzzles me about Fi-doms is their rationale. When asked for an explanation of why they do certain things, they always say "I don't know" or some other illogical statement. They can never pin down the reasoning behind something. It boggles my mind how Fi can be used to "make decisions". When someone KNOWS that they're being irrational, how can they _choose_ to continue?


Speaking for myself (Fi dom) I often actually know exactly why I'm making my decisions; however, I do say "I don't know" quite frequently. This is mostly because I'm horrid at trying to explain my reasoning or I'm afraid that if I told someone my reasoning they would not understand it, or they would mock me for it. There are times that I don't understand why I do things in the moment but later on I think about it and I do come to a rational conclusion (or a conclusion that makes sense in my mind anyway :tongue


----------



## Lunaena (Nov 16, 2013)

I find it hard to explain my decisions when they are based on Fi. Fi is my first function, and I think I act mostly on emotional and intuitive impulse. I need to concentrate to explain why I did something. It just felt right, or a weird voice or feeling inside of me told me to do it. It feels like something inside of me, deep, deep inside of me, knows everything, and I need to unlock it and get deeper inside of it to understand it.


----------



## Innogen (Oct 22, 2014)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> When someone KNOWS that they're being irrational, how can they _choose_ to continue?


For the most part, I don't care if I'm being irrational. I want to be comfortable with the choice I've made. There are obvious disadvantages to this, but there are advantages as well.

As said above, it's making decisions on what "feels right." It's just that simple; I don't see a way to explain beyond that. It's an inner sense of what is right and wrong to you, what causes you comfort and discomfort.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> One thing that puzzles me about Fi-doms is their rationale. When asked for an explanation of why they do certain things, they always say "I don't know" or some other illogical statement. They can never pin down the reasoning behind something. It boggles my mind how Fi can be used to "make decisions". When someone KNOWS that they're being irrational, how can they _choose_ to continue?


How do you as an irrational dom? 

To be fair, you are asking them to (and I find that many feeling types feel that they are expected to) provide a Thinking response to a Feeling judgment.

We have to remember that Thinking is concerned with "what it is" through logic, while Feeling is concerned with "whether it is agreeable or not" through feeling-tones. They determine their judgments through feeling, not thoughts.


To answer your main question, I personally like this quote from PersonalityJunkie:

_“My inner values and feelings (Fi) are like a building, a structure of affections that inform my worldview. This involves an inner love for certain things, and an inner repulsion for other things. My values and feelings form “blocks” of varying hardness, depending on how strongly I feel about them; the stronger ones are more resilient…I constantly discover more about the structure as I go, and what I should change to make it better. For example, I didn’t have to factually discern a respect for human dignity; I simply found myself in situations where people did not respect human dignity, and it made me angry — I found out that I hate bullying.”_

Introverted Feeling (Fi) vs. Ti, Ni, & Fe


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

Fi makes decisions based on their morals and how _they_ feel about the situation. This one ESFP I know says she will never get drunk because she disagrees with under age drinking. Even if others were doing it, she never would because it goes against what she believes its wrong. Shitty example but it gives you an idea of how their decisions are made. Their decisions are normally made with their own feelings rather than logic and facts. They're more persuaded by an emotional argument especially if it's something that they can connect with or have had personal experience with.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

I think we already have a system of values and ethics formed within already so when the situation is there we just -know- so I actually find myself very decisive for important matters especially if they have to do with -feeling- But for other things I get stuck in this Fi-Ne loop and can't decide easily, like a school, a new clothing if I need to buy one (that is why I like to shop out of necessity, I go pick whatever I -like- but if I need something for an occasion and I am not in love with something I have a hard time picking one) stuff like that. For important matters like picking a school I think we could use all the time we have because we don't want to rush and we want to keep our options open, in the end it is always about -what feels right- For emotional matters and when it comes to my morals I just know  Indeed I see FiNe decisions to be more solid than NiFe, also seems to work better for long term.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

nichya said:


> I think we already have a system of values and ethics formed within already so when the situation is there we just -know- so I actually find myself very decisive for important matters especially if they have to do with -feeling- But for other things I get stuck in this Fi-Ne loop and can't decide easily, like a school, a new clothing if I need to buy one (that is why I like to shop out of necessity, I go pick whatever I -like- but if I need something for an occasion and I am not in love with something I have a hard time picking one) stuff like that. For important matters like picking a school I think we could use all the time we have because we don't want to rush and we want to keep our options open, in the end it is always about -what feels right- For emotional matters and when it comes to my morals I just know  Indeed I see FiNe decisions to be more solid than NiFe, also seems to work better for long term.


You don't know, until you see it played out in the environment. Fi judgements are more solid, as in more blunt and less flexible. More personal. And therefore, less applicable. 

I posted MLK as a good example of Fe. Of seeing things play out in the environment, adjustments, reconsiderations. etc. He knows every side. That is why he has the position he does. Why impose your vision on the world, when the world is always changing? You always have to check your vision. It needs to be checked logically, and/or against the environment. 

"It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I think that is the problem people have with Fi, as mentioned in the OP. There is little rationalization for it. It is totally subjective.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> One thing that puzzles me about Fi-doms is their rationale. When asked for an explanation of why they do certain things, they always say "I don't know" or some other illogical statement. They can never pin down the reasoning behind something. It boggles my mind how Fi can be used to "make decisions". When someone KNOWS that they're being irrational, how can they _choose_ to continue?


If they can't understand the source of their decisions then it's likely they haven't done much introspection, or they don't want to explain because most of the times it's personal. F/T doms are rational types since their dominant function is the judging one. Whether or not they base decisions upon how they feel about something or objective facts is another characteristic that doesn't mean irrationality. Feelings are facts as well, just personal ones. 
It would help if you could provide an example.


----------



## mikan (May 25, 2014)

Hmm let me explain it more, Fi is about how much something affects me emotionally or "touches my heart" I feel gravitated to it for no apparent reason other than I felt very comfortable with it.

