# Is it Ti or Te or fi or none when...



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

You take in an information from an outside source or through personal experience then try to analyze that information with further processing, until it makes sense to you? Like not taking the info as it is, but further fitting it into your world and making “some” interruptions to make it more “understandable” or “logical” 
Idk if that makes sense but I’m having a rough time telling which is which.. cause I always do this thinking process
Takes in info -> process -> smth doesn’t fit with what I know -> asks how why it got to this point/went unnoticed —> adjust to make it available to internal world by choosing better words for description(usually) —> saved. 
Similar process with feelings but rarely considered. Also irrelevant information goes into memory or just dropped(especially where it’s not applicable/usable in your world)

Or it’s just a process everyone does ?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Definitely Ti.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Definitely Ti.


So if I wanted to apply a similar approach to Te or fi how would it sound? 
Te would ask what? Would they refine the info to fit their way of thinking? 

If you have any idea..


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Sinuous said:


> So if I wanted to apply a similar approach to Te or fi how would it sound?
> Te would ask what? Would they refine the info to fit their way of thinking?
> 
> If you have any idea..


Can we try an experiment?

What would be your opinion of this graph? How would you proceed to evaluate the data here?


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Sinuous said:


> So if I wanted to apply a similar approach to Te or fi how would it sound?
> Te would ask what? Would they refine the info to fit their way of thinking?
> 
> If you have any idea..


Te and Ti signify exactly the same function inherently.
The difference is in what takes the priority: subjective factor/idea or the objective data.

Te will adjust the internal world to accept this new conflicting data instead of preprocessing/filtering/discarding it.

In your case:


> Takes in info -> process -> smth doesn’t fit with what I know -> asks how why it got to this point/went unnoticed -> adjust to make it available to internal world by choosing better words for description(usually) —> saved.


Will turn into
Takes info -> process -> data doesn't fit -> ask how can it be -> adjust internal formula/world to internalize new data without any losses -> saved


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Squirt said:


> Can we try an experiment?
> 
> What would be your opinion of this graph? How would you proceed to evaluate the data here?
> 
> View attachment 881399


My first idea was: what exactly do you want me to evaluate?
what’s this about? And what does this line represent, just numbers unlabeled? 
Then I noted the plot and points and details. 
Obviously didn’t wonder why since we have it


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Note that people are never pure "Te" or "Ti".
Ti has to expand its arsenal of images/models and improve them as well; otherwise, it will be stagnant and useless.
Te has to evaluate new data entries critically as well. Conflict doesn't always imply inferior internal framework; otherwise, it will internalize all bullshit and turn into a trash can.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Te and Ti signify exactly the same function inherently.
> The difference is in what takes the priority: subjective factor/idea or the objective data.
> 
> Te will adjust the internal world to accept this new conflicting data instead of preprocessing/filtering/discarding it.
> ...


I wanna know which is dominant and I replied what I wondered
Edit/ I wondered how can I fit the data into what I know (and learned through engineering courses) didn’t wonder so far how it can be analyzed as in a mathematical approach(as in a new way, in case i didn’t know)


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Sinuous said:


> I wanna know which is dominant and I replied what I wondered


I am not sure what is your question specifically. I explained how Te would process things. It would prioritize refining its way of thinking instead of refining data.
In your case, you have dominant Ti.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Te and Ti signify exactly the same function inherently.
> The difference is in what takes the priority: subjective factor/idea or the objective data.
> 
> Te will adjust the internal world to accept this new conflicting data instead of preprocessing/filtering/discarding it.
> ...


This is inaccurate. 

Te looks to objective/external data and will logically organize the external world for the purposes of efficiency and goal orientation.
Ti will intake external data and attempt to fit it into their logical internal framework. If the data doesn't fit, it's set aside until more data allows it to fit or be discarded.

People often make the same mistake of mixing up what belongs to which function since functions never happen in a vacuum.

As far as the OP's concerned, the morphing of data appears to be a Ne thing, as in, perceptional shifting of how the data's perceived. As far as her internal world, more data's necessary to figure out which function is involved. To IFPs, their internal databases of values is often perceived as logical frameworks but they're not.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

mia-me said:


> This is inaccurate.
> 
> Te looks to objective/external data and will logically organize the external world for the purposes of efficiency and goal orientation.
> Ti will intake external data and attempt to fit it into their logical internal framework. If the data doesn't fit, it's set aside until more data allows it to fit or be discarded.
> ...