If I choose a black car over a white car, because black made it more appealing to me, it touched me on the inside and I feel very attracted to the color black (even if I don't like the color black in general) the shape of the car with the color black gives it an intense look, it gave me an instinctual feeling that I need to buy this car "wow, what a sexy car". I just loved this car, no reason. It "touched" my heart so I'm going to buy it. (I think I just explained a Fi Se thing, but yeah, you get it)

However if we adapt a thinker's perspective they would most likely choose the white car over the black car since black stores heat, while white does less so.


----------



## The Hungry One (Jan 26, 2011)

Firstly, I agree with TheSonderer; "I don't know" often means "It's difficult for me to explain to you." 

1. I think perceivers, by definition, like to keep options open, so major decisions are very carefully though out--sometimes to an extent that explaining the entire decision-making process would be a chore. 

2. Fi users often make decisions based on values that are very personal. They're not the kinds of things I want to bring up in casual conversation with random people because if someone were to attack my values, it would hurt deeply and cause terrible conflict. 

3. If it seems like someone wants to argue, I won't go into specifics because I don't want to argue. I want to move on to a different topic. 

4. I personally have a terrible memory so I'll know I've read something that supports my reasoning, but I won't be able to recall the details to sound convincing. 

It's true that sometimes I do things because I feel like it, but I don't think that's a Fi trait. At least, I find it difficult to believe that any other type wouldn't suddenly want to do something because the mood took them. I don't think that's how Fi works.* Fi is just moral-based decision-making as opposed to logically-based. Thus in a shipwreck, the Fi-user might want to save the sick and disabled old man at the cost of their own young, more "useful" life because morally it would bother them. 

(Though I'm not 100% certain about this scenario and I'm interested in thinker's perspectives. I certainly don't think thinkers are heartless and incapable of self-sacrifice.)*

If OP were to provide an example, I would have a better explanation, as although these are possible reasons why I would respond with "I don't know," it has been a long while since I've frustrated anyone with such a vague explanation. I don't think it's something I do often at all. 

Wow I really got into this.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I think that is the problem people have with Fi, as mentioned in the OP. There is little rationalization for it. It is totally subjective.


I think -subjective- is all that matters in the end, you see it as a problem but absolutely the subject -I- and -how I feel about things- or -how things fit my vision- is the most important aspect for me. It is not a flaw, it is exactly what I aim for. Also don't judge our understanding of the world by checking our act, we perceive things wholly, we just don't calculate our moves to fit in, we act in our way -anyway- to be only seen reckless and immature by others. Rationale does not really play the most important part in my life. Also it is not that we are not flexible, we are rather adaptable. We make our decision and live with it, we don't live by the rules of others. You guys have too much to put in the equation before yourself, you must be aware of your Ni vision, as great as it can be, is well effected by short term factors like Fe and Se, which can make your vision very shortsighted. So perhaps, relying on so fickle functions and environments might not be the best idea either.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

nichya said:


> I think -subjective- is all that matters in the end, you see it as a problem but absolutely the subject -I- and -how I feel about things- or -how things fit my vision- is the most important aspect for me. It is not a flaw, it is exactly what I aim for. Also don't judge our understanding of the world by checking our act, we perceive things wholly, we just don't calculate our moves to fit in, we act in our way -anyway- to be only seen reckless and immature by others. Rationale does not really play the most important part in my life. Also it is not that we are not flexible, we are rather adaptable. We make our decision and live with it, we don't live by the rules of others. You guys have too much to put in the equation before yourself, you must be aware of your Ni vision, as great as it can be, is well effected by short term factors like Fe and Se, which can make your vision very shortsighted. So perhaps, relying on so fickle functions and environments might not be the best idea either.


But rationale is how you justify what you are doing, and what you believe. If you can explain to people why you do something, they will be more understanding probably. It can help you fulfill your vision. 

Your actions are all that can be seen. Nobody can read your mind. You are judged by your actions. 

I have too much put in the equation before myself, because I am often in an environment that is larger than me. I don't own it. And if I try to go against it, I will justify myself. I think I owe it to them. Plus they need to hear it. That is how you handle conflict. Communication.


----------



## Doc Dangerstein (Mar 8, 2013)

All rationality is an expression of an underlining motivation. Very often the motivation is benefit, efficiency and accomplishment. I find ENTJs are very explicit in communicating these specific values. INTJs, less so. Notice how these are values masquerading as logic.

When I substitute the initial values of benefit and efficiency for exploration and amusement and keep accomplishment, I have a rational machine which gives you different results. I like to start with an understanding of the initial conditions, motivations and priorities and then I look for a practical means to make everything happen.

My sense of rationality is a system built on what is important at the given moment. This is different from philosophical curiosity, exploration or inquiry where I try to make sense of reality. "Because I feel like it, so screw you" has as much rational weight as "the cost and financial benefit of things." They're just different conditions, nothing more.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> When asked for an explanation of why they do certain things, they always say "I don't know" or some other illogical statement.


Really? _Always_? Lol. I somehow doubt this. 

Fi will lead to decisions based on what feels right, in the sense that something is in accordance with what we value or prefer. Sometimes it can be hard to translate this subjective reasoning into words for others to invariably understand. That doesn't mean there's no reason. It's still "If A then B", but A and B are sometimes arbitrary, pre-existing values or private feelings about things that others might not share. It can be very knee-jerk, but it's not without root in what we've already learned is "right" or makes sense for us. It's like motor memory. But... for... feelings/values. 

Sometimes it really is as simple as "X choice felt easiest, Y choice would have required some unsavoury sacrifice that I don't feel like making right now" or "X choice required less energy and I'm tired". Sometimes it would require a longer explanation about subjective values. It's just important that our choices maintain harmony with what we are/know/believe.