This is inaccurate with respect to Jung's theory.
You probably rely on socionics / something else, but I don't use this.
Meaning that our explanations don't necessarily conflict with each other, but rather use different definitions.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> This is inaccurate with respect to Jung's theory.
> You probably rely on socionics / something else, but I don't use this.


It's cognitive function theory, not socionics. 

Jung's theories are intended for diagnosing patients with mental health conditions, not for typing people. MBTI and cognitive function theory took Jung's theories and amended them for public application.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

mia-me said:


> This is inaccurate.
> 
> Te looks to objective/external data and will logically organize the external world for the purposes of efficiency and goal orientation.
> Ti will intake external data and attempt to fit it into their logical internal framework. If the data doesn't fit, it's set aside until more data allows it to fit or be discarded.
> ...


As you said, (values), that has nothing to do with any sort of data processing unless in specific cases :| 
Idk


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Sinuous said:


> As you said, (values), that has nothing to do with any sort of data processing unless in specific cases :|
> Idk


Can you rephrase this? I don't understand.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

mia-me said:


> It's cognitive function theory, not socionics.


The point is that it is different.


> Jung's theories are intended for diagnosing patients with mental health conditions, not for typing people.


Nothing to my knowledge validates that. Patients were used as source of empirical data, but they don't determine the extent of application of the resulting theory.


> MBTI and cognitive function theory took Jung's theories and amended them for public application.


I find MBTI and cognitive functions less useful in practice, they approach things in a too specific/limited way and provide less insight into the psyche.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> The point is that it is different.
> 
> Nothing to my knowledge validates that. Patients were used as source of empirical data, but they don't determine the extent of application of the resulting theory.
> 
> I find MBTI and cognitive functions less useful in practice, they approach things in a too specific/limited way and provide less insight into the psyche.


Jung clearly states in psychological types, that his descriptions were people with mental health conditions and that they didn't describe the norm.

Edit - Analogous, using the DSM to type people.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

mia-me said:


> Jung clearly states in psychological types, that his descriptions were people with mental health conditions and that they didn't describe the norm.


So, since he types himself as "introverted thinker", does this make him a patient with a mental health condition?
Link a citation with his statement that says that.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> So, since he types himself as "introverted thinker", does this make him a patient with a mental health condition?
> Link a citation with his statement that says that.


Jung knew he had issues.

Refer to my previous edit since we must have crossed posts. Analogous, applying the DSM to type the norm.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

mia-me said:


> Jung knew he had issues.
> 
> Refer to my previous edit since we must have crossed posts. Analogous, applying the DSM to type the norm.


He said that no individual is strictly contained within any specific type and those labels are just rough empirical categories.
It doesn't follow from this premise that the entire theory is inapplicable in the context of normal people.
Only that it isn't possible to reduce an individual to a type without loss of data.
Just as it is impossible to do so with cognitive functions. Even less accuracy due to less generality of terms.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

mia-me said:


> To IFPs, their internal databases of values is often perceived as logical frameworks but they're not.


values is often perceived as ...
I meant in my previous reply that values will be considered it specific cases, I don’t put much thought into values and beliefs, and whether this act is considered (right or wrong/good or bad) as I’ve read infp/isfp do 
Also morphing data is not the same as morphine facts.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Sinuous said:


> My first idea was: what exactly do you want me to evaluate?
> what’s this about? And what does this line represent, just numbers unlabeled?
> Then I noted the plot and points and details.
> Obviously didn’t wonder why since we have it


The line is a trendline (y=mx+b), not unlabeled numbers. I guess I should have asked if you are familiar with scatter plots. I hope this question is appropriate. If you aren't terribly familiar with them, the question isn't going to provide much insight. 😅

Originally, I wanted you to evaluate the trendline and data points, specifically how to handle the outlier, in reference to your comments



Sinuous said:


> Takes in info -> process -> smth doesn’t fit with what I know -> asks how why it got to this point/went unnoticed —> adjust to make it available to internal world by choosing better words for description(usually) —> saved.





Sinuous said:


> Also irrelevant information goes into memory or just dropped(especially where it’s not applicable/usable in your world)


However, I didn't want to "lead" you too much and left it open to interpretation. If I ask more specific questions to prompt a decision, maybe it would make it clearer:

*Do you think the trendline is a good fit for the data? If yes, why is that so, and if not, what would you do with this data to find a better fit? *

This "experiment" requires some level of abstraction; pulling out the meaning of the data on its own merit rather than evaluating how it would be applied in the context it was gathered.



Allostasis said:


> I think there is a more straightforward interpretation that better suits the purpose of discerning Te/Ti while not introducing N/S into the equation :
> Te: this new sample doesn't fit into the expectations of deviation from the mean. Need to readjust the model further.
> Ti: this sample doesn't fit into our model that worked consistently well. Probably data error/noise, ignore.
> 
> (Although the dot is probably already taken into account in the depicted model, since you can get less variance by rotating the line a bit to the right and moving lower, but it is easier to imagine that it is not)


Haha, you and @Fru2 picked up what I put down. 

I see how you're interpreting the subjective/objective aspects to get those interpretations, but that isn't how I'd characterize Te/Ti handing an outlier. I'm going to discuss in spoiler tags because I don't want to color Sinuous' reply if they choose not to be spoiled before answering. lol


* *






The first sentence for each captures the orientation of Te/Ti really well, but I disagree with the conclusion in the second sentence.

Te: this new sample doesn't fit into the expectations of deviation from the mean. *Need to readjust the model further.*

Te would be more likely to discard the outlier with regards to the trendline because that is the best fit for the data based on the relevant criteria. Otherwise, the outlier is taking on a greater significance than the entire pool of data - and that would be highly subjective. The outlier may be examined further to determine why it deviates so heavily, perhaps offer a point of interest or new questions to explore, but I don't see how extraverted thinking would allow it to disrupt the general, obvious correlation. Te would also be more likely to follow established protocols for outliers... which is not to include them.

Ti: this sample doesn't fit into our model that worked consistently well.* Probably data error/noise, ignore.*

Ti would be more likely to take the opportunity to invent a new or untested model based on an outlier. It can blind itself to established relationships between the data points due to the subjective nature, and is free to relate to the data in any way it chooses... perhaps even modifying the y=mx+b form to account for the outlier. It's possible that equation would have no relation to reality except to fit that particular data set, but it could also lead to innovative breakthroughs.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Squirt said:


> The line is a trendline (y=mx+b), not unlabeled numbers. I guess I should have asked if you are familiar with scatter plots. I hope this question is appropriate. If you aren't terribly familiar with them, the question isn't going to provide much insight.
> 
> Originally, I wanted you to evaluate the trendline and data points, specifically how to handle the outlier, in reference to your comments
> 
> ...


I am familiar with many ways of linearization of plots. 

Now the original plot is valid because the number of points above the line is almost equal to the number of points below the line, and this is correlated to error... but it doesn’t give a trend true to data.

I think it could be better.. Something like this









This gives a better trend representation, for that the majority of points are giving a smaller slope than the above point.
I see a clear correlation between lower x values and y values, but IMO there’s a low probability of having a clear correlation between higher x values and y values. 

**i thought of connecting end points as well as passing through the zero but those ways will give higher error. (For the line)

Edit : I know it’s linearized to y=Mx+b but it’s a really complex process (many mathematical calculations to provide the most appropriate answer to your question and to correctly implement the data....) I answered based on some stuff I could remember from a statistics course with statements of what I can interrupt it as.

Edit 2: exponential representation maybe (excuse the line I’m using my phone )


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Sinuous said:


> I am familiar with many ways of linearization of plots.
> 
> Now the original plot is valid because the number of points above the line is almost equal to the number of points below the line, and this is correlated to error... but it doesn’t give a trend true to data.
> 
> ...


So you take the outlier as indicating the y=mx+b may not be the best function to describe the data and would test other functions to see if you can find a better fit?


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Squirt said:


> So you take the outlier as indicating the y=mx+b may not be the best function to describe the data and would test other functions to see if you can find a better fit?


Not as a first thought. Second thought seemed better (exponential) because it gave consideration to general trend. (Tbh the thought seemed to come out of nowhere with no basic/methodical math approach but it seems possible) idk


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Disregarding the fact that in engineering “we” like to use linear models as most suitable models, but yea!