----------



## ScientiaOmnisEst (Oct 2, 2013)

Spastic Origami said:


> All rationality is an expression of an underlining motivation. Very often the motivation is benefit, efficiency and accomplishment. I find ENTJs are very explicit in communicating these specific values. INTJs, less so. Notice how these are values masquerading as logic.
> 
> *When I substitute the initial values of benefit and efficiency for exploration and amusement and keep accomplishment, I have a rational machine which gives you different results.* I like to start with an understanding of the initial conditions, motivations and priorities and then I look for a practical means to make everything happen.
> 
> My sense of rationality is a system built on what is important at the given moment. This is different from philosophical curiosity, exploration or inquiry where I try to make sense of reality. "Because I feel like it, so screw you" has as much rational weight as "the cost and financial benefit of things." They're just different conditions, nothing more.


While the bit in bold makes sense function-wise, what I'm hearing from it is:

T = "efficiency and benefit"

F = "exploration and amusement"

I hope that's not what you meant to convey, since it's not really true. To me that looks more like Je vs Ji, respectively.

Also @_mikan_: I've had a suspicion for a while that Jungian Feeling is a little like intuition (in the colloquial sense of the term). An undeniable, unspoken impression that one is compelled to follow. 

Perhaps it's not quite an accurate comparison, but your car example sounded a little like how my weirdly-high-F self chooses things like avatars, pseudonyms, or character names. Look for one that jumps out at me. Try different combinations until one sticks - because when one does, everything else will pale in comparison. (Not sure if I would do the same for car colors though: I'd be more likely to just consider my favorite colors and the fact that I prefer low-key looks. The color's kind of the least-important part anyway).


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Well feelings are faster than thoughts. It takes longer to rationalize through something than to feel it. We may have rationalized through our judgements beforehand but when the time comes we don't think about our judgements we just feel them. So while there is a reasoning behind our judgement, we don't rationalize through our judgements each time we make them. 

Also, Fi is very non linear to me. And its constantly shifting and swerving to adapt to the situation. Because its non linear, it can sometimes be hard to translate to linear format in order to explain it to someone. Not always worth it. There are thousands of bits and pieces that have seemingly no connection that come together to form a judgement of mine.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> Thanks for the explanation. I often view my opinion as being more valuable because I can objectively justify it. So if Fi takes precedence over Te, this "arrogance" disappears and the person becomes less interested in the reasoning and more interested in the feeling


Or motivation behind the reasoning, yes. And I find it interesting at your choice of "arrogance" because lots of people think Fi types can be quite arrogant.


----------



## love.script (Nov 23, 2014)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> One thing that puzzles me about Fi-doms is their rationale. When asked for an explanation of why they do certain things, they always say "I don't know" or some other illogical statement. They can never pin down the reasoning behind something. It boggles my mind how Fi can be used to "make decisions". When someone KNOWS that they're being irrational, how can they _choose_ to continue?


I do not remember if I am a user of "introverted feeling" as my dominant function or not. I am sorry.

But I feel I am. It sounds right to me.

So what I feel about this is there is no "logic" to it. How I make decisions is by weighing feeling (values, beliefs, meaning, sensation, sensitivity) around. Within my self, within the immediate environment, within the atmosphere, within the extended community. I like to understand how a decision is impacting my self and all those around me. Depending on how I am feeling within my self, this can mean I make very well decisions positively helping and supporting those around me -- or very "illogical" decisions which seemingly hurt me and toss me further down into a pit.

Nothing matters to me except for feeling. I feel humanity's phenomenon can be described as a "breathing experience." Everything we do and speak, everything we feel, is within this moment. I guess I may be very well at understanding certain mentalities and senses and feelings in this moment. I guess I may be very well at compiling an extensive knowledgebase of past experiences and then understanding how that helps me in this exact moment. 

My decisions are made based on feeling. I cannot give you clear indications about this. I feel my first paragraph is right.

You weigh the meaning of your words and your actions for your own self and those around you. You understand sensation and sensitivity all around you. You try to make some great decisions which help you feel well or help others feel well.

And I guess, if you are not healthy or you are presently hurting, you can toss your self and those around you down much more easily. With little regard to how they feel. You can become detached.

I have found this kind of information to be true and relevant to me in my own life. I have *INFP* psychology. I question other INFP or other introverted feelers may feel so strongly as me, or be able to pinpoint precise reasonings to how they function like this.

I won't give you an "I don't know" answer. I do not feel there is much in this world "I do not know." Not if it is within our humanity or our experience. Because, with humanity, "feeling is everything," I feel. It is not logic. It is not an analysis or a breakdown. It is understanding and relation.

This is where I am today at twenty-two, @nO_d3N1AL.


----------



## nO_d3N1AL (Apr 25, 2014)

I've noticed that I can't understand a lot of what INFPs have posted on this thread is gobbledegook to me. I just don't understand what they're trying to say.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

@PaladinX...a rational Feeling is based upon the values that have already been established by reflection.....This exactly, so simple yet difficult for the FP to put into words. You know I can almost see how that could make us appear stupid in sense, because for Fi those words don't come together in our head in the moment because our thoughts become unorganized then frustrated. Not because we don't understand or recognize when we see these words make sense, it feels like yes, this is what the picture looks like. NF can draw what they're feeling, and how it looks.('m specifically talking about our deeper rooted feelings ). The more time you spend with Fi in real time, the better you will be able to fill in the blanks when we can't. Fi appreciates this a lot, it alleviates the stress and lets us know you get it, you get us, which creates inner peace for Fi. This relates back to what I tried to express last post, our emotional state doesn't come in words, only tones, Images, flashes if you will.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> Sorry, a lot of these posts don't make any sense to me


HAHAHA, me neither. I think if we beat the fcuk out of Fi maybe one day everyone will understand it...haha, some of the post here are so retarded, made me chuckle:laughing:


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

@JeNeSaisQuoi, I would agree that NF don't do or say things for the sake out it, it goes against our core values. With that said one of my INFP girlfriends dated an ISTP for quite some time. She admitted to me that she often told the ISTP what he wanted to hear to avoid arguments. She was aware of what she was doing. She wasn't really going against her value system because she alone knew how she was really feeling, this was her way of justifying what she was doing. And although I never spoke with said ISTP about it, according to her it was easier to go along with what he wanted rather than try and explain what Irritated her. This is in response to last part of your post with Fi doms.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

nO_d3N1AL said:


> I've noticed that I can't understand a lot of what INFPs have posted on this thread is gobbledegook to me. I just don't understand what they're trying to say.


made my day.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Fi resembles Si in that its values are subjective preferences that simply click with the individual with no apparent rationale and resembles Ni in that the process is in some part subconscious. Everyone has Fi values and uses them. Just look at the debate thread "is it ever OK to punch a woman?" to see INTPs arguing their Fi values. The difference with them is that they dress up their values in Ti rationale. But underneath that garb lies their bare values. And INTPs supposedly have Fi as their last function. But I think this is wrong. Ti users will be _more _likely to use Fi than Fe since Fi is an internal judging process, one the Ti user already prefers over external judging standards. And INTPs aren't alone: everyone uses Fi, even if they don't know it.

I strongly suspect the converse is also true and Fi users are more likely to use Ti than Te since they already possess a preference for using subjective standards to judge. Ti will probably enter the picture when they consciously evaluate their feelings to harmonize their system of values to ensure internal self-consistency. I imagine they will also draw from other functions--even Je--if it makes sense to do so.

So the standard picture of the IXFP stack where Ti lies at the very bottom is probably wrong, just as the idea Fi lies at the bottom of the IXTP stack is certainly wrong. In fact, the Ji functions lie close to each other and often operate together. And I strongly suspect the same is true for the Je functions. A Te-dom will use Fe to manipulate its environment, and a Fe-dom will use Te to do the same.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Fi resembles Si in that its values are subjective preferences that simply click with the individual with no apparent rationale and resembles Ni in that the process is in some part subconscious.


Fi is a rational and conscious function just like Ti. It's really hard for people to wrap their mind around the fact that Feeling functions are as rational and thought out as Thinking functions ! When you have to makes choices like dumping your girlfriend/boyfriend and how, if you want kids, or how to react to a friend having problems, don't you think hard too ? It's not like Feeling types have instantly the answers either, it's trial and error until you figure how those kind of things work. Thinking and Feeling are both judging, rational and conscious functions that happen to have different domains of applications.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kyusaku said:


> Fi is a rational and conscious function just like Ti. It's really hard for people to wrap their mind around the fact that Feeling functions are as rational and thought out as Thinking functions ! When you have to makes choices like dumping your girlfriend/boyfriend and how, if you want kids, or how to react to a friend having problems, don't you think hard too ? It's not like Feeling types have instantly the answers either, it's trial and error until you figure how those kind of things work. Thinking and Feeling are both judging, rational and conscious functions that happen to have different domains of applications.


Do you think you use other functions, like Ti, as you think through your feelings? Maybe that thinking part is actually thinking, aka Ti?


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Do you think you use other functions, like Ti, as you think through your feelings? Maybe that thinking part is actually thinking, aka Ti?


The term "thinking" is misleading. Feelers think just as much and just as accurately as thinkers. The difference between both ? Ti is impersonal while Fi is personal. When I think about how my behavior affects my entourage, I'm using Fi, when I think about how to get to a meeting point on time I use Te.

That doesn't mean Ti has no clue on how to deal with people, but if a problem happen in that domain he will try to solve it by impersonal means. Or is going to observe how others deal with that kind of problem and adapt those methods to his own situation (Fe). As an Fi dom I'm going to use a very similar process with Te concerning impersonal matters. While any problem that has to do with persons is already covered by my own hand crafted set of solutions (Fi).


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kyusaku said:


> The term "thinking" is misleading. Feelers think just as much and just as accurately as thinkers. The difference between both ? Ti is impersonal while Fi is personal. When I think about how my behavior affects my entourage, I'm using Fi, when I think about how to get to a meeting point on time I use Te.
> 
> That doesn't mean Ti has no clue on how to deal with people, but if a problem happen in that domain he will try to solve it by impersonal means. Or is going to observe how others deal with that kind of problem and adapt those methods to his own situation (Fe). As an Fi dom I'm going to use a very similar process with Te concerning impersonal matters. While any problem that has to do with persons is already covered by my own hand crafted set of solutions (Fi).


So when you consciously evaluate your feelings and detect inconsistencies that is Fi and not Ti? For example, when someone says one thing but does another and you think to yourself, "that person is a hypocrite", is that Fi or Ti? When I do that it's Ti because it is a recognition of _fact_. If I went on to think "that person is _bad_", then I would be using Fi because it is a statement of _value_. Why would this be any different for you--ie, why wouldn't you also be using Ti?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kyusaku said:


> The term "thinking" is misleading. Feelers think just as much and just as accurately as thinkers. The difference between both ? Ti is impersonal while Fi is personal. When I think about how my behavior affects my entourage, I'm using Fi, when I think about how to get to a meeting point on time I use Te.
> 
> That doesn't mean Ti has no clue on how to deal with people, but if a problem happen in that domain he will try to solve it by impersonal means. Or is going to observe how others deal with that kind of problem and adapt those methods to his own situation (Fe). *As an Fi dom I'm going to use a very similar process with Te concerning impersonal matters. *While any problem that has to do with persons is already covered by my own hand crafted set of solutions (Fi).


Can you give an example of this process using Te? Fi is subjective, Te is objective. How are they "similar"?