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Sinuous said:


> Not as a first thought. Second thought seemed better (exponential) because it gave consideration to general trend. (Tbh the thought seemed to come out of nowhere with no basic/methodical math approach but it seems possible) idk


That is very similar to what I proposed a Ti user would want to do if you read the spoiler (incorporate the outlier and modify the function), but it is also what Allostasis claimed a Te user would want to do (adjust the model). Curious how he'd resolve that. It is consistent with

Takes in info -> process -> smth doesn’t fit with what I know -> asks how why it got to this point/went unnoticed —> adjust to make it available to internal world by choosing better words for description(usually) —> saved.

You didn't say the outlier showed more data was needed at higher x values to confirm if a linear fit was wrong, but assumed the outlier was valid and you were flexible in creating a new model even if that isn't the typical engineering solution (if you thought on it more maybe you would request more data, though, haha). You're saying that this solution was more or less spontaneous and creative rather than prescriptive.

I'm going with Ti as well, at least from that exercise... can't say whether or not is is dominant. I know that was another question you had...


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Squirt said:


> That is very similar to what I proposed a Ti user would want to do if you read the spoiler (incorporate the outlier and modify the function), but it is also what Allostasis claimed a Te user would want to do (adjust the model). Curious how he'd resolve that. It is consistent with
> 
> Takes in info -> process -> smth doesn’t fit with what I know -> asks how why it got to this point/went unnoticed —> adjust to make it available to internal world by choosing better words for description(usually) —> saved.
> 
> ...


Wait did I have to say that lol 
I thought of it but assumed that this is what was collected but no more, and by default more data on higher x values will give higher accuracy and maybe new models. 

It’s hard to tell if it’s dominant or not, I use the method of reasoning as a student but have way less time to get creative with it or test new things with it, even tho I have many whys and hows unanswered so.. can’t tell.. 

Thank you for the feedback, this was interesting.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Also I’ll view the spoiler on laptop later (I’m using Tapatalk rn)


----------



## Astrida88 (Jun 6, 2019)

Sinuous said:


> You take in an information from an outside source or through personal experience then try to analyze that information with further processing, until it makes sense to you? Like not taking the info as it is, but further fitting it into your world and making “some” interruptions to make it more “understandable” or “logical”
> Idk if that makes sense but I’m having a rough time telling which is which.. cause I always do this thinking process
> Takes in info -> process -> smth doesn’t fit with what I know -> asks how why it got to this point/went unnoticed —> adjust to make it available to internal world by choosing better words for description(usually) —> saved.
> Similar process with feelings but rarely considered. Also irrelevant information goes into memory or just dropped(especially where it’s not applicable/usable in your world)
> ...


Sounds like Ti supported with Ne and Si.
Ti - the logical analysis.
Ne - taking information from the outside, manipulating the information till it fits the Ti framework.
Si - taking information from personal experience and saving information for future reference.

This would make you an INTP.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Astrida88 said:


> Sounds like Ti supported with Ne and Si.
> Ti - the logical analysis.
> Ne - taking information from the outside, manipulating the information till it fits the Ti framework.
> Si - taking information from personal experience and saving information for future reference.
> ...


Sounds like nonsense tbh.



> Ti - the logical analysis.


Nope. Ti don't have monopoly over logical analyses.


> Ne - taking information from the outside, manipulating the information till it fits


Everyone does that.


> Si - taking information from personal experience and saving information for future reference.


Everyone uses memory.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Sounds like nonsense tbh.
> 
> 
> Nope. Ti don't have monopoly over logical analyses.
> ...


What* would it be then


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Astrida88 said:


> Sounds like Ti supported with Ne and Si.
> Ti - the logical analysis.
> Ne - taking information from the outside, manipulating the information till it fits the Ti framework.
> Si - taking information from personal experience and saving information for future reference.
> ...


I’m taking the possibility of that, but I think it’s not Si.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

Sinuous said:


> What* would it be then


Are you asking for abstract function definitions and with the intent to derive conclusions about yourself from them?
If yes, then I think it is somewhat unrealistic. It is a tip of an iceberg that probably won't be any more satisfactory than anything you read thus far.
I can give them, but I think it is time to either start reading the book or to just wrap up the investigation and use what was given.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Allostasis said:


> Are you asking for abstract function definitions and with the intent to derive conclusions about yourself from them?
> If yes, then I think it is somewhat unrealistic. It is a tip of an iceberg that probably won't be any more satisfactory than anything you read thus far.
> I can give them, but I think it is time to either start reading the book or to just wrap up the investigation and use what was given.