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Kyusaku said:


> The term "thinking" is misleading. Feelers think just as much and just as accurately as thinkers. The difference between both ? Ti is impersonal while Fi is personal. When I think about how my behavior affects my entourage, I'm using Fi, when I think about how to get to a meeting point on time I use Te.
> 
> That doesn't mean Ti has no clue on how to deal with people, but if a problem happen in that domain he will try to solve it by impersonal means. Or is going to observe how others deal with that kind of problem and adapt those methods to his own situation (Fe). As an Fi dom I'm going to use a very similar process with Te concerning impersonal matters. While any problem that has to do with persons is already covered by my own hand crafted set of solutions (Fi).


Would like to act though, I never really find myself -actively- thinking but it is processed at the background at all times and I just know how I feel in the end. I mean I think that is a lot different than INFJs for example, who work things by overly -thinking- perhaps because they need to process Fe with some internal function as Ti? I don't know. And that is why I feel like they are more like thinkers to put their feelings second to their thinking but they are not as naturally talented as thinkers so, that is problematic.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

I've recently been typed as an ENFP, (Although I always thought I was an ISTP, I can see it in the functions of the ENFP, if not in the description) And thus probably have auxiliary Fi.

When I make a decision, it depends on the consequences of that decision what I will do. Like when I think 'should I drink this beer' I consider that I don't like the taste of beer, and and that while I don't know how I act when I'm drunk, several people in my family become aggressive if they drink too much and alcoholism is a known problem in my family. Since I do not get any pleasure from drinking, and neither will the people around me (Who likes drunk people anyway?) I will generally not drink. However, there may be other factors - like a drinking game that is fun for other reasons, or beer being the only offered beverage (in other words, convenience), that will persuade me to drink.

Same with other things. Will I play with the kids game that I love while others are there? Not if I'm the only one. But if I deem it likely that others will join me, I do not consider the possibility that some might consider me childish as a reason not to. 

I incorporate my feelings and those of others in my decisions, that doesn't mean that I can't explain why I do what I do. I might only be able to spell it out afterwards, not in the heat of the moment - but I can always track back the reasoning that lead me to a decision, even if I didn't follow it consciously.


----------



## Verity3 (Nov 15, 2014)

Maybe "thinking" and "feeling" are poor terms for what's going on. "Factual reasoning" and "moral reasoning"?

Though I also resonate with the challenge to "typical" function stacks, because my Ti use tests relatively high :/


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Verity3 said:


> Maybe "thinking" and "feeling" are poor terms for what's going on. "Factual reasoning" and "moral reasoning"?
> 
> Though I also resonate with the challenge to "typical" function stacks, because my Ti use tests relatively high :/


I never get that. Factual reasoning has its uses, and so has moral reasoning, but they don't enter into each others domains: You can't reach a conclusion about how to put up a cabinet on a moral basis, and neither can factual reasoning tell you whether you should pick the free range chicken or the cheap one. Whatever you decide, it's the one or the other. Even if you think that you are not using morals by picking the cheap chicken, you clearly value your own well-being (more money) over the well-being of the chicken. That's values right there. There's always values, and recognizing those values doesn't make you a feeler: it makes you more introspective. Just because you realize that you use values in decisions can't make you a feeler, as _everyone_ does that. Neither can picking 'others' over yourself be more feeler-like: thinkers aren't more selfish than feelers, nor the other way around.

I just don't really grasp the functions, and I think that is because they are often poorly described.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

the way I act on feelings and decisions is exactly how I realized I use Fi and not Ti. 

and how I know this, is that it's almost impossible for me to verbalize how that goes on in my head! I know internally, exactly what I feel; but explaining that rationale is a tremendously difficult process for me. 

I do what I do because it feels right; not because it feels good {like my aux Se sometimes wants me to do} and not because others want me to do it or pressure me to do it {even though I do have moments, especially with my family that look like inferior Fe} but because it feels _right_ to me and brings me an inner sense of calm and peace.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> So when you consciously evaluate your feelings and detect inconsistencies that is Fi and not Ti? For example, when someone says one thing but does another and you think to yourself, "that person is a hypocrite", is that Fi or Ti? When I do that it's Ti because it is a recognition of _fact_. If I went on to think "that person is _bad_", then I would be using Fi because it is a statement of _value_. Why would this be any different for you--ie, why wouldn't you also be using Ti?


The difference in Ti and Fi is how you determine a person to be a hypocrite. To you it is a discrepancy between what a person states and what a person do, which is an impersonal way of reaching that conclusion (not necessarily false mind you). On the other hand an Fi dom will try to collect data surrounding that person and what situation it currently is in, and try to piece those informations together into a model, thus guessing what the person's motive might be for acting in such a way. An Fi dom will be aware of the discrepancy like a Ti, but it knows that a lot of possible reasons can bring a person to lie, and very seldom are lies 100% bullshit, so finding out the ratio of BS is important. As a Ti you are less focused on that personal angle, and thus dedicate less time and energy to understand the finer details on those matters.




ae1905 said:


> Can you give an example of this process using Te? Fi is subjective, Te is objective. How are they "similar"?


*following up to the first chunk*

On the other hand, if there is a given problem inside a system, let's say, a traffic light network (it could be philosophical, scientific, or whatever, this example is for convenience sake). As a Fi, there's a huge amount of numerical and impersonal data, like the streams of cars, temporizations for the lights, taking into account the placement of the different crossroads, etc. It is too much for me to handle, and what I really cared for when I accepted that mission was to help people get home, so I'm probably going to scrap the whole design, prioritize some roads by use of traffic signs and it gets the job done, even if it's clunky. Because inferior Te is about finding shortcuts to problems (just like your inferior Fe).



nichya said:


> Would like to act though, I never really find myself -actively- thinking but it is processed at the background at all times and I just know how I feel in the end. I mean I think that is a lot different than INFJs for example, who work things by overly -thinking- perhaps because they need to process Fe with some internal function as Ti? I don't know. And that is why I feel like they are more like thinkers to put their feelings second to their thinking but they are not as naturally talented as thinkers so, that is problematic.