I’ve read many sources actually, just not the book yet. Thank you


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

@Sinuous. I understand Fi compared to Fe, or else I’ve sure wasted a lot of threads exploring them both for years. Other writers have written about this in the way I’m going to, I believe. 

Fi users believe that there is a truth (a truth that deals with what is wrong or right) out there in the universe separate from themselves that can be found or hopefully close for every given set of circumstances. The goal is to come as close as possible to that right solution. Of course what is right is their own perception, but it doesn’t feel that way. It feels like there exists to be found a truly right way to handle things and to act. For the Fi user going against what they perceive as right creates disharmony and guilt and is intolerable unless for some reason the person has decided they are wrong or the terrible wrong thing must be done for another reason (sometimes self-preservation). Sometimes self preservation doesn’t even matter, doing something very wrong is so intolerable. When other people go against what is perceived as right to the Fi user then the Fi user might have a reaction of being shocked or hurt. Also society in general might be acting against the perceived right or wrong. “Do what is right” “That was wrong!” “I can’t understand you!” “Why would you do that?” “Can’t you see the right thing to do?” So I call this the imperial right or wrong or the yard stick in the sky. 

What is right in a given circumstance can be very sophisticated in high Fi users and can lend itself to philosophy like Kirkegaard or Emerson. It can seem more black and white sometimes too, usually when young. High Fi users (and to tell you the truth usually N-users) love discussing what theoretically is the right or wrong thing to do in a situation. For instance something like “I found out my son had an affair and had a baby with the lady, but his wife doesn’t know. Should I get to know my grandchild and keep relationships with all? Should I tell his wife and let my son and her deal with the truth? Should I tell my son that I’m going to tell her first? what will she feel if I start a relationship with the new grandchild? Will she cut off contact between myself and her kids, my beloved grandchildren? but no matter. What is the right thing for me to do?” That kind of thing. 

For an Fe user right or wrong has to do with what people around them feel and want and the collective way people feel. It is rich in understanding harmony between people. In fact, when I have talked about Fi believing in a separate but constant and “separate from what anyone wants Right thing to do” high Fe users have responded with shock and offense They would say there is no such yardstick. Well there is to Fi. It doesn’t even matter sometimes to the Fi user if the consequences of following that imperial yardstick get them killed. Their loyalty to the perceived Right is the important thing. “Doing what is right” is the important thing regardless of what anyone feels or needs. Sometimes what is perceived as Right requires that kind of loyalty. This is when you have people setting themselves on fire to protest Vietnam, for instance. The wrong going on was intolerable to that person. Or this is Sir Thomas More losing his head because he could not support King Henry. It wasn’t Right. He felt he had to be true to what was Right. Fi users will stand up for other causes and are often able to see the consequences for people of laws that restrict freedom or that hurt children or other people who are easy victims.

Is Fe able to see moral problems in the society around them? Yes, but not because it doesn’t live up to a constant truth, but because it might directly hurt the people around them who they listen to. They could be taught to see human rights are being violated. Mostly they could see the worries of Fi as childish or irrelevant to the harmony that is trying to be formed. Why not just try to pacify the daughter in law, for instance, if the son wants to stay married and in the affair?

From what I’ve read TI also has a imperial yardstick or Imperial truth there in the sky (separate from what anyone else thinks). An perceived most logical way to deal with things logical or illogical separate from just getting things done. In other words there is a most logical way to deal with things out there to try to determine and follow. Would you go against your perceived truth? 

With Te I think they would say “But the top sources say…” “The authority… the proven… the hierarchy says…. OR they might be into “what works best to get the most produced is”. And there is an economy to go with Te, it analyzes for bang for the buck. Maybe Ti also analyzes for bang for the buck logic but would it sacrifice the most logical way to go about something to get more produced now? 

I can see conflicts between these functions if people do not value the other. Is Te able to see when a system of productivity is eventually going to fail from a short cut or from some other deviation from imperical logic? Maybe. If they are taught to see it. Or they might see bringing that technicality up as annoying since so much is getting accomplished right now. If the technicality ends up hurting production then it will get some attention. 

Some of this can also be generalized as a P and an J difference where Ps want to get things right according to this separate truth that exists and just want as much info as possible in order to figure out the exact right or logical thing and where J is primarily interested with the results/ outcome and wants to make a decision and stick with it until (unless) there are problems with the outcome either in productivity (Te) or group harmony (Fe). 

TI is concerned that they do things logically and can notice when other people don’t follow the perceived logic. . Fi is concerned that they follow what’s right and can see when others don’t don’t do things perceived as right.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

@Llyralen from Jung's definition of Te doms:
"In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. *By this formula are good and evil measured*, and beauty and ugliness determined. *All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it*; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness. "

Yard stick in the sky is Te.


----------



## Sinuous (Jun 18, 2021)

Llyralen said:


> @Sinuous. I understand Fi compared to Fe, or else I’ve sure wasted a lot of threads exploring them both for years. Other writers have written about this in the way I’m going to, I believe.
> 
> Fi users believe that there is a truth (a truth that deals with what is wrong or right) out there in the universe separate from themselves that can be found or hopefully close for every given set of circumstances. The goal is to come as close as possible to that right solution. Of course what is right is their own perception, but it doesn’t feel that way. It feels like there exists to be found a truly right way to handle things and to act. For the Fi user going against what they perceive as right creates disharmony and guilt and is intolerable unless for some reason the person has decided they are wrong or the terrible wrong thing must be done for another reason (sometimes self-preservation). Sometimes self preservation doesn’t even matter, doing something very wrong is so intolerable. When other people go against what is perceived as right to the Fi user then the Fi user might have a reaction of being shocked or hurt. Also society in general might be acting against the perceived right or wrong. “Do what is right” “That was wrong!” “I can’t understand you!” “Why would you do that?” “Can’t you see the right thing to do?” So I call this the imperial right or wrong or the yard stick in the sky.
> 
> ...





Fru2 said:


> @Llyralen from Jung's definition of Te doms:
> "In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. *By this formula are good and evil measured*, and beauty and ugliness determined. *All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it*; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness. "
> 
> Yard stick in the sky is Te.


Thank you both for taking the time to answer.

I’ve just started reading parts of the book. So I’ll leave interpreting the information provided for later.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Fru2 said:


> @Llyralen from Jung's definition of Te doms:
> "In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. *By this formula are good and evil measured*, and beauty and ugliness determined. *All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it*; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness. "
> 
> Yard stick in the sky is Te.


Yeah, Isn’t it the truth? Of course he doesn’t mean the same kind of “right” that Fi does. It is on the same axis, so it is a bit complicated. What I discussed here is how that world-law Jung talked about in your quote gets created.. A introverted personal law gets made differently.

Jung is the beginning…if we correctly identify what he is saying (obviously not easy for most) in us, then we could start learning from each other, wouldn’t you think? Because obviously there is a lot to expand on.


----------



## Fru2 (Aug 21, 2018)

Llyralen said:


> if we correctly identify what he is saying (obviously not easy for most) in us, then we could start learning from each other, wouldn’t you think? Because obviously there is a lot to expand on.


I agree! But that means not interpreting the words as a person sees fit for their own benefit, but instead benefitting from understanding the definitions correctly. The problem is that the use of different functions will make one see something different written in the text. For me it's not about the quantity of stuff that gets extrapolated from the source, it's about the quality, and I'm rather picky about that. Not everyone is and that's okay, it's just my own preference and opinion =)


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Sinuous said:


> You take in an information from an outside source or through personal experience then try to analyze that information with further processing, until it makes sense to you? Like not taking the info as it is, but further fitting it into your world and making “some” interruptions to make it more “understandable” or “logical”
> Idk if that makes sense but I’m having a rough time telling which is which.. cause I always do this thinking process
> Takes in info -> process -> smth doesn’t fit with what I know -> asks how why it got to this point/went unnoticed —> adjust to make it available to internal world by choosing better words for description(usually) —> saved.
> Similar process with feelings but rarely considered. Also irrelevant information goes into memory or just dropped(especially where it’s not applicable/usable in your world)
> ...


I bet it's a process which everyone does - judging in general works that way  Works pretty similar way in my mind except that I can't relate to the "fitting information" part. Otherwise it's pretty similar for me what you describe above and also at least some other T doms (but also some perception doms of TJ) have explained it to me sort of similar ways.

Instead of fitting information to my mental model, for me it works rather so that I analyse and "decompose" more abstract or vague information to smaller pieces of explicit knowledge, conclusions and associations for later use, to enable faster fetches from data I know.

If it doesn't have much to do with what you feel and which personal connection / guts have related to that process, I'd bet it's T.


----------