I'll answer you a bit later.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Thinking and Feeling are apt terms. I think the confusion lies elsewhere.


*1. Thinking and Feeling as concepts*

_"just as thinking marshals the conscious contents under concepts, feeling arranges them according to their value."_

Thinking brings together representations into conceptual connection. It is concerned with "what it is" and based on logic.

Feeling arranges representations according to their value. It is concerned with "whether it is agreeable or not" and based on feeling-tones.

The reason why I make a point to add in logic and feeling-tones is because you can logically determine value and feeling can lead us to say what something is.

For example, you could create a logical criteria for which to determine the value of say a laptop. Let's say we set the mark at 2.4Ghz processor 8 GBs of RAM and has a battery life of more than 5 hours. Logically we can determine from this criteria if a laptop is good or bad. A feeling type on the other hand may prefer a Mac to a PC even though it does not meet a given logical criteria. It is better because it is a Mac. There is a positive feeling connotation associated with Mac and a negative one with the PC.

An example of Feeling determining "what it is" is by looking at the controversial debates about the woman walking through NYC video: some Feeling types label the catcalling and other approaches as "harassment" because of how it makes them feel. Some Thinking types counter that it is not harassment because it fails to meet the definition.


*2. Habitual Attitudes*

In this case, it is essentially the general tendency towards Thinking or Feeling as described above.


*3. Types*

In this case, a type is an individual that exhibits a Thinking or Feeling habitual attitude as described above.

A Thinking type still feels and a Feeling type still thinks. However, the conclusions they make are generally based on their habitual attitude. Typically usage of the non-preferred function is subjected to the will of the habitual one. So if we look at the catcalling example above, the "thinking" of the Feeling types labelled the behaviour as harassment because it is based on their feelings and not on logical criteria. The Thinking type may also associate feeling-tones with what has been logically determined as "good" or "bad."


----------



## Le9acyMuse (Mar 12, 2010)

What is this I read of Fi doing what feels right, as if it's self-explanatory? Has it been implied that functions can be more or less rational than each other? Only if they were infallible...

Feeling shouldn't be misunderstood so often. It's just a concern about human synchronicity. It is something _felt _because it's a sense of order, which Thinking also feels.

All Fs care about the same things that make them Fs. Same for Ts. Feelers are cued by social output and Thinkers are cued by general instrumentality. Ask yourselves about the difference between Introversion and Extraversion. I think that's where a lot of the confusion lies.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

Kyusaku said:


> The difference in Ti and Fi is how you determine a person to be a hypocrite. To you it is a discrepancy between what a person states and what a person do, which is an impersonal way of reaching that conclusion (not necessarily false mind you). On the other hand an Fi dom will try to collect data surrounding that person and what situation it currently is in, and try to piece those informations together into a model, thus guessing what the person's motive might be for acting in such a way. An Fi dom will be aware of the discrepancy like a Ti, but it knows that a lot of possible reasons can bring a person to lie, and very seldom are lies 100% bullshit, so finding out the ratio of BS is important. As a Ti you are less focused on that personal angle, and thus dedicate less time and energy to understand the finer details on those matters.


Agreed with this, but I'd take it one step further. Once I've determined someone is a hypocrite, I will thereafter find it hard to carry on an objective or unbiased contact with that person. I will rather want to avoid contact with them, and will find it difficult to keep on an even keel if I must deal with them. I cannot trust them. And I find it difficult to hide my feelings towards them, or hide my attitude towards them. They may not understand--but I think they usually do. And once that happens, they also have difficulties dealing with me--in a couple cases, they seemed to fear exposure, or my coming down on them. But I don't judge openly. I just can't carry on a normal relationship with them. Ti, on the other hand, would be able to bury such emotions, as I've seen it--set them aside for the sake of getting something done. I can't see myself doing that--and if I do somehow, manage to keep a cool head during, I'm exploding inside--and over time, it will eventually come out, but not usually around that person--unless pushed to the edge and beyond.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kyusaku said:


> The term "thinking" is misleading. Feelers think just as much and just as accurately as thinkers. The difference between both ? *Ti is impersonal while Fi is personal.* When I think about how my behavior affects my entourage, I'm using Fi, when I think about how to get to a meeting point on time I use Te.


Overlooked this earlier but will take issue with it now. This is not the correct distinction between Ti and Fi. Ti can and does think about personal things, all the time, in fact. What sets Ti apart from Fi is the _kind _of judgment being made. If it is a _value _judgment, then that is Fi. If it is a _factual _judgment, then it is Ti. So when you are "building a model" of someone's behavior and assembling facts to fit together, that is Ti--ascertaining what is _true_--not Fi. When you decide some facts are good or bad, that is Fi.

To put it in your terms, Ti considers personal things _impersonally_, on the basis of whether they are true or false, not good or bad.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

heartofpompeii said:


> the way I act on feelings and decisions is exactly how I realized I use Fi and not Ti.
> 
> and how I know this, is that it's almost impossible for me to verbalize how that goes on in my head! I know internally, exactly what I feel; but explaining that rationale is a tremendously difficult process for me.
> 
> I do what I do because it feels right; not because it feels good {like my aux Se sometimes wants me to do} and not because others want me to do it or pressure me to do it {even though I do have moments, especially with my family that look like inferior Fe} but because it feels _right_ to me and brings me an inner sense of calm and peace.


And do you always "feel right"? And when you don't "feel right", what is the process to make yourself "feel right"? Is this not a conscious and deliberate process, at least in part, where you recall images of and words describing the subjects of your feelings and manipulate them? And doesn't some of this manipulation involve simple deductive statements like, "if this then that"?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Kyusaku said:


> The difference in Ti and Fi is how you determine a person to be a hypocrite. To you it is a discrepancy between what a person states and what a person do, which is an impersonal way of reaching that conclusion (not necessarily false mind you). On the other hand an Fi dom will try to collect data surrounding that person and what situation it currently is in, and try to piece those informations together into a model, thus guessing what the person's motive might be for acting in such a way. An Fi dom will be aware of the discrepancy like a Ti, but it knows that a lot of possible reasons can bring a person to lie, and very seldom are lies 100% bullshit, so finding out the ratio of BS is important. As a Ti you are less focused on that personal angle, and thus dedicate less time and energy to understand the finer details on those matters.





ferroequinologist said:


> Agreed with this, but I'd take it one step further. Once I've determined someone is a hypocrite, I will thereafter find it hard to carry on an objective or unbiased contact with that person. I will rather want to avoid contact with them, and will find it difficult to keep on an even keel if I must deal with them. I cannot trust them. And I find it difficult to hide my feelings towards them, or hide my attitude towards them. They may not understand--but I think they usually do. And once that happens, they also have difficulties dealing with me--in a couple cases, they seemed to fear exposure, or my coming down on them. But I don't judge openly. I just can't carry on a normal relationship with them. Ti, on the other hand, would be able to bury such emotions, as I've seen it--set them aside for the sake of getting something done. I can't see myself doing that--and if I do somehow, manage to keep a cool head during, I'm exploding inside--and over time, it will eventually come out, but not usually around that person--unless pushed to the edge and beyond.


How does this demonstrate Fi over Ti? I am very aware of "possible reasons [that] can bring a person to lie" and I will act very similarly towards others that I think are full of shit.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

To be honest, I think Jamie Oliver (probably an ISFP) summarized it the best when he said, "It's not right" at 0:32 and later at 1:18, "I'm doing it because I want the kids to eat better food; I want kids to be healthy; I want them to grow up and have a successful life; I want to have a fucking better cooler (?, damn British), cleverer, healthier, nation":


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> How does this demonstrate Fi over Ti? I am very aware of "possible reasons [that] can bring a person to lie" and I will act very similarly towards others that I think are full of shit.


Why do you act that way?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Why do you act that way?


Why wouldn't I? 

It doesn't make any logical sense to continue to interact with someone who is full of themselves.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Entropic said:


> To be honest, I think Jamie Oliver (probably an ISFP) summarized it the best when he said, "It's not right" at 0:32 and later at 1:18, "I'm doing it because I want the kids to eat better food; I want kids to be healthy; I want them to grow up and have a successful life; I want to have a fucking better cooler (?, damn British), cleverer, healthier, nation":


That is a good example. I have said before that Te-Fi is more "pure". It is more simple, stable, and has less strings attached to it. It is stated, and there isn't anything to add to it really. Fe-Ti do more touch ups.


----------



## Afterburner (Jan 8, 2013)

I'll just leave this here.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Kyusaku said:


> The difference in Ti and Fi is how you determine a person to be a hypocrite. To you it is a discrepancy between what a person states and what a person do, which is an impersonal way of reaching that conclusion (not necessarily false mind you). On the other hand an* Fi dom will try to collect data surrounding that person and what situation it currently is in*,


What functions are you using when you do this?



> and try to* piece those informations together into a model,*


What functions are you using when you do this?



> thus *guessing what the person's motive might be for acting in such a way.*


What functions are you using when you do this?



> *An Fi dom will be aware of the discrepancy like a Ti,*


What functions are you using when you do this?



> but* it knows that a lot of possible reasons can bring a person to lie,*


What functions are you using when you do this?



> and very seldom are lies 100% bullshit, so finding out *the ratio of BS *is important.


What functions do you use to calculate this ratio?



> As a Ti you are less focused on that personal angle, and thus dedicate less time and energy to *understand the finer details *on those matters.


What functions are you using when you do this?



> On the other hand, if there is a given problem inside a system, let's say, a traffic light network (it could be philosophical, scientific, or whatever, this example is for convenience sake). As a Fi, there's a huge amount of numerical and impersonal data, like the streams of cars, temporizations for the lights, taking into account the placement of the different crossroads, etc. It is too much for me to handle, and what I really cared for when I accepted that mission was to help people get home, so I'm probably going to *scrap the whole design, prioritize some roads by use of traffic signs and it gets the job done, even if it's clunky. Because inferior Te is about finding shortcuts to problems *(just like your inferior Fe).


Right, so inferior Te is really a _subjective _Te that uses subjective Te methods to satisfy Fi objectives.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kyusaku said:


> The difference in Ti and Fi is how you determine a person to be a hypocrite. To you it is a discrepancy between what a person states and what a person do, which is an impersonal way of reaching that conclusion (not necessarily false mind you). On the other hand an Fi dom will try to collect data surrounding that person and what situation it currently is in, and try to piece those informations together into a model, thus guessing what the person's motive might be for acting in such a way. An Fi dom will be aware of the discrepancy like a Ti, but it knows that a lot of possible reasons can bring a person to lie, and very seldom are lies 100% bullshit, so finding out the ratio of BS is important. As a Ti you are less focused on that personal angle, and thus dedicate less time and energy to understand the finer details on those matters.



The way you describe Fi is more so resemblant of Ti:



> It formulates questions and creates theories, it opens up new prospects and insights, but with regard to facts its attitude is one of reserve. They are all very well as illustrative examples, but they must not be allowed to predominate. Facts are collected as evidence for a theory, never for their own sake.


Theories are models, facts are data being collected as evidence for the model, piecing together the information into the model (theory). I will admit though, that Jung stated that everything that is true for Ti is also true for Fi, but instead of it being thought they're now being felt.

Also Fi doesn't focus on possibilities, and any cognitive process that is focused on possibilities whether indirectly or directly is a form of intuition.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Overlooked this earlier but will take issue with it now. This is not the correct distinction between Ti and Fi. Ti can and does think about personal things, all the time, in fact. What sets Ti apart from Fi is the _kind _of judgment being made. If it is a _value _judgment, then that is Fi. If it is a _factual _judgment, then it is Ti. So when you are "building a model" of someone's behavior and assembling facts to fit together, that is Ti--ascertaining what is _true_--not Fi. When you decide some facts are good or bad, that is Fi.
> 
> To put it in your terms, Ti considers personal things _impersonally_, on the basis of whether they are true or false, not good or bad.


In human relationships there is no true or false as people don't have a definite nature, so yes, the Thinking function is impersonal. You can try to use it on persons if you like, but such kind of judgment is inadequated.



nichya said:


> Would like to act though, I never really find myself -actively- thinking but it is processed at the background at all times and I just know how I feel in the end. I mean I think that is a lot different than INFJs for example, who work things by overly -thinking- perhaps because they need to process Fe with some internal function as Ti? I don't know. And that is why I feel like they are more like thinkers to put their feelings second to their thinking but they are not as naturally talented as thinkers so, that is problematic.


The Ti doms I know don't actively think as well, but they actively feel. It's a matter of being used to. You are probably "contemplating" a lot of issues, without having to do particular efforts, that is your Fi working.
INFJs use Ti for inner consistency, to ground their feet, a bit like Si for INFPs, though it grounds us into our body and physical needs. To me INFJs, like INTJs are working towards perfecting existing system or social constructs. They see something that is lacking, by means of their Ni, and try to change it by using their extroverted judgment. Their tertiary judging functions avoid them becoming oblivious to their own needs, by either thinking or feeling for themselves.



PaladinX said:


> How does this demonstrate Fi over Ti? I am very aware of "possible reasons [that] can bring a person to lie" and I will act very similarly towards others that I think are full of shit.


If I ask you now sure you do, in a real life situation, in the moment, I'm dubious this is the first thing you will focus on, but that is just a hunch on my part.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Kyusaku said:


> If I ask you now sure you do, in a real life situation, in the moment, I'm dubious this is the first thing you will focus on, but that is just a hunch on my part.


Dubious that a Ne-dom would consider possibilities...? 

Are you able to elaborate as to why your description demonstrates Fi over Ti? I am genuinely trying to understand, not criticize your response.


----------



## Kyusaku (Mar 18, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> The way you describe Fi is more so resemblant of Ti:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True about intuition. Concerning Fi, we have to find a consensus on what feeling really means. If we talk about the gut sensations, they trigger thoughts. As soon as I feel something new, I question my change of feeling state, what the origin is, what strength or weakness it lends me, how can I get rid of it, mitigate it, or exacerbate it. But that's a type 4 process more than anything.



PaladinX said:


> Dubious that a Ne-dom would consider possibilities...?
> 
> Are you able to elaborate as to why your description demonstrates Fi over Ti? I am genuinely trying to understand, not criticize your response.


True about Ne, the example of an hypocrite might not have been the most sensible.

So, said otherwise, I have to explain it again, but worded differently... I'll answer you tomorrow then, rewording is probably what I like the least.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> And do you always "feel right"? And when you don't "feel right", what is the process to make yourself "feel right"? Is this not a conscious and deliberate process, at least in part, where you recall images of and words describing the subjects of your feelings and manipulate them? And doesn't some of this manipulation involve simple deductive statements like, "if this then that"?


I think I use Se to make something right. it involves problem solving in the now. 
I don't always 'feel right'. in fact, I quite frequently say I "feel off". If I'm feeling off, I go for a jog or climb a tree or smoke pot or engage my Se in some way or another. I don't exist through Fi alone. 

ultimately it depends on your functions. I never address problems through hypotheticals like that.

I think you added a step. it's more like 'this is happening now, and the result of which I know and understand, so I must change the now to prevent the future outcome that I don't want.' 

take a conservation bio issue, and I can say 'look, science proves x and y and this is what we have to do to change that.' 

if people don't agree with me over the internet, I shrug it off. if it's someone close to me, I might get angry. that Te might poke through. I might argue with them and not try to prove it, but _actually_ prove it, as I care so deeply about that subject. but eventually, I make myself feel better by doing something active or physically engaging and getting that subject and argument off of my mind. I'm not a preacher, I'm a person interested in making a difference in ways that are immediate, plausible, and tangible. 

some things can't be made right. if I lose a patient in my wildlife center, those emotions are all internal. and I can't resolve them. but I can't talk about them, either; it's gathering water in your hands. it's not easy.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Why wouldn't I?
> 
> It doesn't make any logical sense to continue to interact with someone who is full of themselves.


Which illustrates the vast difference between Fi and Ti on this front. You simply won't, but I can't--internally, it would create a firestorm of emotions to try. Outwardly, it may appear the same externally, but internally, the motivation is from another planet.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Which illustrates the vast difference between Fi and Ti on this front. You simply won't, but I can't--internally, it would create a firestorm of emotions to try. Outwardly, it may appear the same externally, but internally, the motivation is from another planet.


Maybe... It also makes me feel frustrated. I do feel things. 

It still wouldn't make sense to interact with someone who is full of themselves.

I guess I just don't see the vast difference that you do. I can see the difference perhaps when thinking about a Ti-dom. And also perhaps someone who scores lower on the neuroticism dimension on the Big Five. (I score very high)


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Maybe... It also makes me feel frustrated. I do feel things.
> 
> It still wouldn't make sense to interact with someone who is full of themselves.
> 
> I guess I just don't see the vast difference that you do. I can see the difference perhaps when thinking about a Ti-dom. And also perhaps someone who scores lower on the neuroticism dimension on the Big Five. (I score very high)


I like Ti-Fi comparisons and debates. 

Could it be simply that at times, Fi and Fe are in agreement, no matter where in the stack? [in terms of hypocrisy etc] and while the physical reaction may be different, sometimes what's felt is the same? {I say 'same' with great caution, for I doubt two people experience anything in the same way}


----------

